Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
Now I see the problem is I have a different definition of strategy than other people, it seems.
Lets look at 2006. I'd define strategy as deciding whether to shoot for the center goal, or roll balls in the lower goal. Shoot from ontop the ramp or on the bottom of the ramp. Stuff like that. What I want the robot to do, not how I want to do it.
|
We take so long because we tend to get more detailed than that. We ask questions like "How many should we shoot in auto mode?" "Where should we shoot from to have the best accuracy?" "What is the minimum number of balls to shoot to guarantee the win in Automode (including an assement of what we think other teams will do)"
Last year we decided to shoot from the floor partly because we weren't sure we could get on the ramp accurately in automode. That decision was made before we started designing the robot and strongly influenced our shooter design.
Our team is having a session on Systems Engineering this evening. Our "wrong" turns last year will be a major part of the discussion. There were definitely some areas where we made wrong choices and others where we over estimated our capabilities or pursued a solution long after it had become obvious it wasn't working the way it needed to.
Each year has its own subtleties. For 2005 we specifically designed our robot to be good not just at placing tetras, but at placing tetras on the far corner goal, because we felt that was the most strategic position. We could mess up as many as three rows with a single tetra. This could lead to wild swings in the score, especially towards the end of the match when our opponents had limited time to counter. It is difficult to do the sort of detailed analysis that leads to this sort of conclusion in just a couple of hours.
Especially if the Game Design Committee is doing their job right.
ChrisH