301 points! and could have done more

[dodar]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Read as: We tried to match Steve Sanghi's challenge; it wasn't about the money.

As a member of the team from the stands: it really wasn't about the money, we really wanted to achieve the challenge.

I understand the point, but he and others have said they only did the challenge to get the $500 for the registration fee.

And what was so wrong as to achieve the challenge set forth by FIRST that it had to be modified by a sponsor?

[MrForbes]

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

Similarly, people complain about poorly constructed robots and the new G27 update, but praise alliances for giving up their timeout so the other alliance can repair their robots. Sometimes the FIRST community is very conflicting and confusing.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Similarly, people complain about poorly constructed robots and the new G27 update, but praise alliances for giving up their timeout so the other alliance can repair their robots. Sometimes the FIRST community is very conflicting and confusing.

These two things aren't at all contradictory. I have no idea what you're getting at.

[hammerhead_399]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

These two things aren't at all contradictory. I have no idea what you're getting at.

Stop. This thread ended. No more please.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by hammerhead_399

Stop. This thread ended. No more please.

Sorry, saw this post while browsing through and it struck a nerve.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

How come you can say stuff simpler than me. You should be a WFA winner. Its that art of communication thing.

[Nathan Rossi]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

The same can be said for the G27 update, but that's for another topic.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

And what was so wrong as to achieve the challenge set forth by FIRST that it had to be modified by a sponsor?

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

FIRST didnt set up a good portion of the rulebook to govern defensive play just for alliances to completely disregard it by saying we wont touch you if you dont touch us. The game was made to have defense.

Would you consider this "GP" if this was performed during quals to get as many assist points as possible?

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

Would you consider this "GP" if this was performed during quals to get as many assist points as possible?

Yes.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Yes.

All I can say to that is wow.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

All I can say to that is wow.

Me too!

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by dodar

All I can say to that is wow.

And I counter your wow with this. 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

And I counter your wow with this. 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

I would argue that the 6v0 matches from 2010 are not even on the same page. Agreeing to play with no defense says "I bet we can fire our guns faster than yours" rather than "lets all shoot our guns in the same direction".