Quote:
Originally posted by GregT
It seems to me that many teams are more focused on winning matches then the competition.
|
Well, see. . . I think that's just the thing; Winning matches
is winning the Competition. If you can win matches by decimating every opponent you run into, qualifying points are totally irrelevant. Sure, you're bringing the curve down for everyone, but as long as you're on top, that doesn't make any difference.
Last season, I think, put teams into a very bad mindset. It has something to do with scoring, I would imagine. In 1999, scoring was accomplished by manipulating alliance-specific objects into position. In 2000, while there was a battle for the balls at the start, once they were in the goals, there wasn't much that could be done to remove them. It wasn't impossible, of course, as is evident by looking at the teams that wound up in the upper echelon of the National event, but that just shows the seed of what has become an important part of the 2002 and 2003 game.
In these games, all too often, brute strength is rewarded over ingenuity. The games are balanced too heavily toward giving points to having something in some specific position.
I believe that, in some regionals, stackers will manage to survive. If they can get a multiplier that does something beside give them victory. . . that is, if they can get a majority of bins and make a stack . . . that will greatly help their seeding. But, I don't expect it to happen often. When they're up against a king-of-the-hill robot that's faster to the punch and stronger, though, there's not much hope for a good stacker.
Of course, if I thought a king of the hill robot were the key to winning this game, my team would've built one. Clearly, we didn't. There are other elements of strategy and design that involve the bins that aren't being given due thought. It's those "under the radar"
designs that are going to make things interesting and turn the tables of the competition.
Ingenuity in engineering in these competitions hasn't died yet. It's getting close, though.