pic: Dragonfly CAD file

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Duke461

I'm going to have to agree with staplemonx on this for the most part

It is a bold statement, but hey we like to think big. But a more realistic statement is that we would have been an asset if we had been functioning the way we had hoped.

Our chances would have been higher of getting picked if it weren't for our own inexperience and lack of consistency with minibot deployment. This lack of consistency left us with only the option of playing defense, and this year, IMO, you needed 3 offensive robots to do well at better events.

Just as an fyi, we will no longer be mentoring the South Philly high school team, but will be coming back with a newly formed, larger, and better supported program.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

This lack of consistency left us with only the option of playing defense, and this year, IMO, you needed 3 offensive robots to do well at better events.

You know, except Einstein, where every alliance had only two scorers...

I think 3553 would have been an asset had they had EITHER a consistent Ubertube or Minibot to contribute.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You know, except Einstein, where every alliance had only two scorers...

I think 3553 would have been an asset had they had EITHER a consistent Ubertube or Minibot to contribute.

Every Alliance actually had three scorers, but all seemed to choose to play the 3rd on defense.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You know, except Einstein, where every alliance had only two scorers...

I think 3553 would have been an asset had they had EITHER a consistent Ubertube or Minibot to contribute.

And how exactly were they supposed to score an ubertube?
Correct if im wrong, but i dont believe they had a scoring mechanism (right?....)
Or are you just pointing out the importance in an ubertube or minibot

[staplemonx]

Originally Posted by Duke461

And how exactly were they supposed to score an ubertube?
Correct if im wrong, but i dont believe they had a scoring mechanism (right?....)
Or are you just pointing out the importance in an ubertube or minibot

IF we had more time to code, we might have been able to get an ubertube on a low peg. We did allow for it in the design. But in reality we probably would have used our autonomous period to get up a head of steam so that we could start at the opponents end of the field as quickly as possible. Thanks to MOE for that suggestion.

As for the minibot - uhg. Our initial design for regionals never worked. We worked with the "FRO" on a new design for world championships that worked but then we got hit with someones arm and it broke. It took us most of Friday to fix it. But our last three matches it worked.

Akash is dead on when he said we did not instill confidence till those three rounds when we were humming along.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You know, except Einstein, where every alliance had only two scorers...
.

As Adam already said, the third bot should still have been able to play offense.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

As Adam already said, the third bot should still have been able to play offense.

This is key.

When our elevator went down in the Boston finals, 222 stepped it up huge on the scoring aspect while we switched to D for 2 matches. This kind of flexibility is what allowed us to be extremely competitive in those finals matches.

Had we chosen a robot that was simply a shut down defender, it would've been game set match for us.

On a completely unrelated note-
Stogi, whats up with the ripoff NUTRON logo


-Brando

[bearbot]

can u email this chasis im on the cad team on my skewl team and im looking new chasis cause are current one issnt gonna lst in new challengs my emails straubeddie@gmail.com

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by bearbot

can u email this chasis im on the cad team on my skewl team and im looking new chasis cause are current one issnt gonna lst in new challengs my emails straubeddie@gmail.com

This chassis* probably won't fit what your school* is looking for, but if you're going* to design a new chassis* for a new challenge*, feel free to take a look at the CAD posted in the first post of this thread. The link to download the file is posted.

.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You know, except Einstein, where every alliance had only two scorers...

I think 3553 would have been an asset had they had EITHER a consistent Ubertube or Minibot to contribute.

And IRI where 3138 played defense every match and made it to the finals. (Maybe I'm biased, but I was surprised how defense was not a focus in elimination matches at IRI---I thought more teams would go with the 254/111/973 strategy to having 2 scorers and 1 defense).

But yeah, Chris is right, 3553 without an auto nor consistent minibot was facing a very very tough climb to getting picked. They would have needed to join an alliance with a team with 2 elite scorers, one of which that had a two uber auto, both with minibots, confidence that neither of them will break down and the willingness to have an inflexible strategy. Just look at 973, who was the 5th highest scorer on Galileo, fastest minibot, and played some really strong defense, fell to the second to last team selected. That being said, I wouldn't judge a rookie team's success on getting picked at the Championship.