|
Re: Team Update #18
Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?
I don't. Teams that wish to adopt this strategy are putting winning ahead of competing (yes, there is a difference - winning at all cost is not GP).
I'm not slamming Wildstang here; their alliance partners were basically non-functional and this strategy gave their alliance the possibility of winning that match. I doubt that any competitive teams would consider doing this with functioning partners. It's just too much fun to drive your robot and earn a victory!
Maybe Update #18 falls in the category of "legislating morality", but I don't think we want to see a lot of matches with an alliance just parked in their home zone for 2+ minutes. The lack of autonomous action is dull enough for me...let's PLAY the game!!!
__________________
"There's never enough time to do it right, but always time to do it over."
2003 AZ: Semifinals, Motorola Quality; SoCal: Q-finals, Xerox Creativity; IRI: Q-finals
2004 AZ: Semifinals, GM Industrial Design; SoCal: Winners, Leadership in Controls; Championship: Galileo #2 seed, Q-finals; IRI: Champions
2005 AZ: #1 Seed, Xerox Creativity; SoCal: Finalist, RadioShack Controls; SVR: Winners, Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technologies"; Championship: Archimedes Semifinals; IRI: Finalist
2007 LA: Finalist; San Diego: Q-finals; CalGames: Finalist || 2008 San Diego: Q-finals; LA: Winners; CalGames: Finalist || 2009 LA: Semifinals; Las Vegas: Q-finals; IRI: #1 Seed, Finalist
2010 AZ: Motorola Quality; LA: Finalist || 2011 SD: Q-finals; LA: Q-finals || 2013 LA: Xerox Creativity, WFFA, Dean's List Finalist || 2014 IE: Q-finals, LA: Finalist, Dean's List Finalist
2016 Ventura: Q-finals, WFFA, Engineering Inspiration
Last edited by David Brinza : 21-03-2007 at 02:10.
|