What's so great about defense?

[archiver]

Posted by Erin at 04/20/2001 8:08 AM EST


College Student on team #65, Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



Kevin-
Ok, I am not going to simply tackle or support this argument, but rather, rationalize within it and try to derive the answer that is best fitting of my opinion.

Well, here's my background: I belonged to a team for 2 years that brought the force with defensive machines. They weren't necessarily "de-scoring" machines (machines which actually peeved me much worse than a robot that could fight) but ours were strong, robust machines (just forget about the wheel thing for right now) that could handle a lot of pressure and still pull off some offense (Hence- 2 best offensive awards, GLR, MMW).
One of those machines helped us to the National Championship spot in 99, and the other brought us wins at the IRI, WMRC, Sweet Repeat, the BOMB, and second place at GLR and Kettering. This helps me argue the point for defensive machines.
However, I have to take into account that not all defensive machines were like Juggy. Yes, I remember the "BattleBot"-esque machines of the past two years; small, rugged machines that would just go out there to pin- and yes, to some these were annoyances (you, obviously, by speaking your point). However, you have to take into account that some people will always build that way. They will always want a little fight. This helps me argue the point against defensive machines.
I will cite from your paragraph that you think "physically" defensive robots are more likely to break other robots.. well, not necessarily: some robots that are offensive that have to play the defense can do just the same. I think any robot that is strong enough could break another one, and sometimes there are scenarios where it just happens. I mean, if anyone gets mad about another team breaking their robot- (remember back to 00) then they haven't really built it by Dean's cautions. I believe the phrase "Robust Robots" might ring a bell? Last year, esp. since we were hanging off of the ground, I believe building a strong robot should have been a main goal in the design process. This is an argument for defensive machines.
You have said that "many opponent's strategies involve just going out there and pushing another robot around"...well hey, in my opinion, if you can build a drive train strong enough to push around a 130 lb. robotic warrior, (and esp. if that was your mission), then you have completed your goal. Each robots most fascinating (and important) two aspects are the scoring system (gripper, conveyor, basket, etc.) and the drive train. If you decide to skip designing a strong scoring system and focus on building an extremely strong drive system, then that is your choice and you should be ready to get out there and get some low scores (and learn a lesson)! It is a creative and interesting thing because when a defensive machine is putting up defense, it puts you into suspense over who is going to triumph. It also involves strategy, and I believe if you can't get yourself out of the tight bind of being pinned, GO BACK TO THE BUILD ROOM! I think having offensive/defensive strategy adds whatever amount of dimension into the robot that the team can think up and put in. You also have to take into account that drive trains are all some teams can really do. This is an arguement for defensive robots.

You argument about defensive strategies does, however, have a point. I have noticed lots of animosity between teams over something one of them did. I have held some of my own, and then been EXTREMELY ashamed of myself for not realizing that: its just a game. If any student or engineer as an individual, or team for that matter holds a grudge against another team, SHAME ON YOU! I think that you should be learning from the 2 on 2 game rather than making enemies within FIRST- a place where two seconds later they could be your ally. With a 2v2 game it is hard to see past some things, and I know this is your main reason for not wanting to bring it back, however, I believe if we did, we could try to more strongly emphasize "congratulating a team on beating you" rather than looking down and walking away with a theoretical "tail between your legs and teeth gritted" attitude. Maybe it's time we turned the 2v2 game into a lesson- besides being a gracious professional, BE A GOOD SPORT!! FIRST could carry this over into the rest of life for some students- I know that where I come from, a LOT OF ANIMOSITY grows between two high schools when the other one wins the game. I have met students from both Pontiac Central and Northern who have nothing but bad feelings for each other simply because of a few measly sports games.(You know- crosstown rivals kind of stuff.) However, our two FIRST teams get along great- even though Chief Delphi went against the Huskie Brigade in 00 and took first, we still are very much bound to each other- and maybe someday we can use the FIRST experience to break animosity between people in outstanding ways. It just needs to be emphasized. This was an equal argument for and against the 2v2 game.
About your "all that stupid robot could do was pin us, that was a cheap win" quote, well, all I have to say is, if any student is saying that about any other team, they don't deserve to be on a team because they are not there personifying the mission of FIRST. We aren't here to fight, we are here to inspire or become inspired by Science, Technology, Engineering, Role Models, Robots, Friends, Teams, Competitions- we are here to have fun and do the best we can- win or no win. I think that no matter what the game or how the robot is, if we just keep in mind WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR- we can have defensive robots and not get upset about it, and we can have 2v2 matches where one breaks and we don't go talking about that team behind their back. Now that I've written this I'm even seeing many ways in which the competition has become corrupt- and I just hope that through this many of you are seeing that it matters what kindof robot we build only because through building that robot we should have learned as much as we possibly can. Building a robot (as well as a strategy) isn't just getting prepared for the game, it is getting kids prepared for life. Prepared for board rooms, conferences, interviews, work relationships, college, a career. Don't let the main objective get out of focus, no matter how mad you get at everything else, and you'll be ok.
Now that I have posted this argument (which, I apologize, does go off on quite a few tangents)
I have one thing to say: I still love defensive robots.


Peace, Love, And Gracious Professionalism...
-Erin