Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cody C
I have read the posts, and have come to the conclusion that we are all basing our posts on "not-so-thought-out" reasons.
By saying "that’s not what FIRST wanted", you are, in essence, putting words
into their mouths. FIRST designed the game so that it has a defensive, an offensive, and a free for all period. There are equal amount of times for defense and offense. If FIRST Hadn't wanted robots that could push other robots sideways, then they wouldn't have made the game like they did.
As was said before, there are Two strategies that a team could take:
The "We score 100 points with our shooter and that beats the other teams 99",
And the "We score 10 points with our ball dumper, and that beats the other teams Zero because we didn't let them score."
Just because teams (Ours included) chose the latter, doesn't mean that they aren't following the spirit of FIRST. They built their robot to play the game how they thought would work best.
The winners at Pitt Had TWO pushers and ONE shooter, meaning that the Pushers' game strategy works just as well as the shooters'. This in itself proves that Both strategies work for the game this year, and because they both work... they are both EXACTLY what FIRST wanted.
|
actually, the winners at Pitt had one dumper one pusher and one shooter,
and unfortunately our alliance that also had one dumper, one shooter, and one pusher was not given the chance to play them in the finals, due to many questionable cuircumstances.
