|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: score's lower,higher or what you expected | |||
| higher then I expected |
|
7 | 4.52% |
| what I expected |
|
57 | 36.77% |
| lower then I expected |
|
91 | 58.71% |
| Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
Very, very true Chris!
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
I believe that they did not overestimated there own kickers, but more overestimated their ability to line up kicks and to have the ball in the right position. I'm sure there kickers worked fine in the shop when the ball want rolling away.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
To clarify, I think they misjudged how well their ball manipulation assembly would work, in terms of making and maintaining possession, aiming, and firing.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
Quote:
I think we are going to see a lot of teams bring ball handling mechanisms to their robots at competition. I saw alot of teams that were scoping out and gawking at the best handling mechanisms at Kettering. That includes the better teams looking at the best because only a couple of teams had a magnet that could take the ball backwards with them. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
Quote:
2 of those 5 do not have hangers, I know at least 2 of the other 3 do, although I only saw 1 of the 5 successfully use their hanger. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
In KC, we had a few matches today with two robots from the same alliance hanging. A few more individual teams hung, and some came very close.
Teams playing defense may not always be able to cross the bump, so it may not be strategy for them. Penalties are very costly in this year's game. There was a team today that got down to -4. Yes, it only counts as 0 at the end of the game, but it is a large deficit to get out. There were a lot of matches lost to penalties. Most robots probably were not sitting by choice. Most were disabled, and a couple of stations seemed to have problems more than others. It's probably just the "week 1 cobwebs," but things seem to be moving a lot smoother than last year. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2010 week 1 low scores
Quote:
I know as a team we try hanging every time, and we're only 1 of 2 teams that does that Quote:
And this is certianly the year of the penalty. One team in a match this year racked up 11 penalties due to a kicker malfunction. Fortunately their alliance didn't score so it didn't hurt them. And I have to agree with you on the field issues. There were matches where 5/6 robots were disabled because of field issues. When we first started today we had to program all of the radios twice because of field issues. Due to that there was only 1 practice match. Hopefully week 2 will run much smoother! |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| National Robotics Week 2010 April 10-18 | RoboMom | General Forum | 2 | 12-04-2010 13:09 |
| pic: Team 1322 2010 Robot Start Week 3 | joeweber | Extra Discussion | 14 | 02-02-2010 18:04 |
| Week 1 High Scores | Cuse | Regional Competitions | 15 | 01-03-2009 23:09 |
| Predictions Week 4: Bash Fests in Boston, San Diego & Waterloo. Big Scores @ Buckeye | Joe Johnson | General Forum | 51 | 28-03-2007 12:36 |
| Scores? We've got your scores right here... | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 22:27 |