Quote:
Originally Posted by RRLedford
Our rookie team did the same. We also concluded that a looper scheme could make us a highly desirable partner, even if it did not score, but only held balls in our scoring zone. Yet we abandoned the idea because, as rookies, we felt it was an unfair advantage, might be dis-allowed, and was too much against the GDC's intent of how the game was intended to be played within the spirit of the rules. So we bailed on the whole idea. We later saw that others were pursuing the same idea, but we never expected it would reach the almost unstoppable level of design refinement that 469 has achieved.
So, I agree that we all had the same fair chance to choose what I still consider an unfair rule exploit design scheme for gaining unfair access to the point where reversing the the ramp's ball flow becomes a game breaker strategy.
|
Along with what Sean has said: how many "copies" of a redirecting robot do you really expect to see on the field that works just as effectively as 469? The teams so far who have tried to recreate a similar mechanism haven't fared the same as 469, those who built their mechanisms during build season and DIDN'T ABANDON THEIR DESIGN will do pretty well (these teams are in the minority anyway).
Honestly, I'd like to hear what your students have to say about this and if they would take a different path had they the chance to remake the robot.
Seems like an "agree to disagree" situation since Dick clearly has a strong, unswerving (granted, somewhat flawed as demonstrated by many mentors) opinion.