|
Re: Is anyone surprised by the scoring in week #1?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left To Beaver
I think the main problem keeping scoring down this year is that a lot of teams made stacker robots without container mechanisms in the hopes of having a capper robot putting a container on top, and that a lot of teams made capper robots without stacker mechanisms in the hopes of having a stacker robot to provide totes, and that those two robot classes are not getting along at all. A couple stackers without any cappers just leads to bunch of scattered tote stacks and minimal scoring. A couple cappers leads to no points or action at all (or, if your that one team in Dallas, trying to stack containers on top of each other because your alliance partners can't even push a tote on the step). Even if there is a stacker and a capper in the same match, I saw many examples of overzealous cappers trying to put a container on a stack and pushing the entire stack off the platform in the process.
I am surprised by the number of robots that can successfully do co-op stacks, though, to the point where, by some regional's end, matches having co-op was the rule, not the exception.
|
Yes this.
I'm surprised at the predominant specialization ...stacker, capper or stepper.
There were many times today watching I just shook my head at time wasted. Some good bots basically neutered waiting for another bot to finish sometimes waiting over a minute. That is what we purposely designed our robot to do it all perhaps not as a high of a level as a true stacker only against the HP station BUT can change roles on a dime as needed.
__________________
Iron Kodiaks Team #5137 San Marcos, CA
2016 Semi-Finalist | Central Valley Alliance Captain #2
2016 Semi-Finalist | San Diego 2nd bot alliance #8
2015 Semi-Finalist | Ventura 3rd bot alliance #3
2015 Quarter-Finalist| San Diego 2nd bot alliance #5
2014 Rookie All-Star | #21 San Diego | Galileo Division #91
|