Real cool Robot Idea

[Faith]

I played with the idea of holding balls, but there are two major reasons I wouldn't. The first reason is it isn't as much fun, and the second is the way you get qualifing points - I think it is that you the winning team gets points equivalent to the lowest score that doesn't include penalties and the losing team gets points equivalent to the lowest score that does include penalties - either way, the more points the better for both teams.

[Donut]

As was mentioned above, qualifying points is based off of the loser's score. Of course qualifying points only matter in ties of record, and if you never lose you're set, but the chances of that are low, so it's advised you rather have a high scoring match than a low one.

That, and I honestly think it is impossible for a robot to gather all 80 balls (I think it's almost impossible to even get 40 at one time). The other alliance simply won't let you; any robot that starts hoarding balls will be continuously rammed to be taken out of the game. If human players refuse to throw them in, there's nothing the other team can do, but remember those balls you're holding on to must be scored by the other team for you to get them, meaning they've already scored substantial points.

Lastly, hoarding balls would lead to a very boring game, and love excitement in FIRST.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Donut

Of course qualifying points only matter in ties of record, and if you never lose you're set, but the chances of that are low, so it's advised you rather have a high scoring match than a low one.

If you never lose you're set...yeah right. How about Archimedes '04? FOUR-count 'em, four-robots (60, 571, 330 and someone else, I forget who) were undefeated. Would have been 2 in Newton '05, but one of the two got a tie late on Friday...High scores are good, but not if you have a complete infinity to zero win. I'd rather see a 100-99 win (where we were the 100, of course) that was hard fought and clean. Then you get that many QPs and you go way high in rankings.