What was the best team set up?

[xavior06]

im just wondering what everyone else thought was the best set up for the games through the years.

[DougHogg]

I also think that a larger field with 4 vs. 4 could be interesting. That would also tend to offset the problem of one robot being dead in the match. With 4 robots, you would only be losing a 1/4 of your team, instead of 1/2.

Also we would all get in more matches.

Another option would be 3 vs. 3.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Of all the games I have seen thus far, the one formula that maximizes the excitement and the number of teams involved is the two vs. two with the current finals setup i.e. top eight pick two others. Although I would vote for a change in the way finals are played to best two out of three. I want everyone to have a chance to play and a chance to win at least one match. All four robots on the same side was exciting for the participants but not for casual spectators.
I just thought of something while writing this so I am going to throw this out. How about an additional tie breaker kind of play where a team that helped a fallen robot get to it's feet during a match would gain an advantage for their "gracious professionalism"? There were just enough tipped robots during this year's competition to make me think of a way that teams should consider giving up scoring for getting a robot back into the game. I cringed for the teams that had a robot go down. It's a bad feeling for me so it must be awful for the teams it occurred to.

[Ryan Albright]

hmmm Al i like that idea. I liked the 2v2 cause i like having competition against you all 4 on a side was boring. 2v2 promotes more of a competitive atmosphere i like the 3v3 or 4v4 idea to but then they would have to go to bigger fields which i think they dont want to do

[xavior06]

i always loved the 4 all together.. i duno i dont like how first turns more into battlebots every year..

think:
2000- needed to be able to manipulate different colored small balls in and out of trophs that were up high
2001- needed to pull around goals and put a BIG ball on top of the goals and work together with any other type of robot.
2002- Needed to be able to push ALOT and pull ALOT while just grabbing up as many balls as possible and running back to home zone.. (balls never really that important only power and speed)
2003- pure brute force was important and less precise pushing of blocks around..

maybe its just me.. but i liked when teh drivers needed to be more skilled at working together and the robots needed to be more dexterous and be able to manipulate complicated objects around.. im thinking a robot with like 12 drive motors and big $@#$@#$@# wheels would have just won this years competition no matter what..

ps- not knocking anyone just my 10 cents..(i know alot of teams build great robots that very well did manipulate the field in interesting ways to their advantage)


i think teams are able to develop robots capable of manipulating the field better and FIRST should progress to make the robots better every year, instead of turning into a sport where speed and power are the most important..

just a trend i see FIRST has started..

watch, next year we will be able to use weapons..

l8r

[fast frank]

i think that speed, power and durability are extremely important. these competitions are teaching us that you need these things to win, which will also improve our engineering skills in the real world. when you design a bridge, you want it to be strong.
If you compare the robots from 2001 and the robots from this year, you will notice more structual supports and more protection of electronics and pnuematics. if something breaks, you want to be able to fix it quickly. this year my team could change all 4 drive motors in under 3 minutes. we practiced this and it almost resembled a nascar pit stop.

i like the contact, it will help us design and build better things for the future.

i like the 2 vs 2 set up better than 4 vs time.

[xavior06]

yet there also a great need in robotics for precision, for example arms that can handle test tubes or measure out medicine or chemicals to the nanoliter. i think FIRST should try to combine both robots that should manipulate objects, with those that are rugged and ready for battle or switch the competition around so both can be experienced in different years for the students. so that it isnt just about pleasing the crowd with robots clashing against and running into each other, but about the students learning and being inspired in engineering.