View Single Post
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-05-2015, 21:00
Sperkowsky's Avatar
Sperkowsky Sperkowsky is online now
Professional Multitasker
AKA: Samuel Perkowsky
FRC #2869 (Regal Eagles)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Bethpage, NY
Posts: 1,905
Sperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by logank013 View Post
I still believe after watching many matches at nationals that 254 had the best robot despite the sad ending for them. 148 definitely had the most interesting design of all and, it was pretty much just as good as 254's bot. I still feel like 254 won slightly between the 2. I also think that 1114 had the best design for a landfill bot but it started to fail them there at the end. Worlds is about whose robot can last the whole season and still be good. Unfortunately, their robot just couldn't last that many matches. 118 had a robot that was almost as good as Simbotics bot but because it held up all the way through worlds, it ending up winning. All in all, here are my ranks.

Human Player:
1. 254
2. 148

Landfill:
1. 1114
2. 118

Overall:
1. 254
2. 1114
3. 148
4. 118
Your game robot analysis seems a bit odd. Honestly I wasn't that impressed with 254 this year not saying they didn't make an amazing bot but I never thought they were going to Einstein. 1114, 118, 1678, 2826, 1657, 148, 179, 4488, 4039, 971, and 1538 are just some of the bots that I think had a way better design then 254 this year. I love 254 but I think after 2 years of making the community go crazy they missed their mark a bit.

Last edited by Sperkowsky : 23-05-2015 at 21:03.
Reply With Quote