Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlavery
We have seen in the past that every "unbeatable" machine has a weakness, and it is just a matter of exploiting it (e.g. even the mighty Beatty Machine in 2002 lost a few rounds). The result of teams collaborating (to the point of co-designing) may be better machines, but I am a long way from assuming they will be unbeatable (or even the "best" machines).
|
Our team was allied with Beatty that year in nationals. I agree that there is no such thing as an unbeatable machine. However, if I recall correctly, when we and beatty were on the field, we never lost. Almost the only way to stop Beatty's beautiful robot was to turn it before it got to their scoring zone. Our robot was enough of a tank that we were able to stand behind them and keep them from turning. Our strategies complemented each others perfectly.
What does this have to do with collaboration?
It's true that FIRST provides enough of a challenge that it's not likely a single robot could be completly unbeatable. But an alliance built to function together might be close. Granted, two teams could do this in the strategy part of build season, it would likely be easier if the teams work closely all during build season. Besides, once teams get used to working together on robots, they'll likely be looking for more challenges. Building the "perfect" alliance may be that challenge.
Another problem could arise if teams start helping rookie teams through collaboration, but end up basicly building a robot for them. There is a certain balance created by the amount of competitive teams vs. the number of rookie teams. If more and more rookies are as powerful as veterans, it will raise the bar for veterans even further and could (as was mentioned before) intimidate rookie teams. If this was a widely established program, that wouldn't be to much of a problem. However FIRST still has a good amount of growing to do.
On the other hand, collaboration could be the next challenge for veteran teams that would get them concentrated on something other then building a better robot. It would then keep powerful teams from intimidating rookies while encouraging them to help the rookies, and further balance the playing field.
I think the real question is, is the threat of even more overpowered robots greater then the potential positive changes of increased gracious professionalism?