Quote:
Originally Posted by cadandcookies
I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. There's a distinction between building to play multiple roles and designing a "multitool" robot. This year, for example, a relatively simple robot with a roller intake and a surgical tubing catapult was able to play a large portion of roles in the game.
There is a huge difference between a mechanically complex robot and a strategically-- most teams can't pull off a mechanically complex robot well, but the more you can do with a simple mechanism the better off you are. True flexibility is something I think is often undervalued, and even less achieved.
|
I agree with both points, but the single most important factor is choosing a set of achievable functions. Don't try as a rookie team to build 1114's 2008 mechanism! We did see a lot of effective simple catapults this year which were quite adequate during the qualification rounds. But pick a primary function appropriate for what role you think you will be playing in eliminations and make it as perfect as possible. 973's success as a goalie bot is a good illustration.
Which brings me to the second point - be prepared to give up your "favorite" function to join a successful alliance. 1640 had an excellent offensive robot, but we asked them to play inbounder and defender at which they were equally successful.