Quote:
Originally Posted by James Tonthat
We are given design specifications (rule book) at the beginning of the season to build a robot. We built the robot that we thought would best meet those specifications. 469 built one that used very little effort to play the game.
Look back to 2002 with Team Hammond, they built a dominate robot, cruised through championships but even then, there were teams that figured them out.
Instead of spending so much time on Chief trying to convincing a bunch of people that can't be convinced that they're wrong. Spend it toward something positive, such as developing your robot further or coming up with strategies to defeat theirs.
|
I can and am doing both things at once.
Was the 2002 Team Hammond robot strategy to do something within "the letter of the rules" that produced an unfair advantage over the competition?
I am not trying to convince poeple they are wrong. I am trying to point out the biggest weakness in the 2010 rules that is allowing for effectively build and operated loopers to gain the unfair control of the flow of balls back onto the field. I do not care whether or not the GDC deliberately intended for this rule exploit to be available and to allow the looper scheme to use it for gaining unfair control of the flow of balls back onto the field. My purpose is to draw attention to how this weakness in the rules allows for
deployment of a game strategy that is inherently unfair. To me, this is the exact type of situation that warrants a change in the rules. Obviously, at this late stage, the GDC is unlikely to make any such changes, but that does not mean I should stop pointing out the unfair aspect of this game strategy rule exploit. Perhaps it will help improve the integrity of GDC rules for future years. Perhaps it will affect how other teams decide whether to pursue unfair game rule exploits in future years.
-Dick Ledford