[Katy]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed
There are a couple more things I would've like. Corner banking or a variety of hurdle. I'm thinking like the barrier in the 2001 game that teams could use to drive under, climb over or have the teeter totter ramp to go up and down with on the turns.

I agree with you that a few obstacles in the way might do some good, if for no other reason than to make the robots drive slower. I'm imagining a few of the robots that really gun it will hit the glass hard. Severe impacts can mess up the electronics on the game field.

If I was mentoring a team this year I'd have them put thick rubbery sticky feet on the bottom of the driver control board to prevent parts from being knocked loose or the whole board coming down off the tray. I mean you probably won't need it but if it is easy to prevent and costs neither weight nor build time (as you can make your controller holding board after ship) why not prevent it?

But that's neither here nor there. Stuff on the field is something I would personally favor but I can see why they didn't do it.

CG is going to be an awfully big problem in the game already with a completely flat field. If you tilt the field you're more likely to tilt the robots. With a flat field you can have the drive train really hug the ground and lower the CG somewhat. Normally when there are obstacles on the field the very base of the drive train needs to come up off the ground a little or your drive train is likely to bottom out on the slopes. If they banked the sides robots would probably be more likely to bottom out and, unless they were going fast, tip in. This is aside from the confines of space and money for low budget teams.

That said? We have a CG problem this way too. I think a lot of teams are going to try to turn too fast (I mean there isn't much space) and tip. Once again this is a significant technical challenge but I'm not sure if it is a depth of challenge that a non-technical spectator will appreciate. Time will tell I guess.

Originally Posted by GUI
I really like how the game makes teams change their design strategy. It seems that in previous years, the approach to chassis design has been to make the beefiest, strongest pushing machine. However, Overdrive requires a very different approach. This not only forces teams to broaden their horizons and consider other aspects of chassis design; it also seems like it will level the playing field a bit. Instead of veteran teams improving upon tried and trued designs while rookies are learning the basics, the older teams have to take a few steps back and learn same new things as well.

I'm excited to see that this encourages veterans to rethink things too. I hope the change is severe enough to actually force them to innovate (but only time will tell how they respond).

I'm not sure I agree with you about it being about the "beefiest, strongest pushing machine." I think we have seen a big emphasis on pushing in several games however. A few games have emphasized maneuverability. Some people say this game emphasizes a high top speed. I'm not entirely sure about that. I think at least as much of it (given field size and the raw amount of stuff floating around) is in good acceleration. That is (according to history as far back as I know it) totally new.