Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
Why not both?
Especially this year, if done right teams can add on mechanisms to address each challenge one at a time. You can spend the time needed to figure out shooting and get that functional, then add on a gear mechanism, and then a climber (or whatever order you prefer) as time allows.
|
I was expecting this game to play out in this way, but the extreme packaging constraints this game imposes really hinders a piece-wise development strategy like this. It's very difficult to make room for everything without planning for it all at once in advance... and then you become a do-everything bot that's falling behind in build season.
---
To address the OP: I've been on teams that shot for the stars and failed. I've been on teams that did the reasonable and achievable thing. The latter is much more inspirational and rewarding, every single time. No matter how reasonable and achievable, every robot will have lessons to learn, things to tweak, etc. Maybe if you're a top tier team with your act together, you'll get bored and your kids won't learn as much, but I really think those are the teams that don't struggle to shoot for the stars anyway.
It's not just about competitive success that makes reasonable robots better - it's just a smoother process overall, and people are more inspired when they make something that works.