Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeTwo
It's not "too much" optimism; it's the right amount.
I agree with you that most teams still hope to do better than they will actually achieve. My team just happens to be one of the very few exceptions  . This is closely tied in with what the FIRST Robotics Competition is all about. In a competitive venue, safe designs constitute "playing not to lose"; bold, innovative, (and therefore risky) designs are "playing to win". If you don't push your limits, you're really just imposing your own limits. |
Playing to win means a correct and solid analysis of the game. I admired teams that built 30 point climbers in 2013, but they were not "winners" in the sense that they didn't win the game (and teams like 118 abandoned their climber, even though it worked). My favorite robot of 2008 was 1583's little RC car, because they correctly understood that the field would be clogged, and a simple design that drove around in circles could win points. Deciding that building a robot based on the simplest math of the game is the way to win is usually foolish.