[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by brennonbrimhall

I disagree with your interpretation of strategy as strategic robot design. In the context of this thread, I believe the OP was referring to conferring with alliance partners on a per match basis.

But yes, I agree that at week 6, robots are mostly fixed in functionality. It's also generally better to build a robot that can do one thing awesomely than be mediocre at two things.



Not necessarily, especially this year with a single game piece. Only one robot can possess the ball and actively play offense at a given time, which caps your ability to be offensive, so to speak. There's always hidden opportunities to maximize your strategy.

I was drawing an analogy between executing a great strategy poorly and executing a decent strategy perfectly and building an unreliable robot with lots of functions and a reliable robot with few functions. Nothing more.


As to your second point I am assuming that each team is operating with a shred of intelligence. That is to say I am assuming that two robots on one alliance aren't just sitting next to the 3rd as it shoots and saying "we're all playing offense!" This is where having a flexible strategy is important. If an alliance was planning on having two robots play counter-d for a scoring robot, but there are no defensive robots to counter, the alliance must adapt. This just changes which robots are playing defense and which are playing counter-defense, but not the total number of robots doing either.