Any non-bridge balancers?

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 1/31/2001 2:30 AM EST


Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.



Over the past few days, I've noticed more and more people attempting to "somehow" balance the bridge with goals on top of it. This is, in fact, a good general strategy (imho), but if everyone were to do it, then I think everyone will probably run into a few problems as far as alliances are concerned. So, to make a long message short, has anyone totally trashed the idea of balancing goals on the bridge?

Chris, #368

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Gold at 1/31/2001 9:11 AM EST


Student on team #258 from Lincoln High.


In Reply to: Any non-bridge balancers?
Posted by Chris Orimoto on 1/31/2001 2:30 AM EST:



As of now, we aren't seriously considering balancing the bridge. It seems really easy, but it's been low on our list of priorities since the first week.

Bill #258

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Martus at 1/31/2001 7:19 PM EST


Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.


In Reply to: Any non-bridge balancers?
Posted by Chris Orimoto on 1/31/2001 2:30 AM EST:



I am sure there will be very powerful teams that have a special talent that makes them a great choice. Look at OTC #1 last year. Could do many things but their best was controlling the ramp and hanging. A super machine.

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Leung at 1/31/2001 10:15 PM EST


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.


In Reply to: Any non-bridge balancers?
Posted by Chris Orimoto on 1/31/2001 2:30 AM EST:



Although balancing the bridge is good (because of the multipliers), not all the robot in an alliance needs to balance the bridge. Chances are, we only need one team per alliance to balance the bridge in a round. That means other teams will need to specialize at other things like controlling balls, or gate keeping, or even getting the stretcher across without the bridge
;-)

I mean, if every team concentrate on balancing the bridge and nothing else, then that will be an even bigger alliance problem! AND No robots to get the balls.

So what I am saying is that every task requires a special robot that can do it. Even if a robot can do everything, it can't be everywhere at the same time. Unless the robot can extend so big that it CAN be everywhere at the same time.

Anyways, my point is that the idea of "trashing the idea of balancing goals" isn't that bad at all. That mean we will get more robot that can do different things in a match, instead of 4 bridge-balancers with limited function. And in the finals, out of the larger population of a special robots, say the big ball pickers, there are going to be more really good big ball pickers just because more teams are doing it.

I am all for perfect alliances and not individual perfect robots.

[archiver]

Posted by PAUL GIANNOSA at 1/31/2001 10:31 PM EST


Engineer on team #27, TEAM RUSH, from OSMTECH and TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE CO..


In Reply to: Any non-bridge balancers?
Posted by Chris Orimoto on 1/31/2001 2:30 AM EST:



HEY CHRIS. WE HERE AT TEAM 27 ARE PLANNING TO BE "GATE KEEPERS" AS WELL AS BRIDGE BALANCERS. WE FINALLY HAVE A CHASSIS NEAR COMPLETION AND ARE STARTING WORK ON OUR BALANCER AND GOAL MANIPULTION ARMS. WE WILL BE ABLE TO GRAB AN UPRIGHT GOAL, PULL/PUSH UP BRIDGE, CROSS, PICKUP OR HAVE AN ALLIANCE PARTNER PUSH GOAL TO US AND BALANCE BRIDGE. OUR STRATEGY IS GOING TO BE TO PUSH ONE GOAL TO THE HUMAN PLAYERS, LET THEM LOAD IT WHILE WE CRUISE TO BRIDGE AND MANIPULATE IT FOR THE OTHER MACHINES. ONCE THEY R OVER WE WILL RETRIEVE THE GOAL, CLIMB BRIDGE, RETIEVE OTHER GOAL, BALANCE. WE WILL BE ABLE TO CLEAR OUT STRAY BALLS FROM UNDER BRIDGE, PULL STRETCHER, LEAP BUILDINGS IN A SIGLE LEAP, JUMP OVER THE MOON, COOK BREAKFAST, SHOWER AND SHAVE ALLIN UNDER 20 SECONDS!!!

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Leese at 2/1/2001 9:56 AM EST


Other on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Rochester Institute of Technology.


In Reply to: Re: Any non-bridge balancers?
Posted by PAUL GIANNOSA on 1/31/2001 10:31 PM EST:



Lose the capitals letters please. It's painful to read.

Matt