Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Curtis
At the same time, I am worried that only 1 ball per alliance has the real potential to breed ill will. FRC teams for the most part do not build robots that are good at scoring points. (2011 OPR distribution) Having watched many FRC matches, if I had a penny for every second I've seen a robot try to acquire a game piece and come up empty, I would be a rich man. Let's say you're on an alliance with two BLTs and one perennial powerhouse. If the BLTs can't POSSESS the ball well, chances are giving your powerhouse exclusive access to the ball will score the most points. But if the BLTs have mechanisms they want to try/show off, this game plan is obviously not going to fly with them. An additional factor is the damage done if a ball gets stuck in a faulty mechanism. |
I would argue other wise considering 2008 (Overdrive) provides us with a lot of methods for piece acquisition this year. Though the ball sizes are not really the same, they're close enough to use the same methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Curtis
There are always some threads every year where people complain about coaching. Given that there is only one ball per alliance in teleop and scoring points actually requires coordination, the personalities and persuasive skills of the drive team will be critical. I can only imagine that these threads will be more frequent and more heated.
|
I know. However another mentality that can be taken is that the other alliance robots are goals. If you don't think of the target as an indefinite and unpredictable, but a definite target, then passing becomes much less of communication and more instinctual. Instincts and patterns are reliable, communication that can be garbled by the tension of the moment is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Curtis
On top of this, there is a non-negligible portion of people involved with FRC that already hold ill will against high performing robots and their for a variety of reasons. This opinion is not held by many people active on CD, but you don't have to look far at an event to find people that feel this way. Might this get worse if they perceive a team as being ballhogs?
|
Teams will always have personalities. Some are more aggressive while others are more submissive. You'll always encounter this problem but especially in this game, I agree. In order for teams to succeed in this heavily alliance based game, it will require teams to be willing to follow as a pose to lead. Every team will think they know best, and each is right. Any good strategy can be made to work so long as the alliance members will cooperate and play their position to the letter. If there is objection, resentment, or timidity as to success, you're hosed ESPECIALLY in this kind of game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Curtis
The GDC's solution was to make ASSISTS the secondary sort, which alleviates some of this problem. Is it enough? Am I worried about nothing?
|
Nope. Unfortunately, your worries are well founded. With FIRST Competitions, deciding factors are sometimes the only things that matter to teams in dire situations of ranking when adrenaline is running high. Ultimately, the one thing teams can do is tolerate the situations as they come, regardless of how unfair or blatantly incorrect the verdicts may be. This as well is applicable to every year, however especially this year when teams are so much more dependent on one another's performance.