Quote:
Originally posted by Gadget470
should we really be trying for awards? I think we should build things that perform the game to the best of our ability rather than something new and innovative. If some team can create hovercraft but it doesn't do the game well, whats the point? If another team does a traditional motor setup and gets into the elim's, should they be given a special prize? What if they beat that team with an 10-motor, 5-speed transmission?
I think teams shouldn't be trying for awards unless it's chairman's because that is for the benifit of all. If they win an award because they solved a problem they were having with an innovative idea, more power to them, but they should not think of an innovative idea to a problem that doesn't exist in order to get an award
|
Most definitely yes! Just like in the competition trying to win, shooing for an award is the exact same thing. You get to take on a specific part of the robot, concentrate in it while being innovation, and make it look really good. Most students on a team never work on the whole robot, and this way it give them a focus of their energy into something fun and challenging, against all the others shooting for the same award.
Furthermore, most awards involve creating a mechanism work specially well for the game, so if anything, the award push you to play the game better, and smarter. It is one of the fun things about the competition, beside winning the regional.
There are many factors in the game that decide if you win or not, especially when you pair up with a partner. Strategy is key in the game, and winning the match doesn't mean your robot is less creative than the other alliance.
Shooting for an award means pushing the students to work to their limits and try to be better than others. If anything it is a really big learning experience for them.