[Rob]

I am not sure how we can easily define "Too agressive", there have been quite a few threads about that following nationals, and none of them seem to have a clear answer. I will say this...FIRST is getting more and more agressive. Teams are learning that stout machines with powerful drivetrains have the ability to nullify elegant machines with complex devices and appendages. Is this a bad thing...maybe. We can learn to deal with it though.

Look at how the went. In the Archimeded elims, there were 2 clearcut favorites. These two alliances consisted of Stellar and intricate offensive machines (71 and 45) paired with fast a bruising defensive machines (494 and 716). The strategy employed by both alliances was to use the bruising partner to keep the scoring machine free from defense, allowing them to win the match on their own. This strategy allowed both alliances to make it to the division finals. I knew that whoever won that round would go on to win that championship because the strategy worked so well.

The point I am trying to make is that you need to consider a good mix of agression and scoring ability to make a winning alliance. The defensive teams in these alliances were not only able to punish their opponents, but they were also able to keep other defenders off of their scoring partners backs. So the key is to be good enough at what you do that you can work in a partnership like these.

Maybe there should be some changes or clarifications to the rules system. Maybe we should hand out more penalties or try to limit the amount of defense that can e played. I personally think that teams now have more to think about when conceptualizing and designing machines. The only way to stay competitive in real life is to adapt to adverse situatiuons, and the same holds true here.

Rob