Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeTwo
Even to the extent that these sorts of scores exist (though some are missing each year), the relative weights change from year to year. Even more importantly, the calculation of "qualification points" (that is, the primary determinant of who gets to be alliance captains) is always changing, sometimes in counter-intuitive ways. FIRST appears to strive to have multiple apparently viable strategies. Recognizing these recurrent "classes" of scoring may enable some simplification of strategy selection process, but the bottom line is still that you are far better off analyzing the game (1), developing your strategy(ies) to play the game (2), and THEN deciding what the relative importance of the tasks in the game are (3). Now, at step 4, you can begin to design your robot. Skipping any of game analysis, strategy, and prioritization is like rolling dice which are loaded against you.
|
I am confused why you put (2) before (3). I would like to know the relative importance of certain tasks before deciding my game strategy. In 2015 I could see that I could score points by moving litter to the landfill and decide that was the strategy I wanted to use to play the game and then discover that it's importance is relatively low.
Did you mean (2) to be determining strategies to accomplish each scoring opportunity? Meaning a strategy to breach defenses, a strategy to weaken the tower, a strategy to challenge/scale, a strategy to defend, etc and then in steps 3 and 4 you decide which strategies you value more and which you can implement in your robot?