Car Nack Predicts 2010-1

[Racer26]

My personal opinion is that the GDC kind of dropped the ball on this one. As Joe points out, the net benefit from SUSPENDING two robots, as opposed to ELEVATING them is only +2. It needed to be worth substantially more than this for teams to see it as being a worthwhile endeavour.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

My personal opinion is that the GDC kind of dropped the ball on this one. As Joe points out, the net benefit from SUSPENDING two robots, as opposed to ELEVATING them is only +2. It needed to be worth substantially more than this for teams to see it as being a worthwhile endeavour.

Does the GDC want every endeavor to be worthwhile? I personally believe they incorporate a certain amount of varying objectives so that teams have to do their own cost benefit analysis.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Does the GDC want every endeavor to be worthwhile? I personally believe they incorporate a certain amount of varying objectives so that teams have to do their own cost benefit analysis.

bingo!

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Does the GDC want every endeavor to be worthwhile? I personally believe they incorporate a certain amount of varying objectives so that teams have to do their own cost benefit analysis.

That was certainly the case in the FLL game this year. I suspect those people talk to each other from time to time.

I am envisioning the problem of ensuring that a SUSPENDED robot does not become an ELEVATED robot (or even worse, a hanging robot worth no points). I can think of a theoretical design for the (topmost) ELEVATED robot to accomplish this, but it is quite complex and would probably be weighty. Which might mean that it would be the only thing that robot could reliably accomplish. Worthy tradeoff? Maybe for the "Gee, wow!" factor.