Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering
Finally, I do get the feeling that this year's game levels the playing field somewhat between the "superstar" teams and the "grinders". In past years there have been some amazing robots that could win matches all by themselves, with minimal help from their partners, as evidenced by perfect 8-0 (or near perfect 7-1) records in qualifying. I think that is going to be much harder to do this year as the nature of the game may reduce (but not eliminate) the capability gap between the top tier robots and those of us who chase them.
|
Very good points, Jason. In addition, with 3-team alliances retained, we have the "rising tide lifts all boats" effect in play again. A "grinder", a well-built and well executing but not particularly exciting bot, may benefit from good alliance partners in regional qualifying matches resulting in high placement in the standings. Sometimes that even happens to a "slogger", a robot with no particular abilities except to show up and play the game. The points those robots happen to score with their more "superstar" partners serves to put them into a position of being an alliance captain. (And if a "slogger" happens to be first seeded, it really makes the alliance selection interesting, as other picking teams have to decide whether to accept an invitation or form their own alliance.)
Quote:
So I'm going to suggest that the whole premise of the thread is just a bit off-kilter. The championship is not going to be determined by any particular design (yes, it will be a good design, and a sturdy design, but that is hardly news) but rather by the team that chooses their partners most wisely and co-operates most effectively. And that is why I love FIRST... it really isn't about the robots, is it?
Jason
|
Emphasis mine - that's really the most important part of a successful alliance, isn't it?