Why I think having no defense was a great idea

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by jtrv

Not every team with the self-stacking mechanism made it to Einstein - hence why I added the bit about complete perfection in execution... that in itself isn't possible, plus not that many teams even had a self-stacking mechanism. and if they did, most weren't well executed.

Right. Execution is everything. There were a few of them, and a small proportion of them made it to Einstein. There were a lot of other types of robots, and a small proportion of them also made it to Einstein. I see none of this as having to do with what archetype they were and everything to do with the efficiency with which they worked on the field--a combination of good engineering and driver skill and practice. No one was playing under perfect conditions, so if a single-robot stacker had a lower ceiling than a multi-robot stacker (say 4 stacks compared to 5, which is what I think we could have seen) but the single robot could perform at a 75% level in the real world more consistently, that was the better choice. If you had the ability to get your multi-robot to that level too, then it was the better choice. But I wouldn't say that either is a better design or that one is inherently more likely to win competitions.

Many of the lower and middle range teams had similar looking robots and creativity really blossomed in the highest echelon. I think that's the same as most other years and that it's good for the game to see that pattern.

On all your other points I agree, though. I should have said that earlier.