Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut
I've never understood the aversion to doing a box on wheels or similarly simple robot. 179 made Einstein in 2007 with a robot only capable of scoring inner tubes on the bottom row. 842 consistently captained alliances in the elimination rounds at the Arizona regional in 2005-2007 by building robots that could only score the 1 point or low goal challenge but then had a solid drive train and shut down defense. We took note of that and built a simple low scoring lap bot in 2008, and until last year that is the robot that broke down the least of any I've worked on in the last 10 years.
Building a robot that never breaks down and performs consistently is more impressive than building a hardest scoring challenge mechanism that works once a match a best, imo.
|
Or 148 in 2008 as well.
Really, you can argue both sides, and there's never one right or a wrong answer. It's going to be dependent on how each team works it out as situations will vary. It depends on what the motives and goals of the team are.
Your goal can be to demonstrate all abilities of your robot, and there's absolutely nothing wrong there.
Your goal can be to sacrifice that if it means a higher probability of winning the match, and there's nothing wrong there either.