Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0
The problem is not that your robot could malfunction and lose you the round. The problem is that you get put in the position where you have to tell your alliance partners that you think their robot's autonomous mode is worse than useless. That's a good way to make people resent you.
|
Pointing out to me that my shooter might malfunction and lose the match for my alliance will not cause me to resent you. However, designing your robot in such a way that it loses me a match might. You better believe that our scouts this year will be noting which teams cost their alliances matches this way.
This aspect of the game is actually one of my favorites this year. It makes designing a shooter which must be pre-loaded a HUGE risk. If your robot fails, you cost your alliance the match. So you have a couple options:
A) Start with the ball on the floor and load it before shooting. That way, if your robot starts out dead, you don't cost your partners the match.
B) Don't shoot at all.
I see this rule as part of a deliberate effort on the part of the rules committee to make powerhouse teams less dominate. This year, the risk vs reward for building a shooter is very high. If you build a shooter which must be preloaded, you risk losing matches for your team. Even if your shooter works perfectly, it is easily defended against by a robot ramming you as you are shooting. This lowers the advantage that elite teams have had in the past, bringing them down towards the effectiveness level of a team which builds a simple pusher bot.
Remember the teams last year who asked, "Why did we spend all the time and effort to build a 3 tier climber, when we can be beaten by two robots who only feeder-station load, shoot, and hang for 10 points?"
Answer: The game designers are deliberately designing the games so three rookie teams who work together can beat an elite team who plays alone.