Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank
This is certainly possible at events this year, but in many cases, that involves taking away their auto balls, pulling the circuit breakers that control their catapults/shooters, zip-tying some protruding appendages into place, zip-tying their human players' hands behind their backs, and telling them to drive to the inbound station and sit there the whole match with their intake constantly spinning in reverse.
Is that more inspiring to those teams than a game where they could simply do what their robot was designed to do without the risk of dragging down their partners?
|
I believe it would be more inspiring for more teams to work with other teams during build to make them capable partners in a game where it was clear on day 1 that viable partners were a necessity. I know that is probably a pipe dream given the constraints of a six week build and the limited resources of even "successful" teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiztobe
So it's a little rough to tell people to just "Deal with it" when they clearly have been and they clearly should not have to.
|
Playing devils advocate, why should you "clearly not have to" deal with it. Most adults have had to "deal with it" hundreds of times in thier lives. Why should this be any different?
My answer would be for the amount of money spent going to these competitions, one has a reasonable expectation that the competition is played out fairly to all.
Going back to the original question of buyer's remorse, I feel that the game still accomplishes the goal of "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". That is what I signed up for. It is a proven means to inspiring the students on my team for sure.