This is a brutal game.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

DIE DIE DIE YOU EVIL MINIONS OF SATAN

LOL, Nah didnt get that

Nor am I complaining, since the refs were not calling it on anyone. Just letting people know whats out there.

BTW, the worst damage done to our robot was self inflicted on the first run of practice on that Thursday. A high speed ram during atonomous (sp?) mode because of a software mistake It destroyed our front plate and pickup roller ... needless to say we had our work cut out for ourselves

[the_short1]

I agree.. it is too rough this year, with too few penalties. We didnt use bumpers @ GLR, because we wanted to get up the ramp, we are considering making them for waterloo though because their is oviously too many "battle bots" out there this year. especially if your wheel breaks due to being rammed SIDEWAYS up the platform and left to fall down on your side.

last year, the weight limit was great, but i think it should differ each year. it is too hard to build a robust robot that can take the punches (this year) with the complexity of this years game (if your robot is multi-function). We swiss cheesed what we could, drilled out gears, and used thinner walled aluminum, only 2 drive motors, and we are 119/120 lbs.

[StephLee]

It's never impossible to build a robust robot. We honestly have not had anything break so far (and now I've probably jinxed us for Chesapeake...); we use bumpers, we have no trouble up the ramp, and we were at 117.3 at last check. We have a shooter, a conveyor, and a dump, as well as pneumatics to run the shooter and dump. Granted, we are using two small CIMs, but something had to go.

Maybe the weight limit could have been different this year, but I think the reason FIRST made it hard to do everything was that they were aiming for a wide variety of designs. Last year, bascially everyone did the same thing. They did it very differently, but still the same thing. There were a few low scorers, but very few that I saw. This year, you have a very few purely defensive bots; bots with dumps and great defense; bots with average defense and good dumps; bots with average defense and good shooting; bots with average defense and good dumping and shooting; I could go on. The point is, this year's game seems to have been designed to allow for a wider variety of functions. To me, that makes the game a good bit more spectator-friendly. One match you see great dumping, then great defense, then great shooting. It's harder to get bored, if you ask me.

[pi_guy578]

I personally think brutal is the wrong word for the way the game is being played. It is different; it's a lot more defensive than past games have been. As the drive team coach I am telling my drive team to ram other robots to keep them from scoring, and it works. Our robot has a low center of gravity, a sturdy frame, and bumpers. I also am the team programmer. I switched our autonomous mode from shooting at the center goal, to a more defensive one. Playing a good defense is paying off more for our team than an offensive one was. Defense is a larger part of the game than it has been in the past.

I'm thinking this is a good thing, though. Good engineering is supposed to pay off in FIRST. If you designed a robot with a high center of gravity, weak drive train, and poor frame your robot will tip, get pushed around, and fall apart, and you will fail at the game.

At FLR during the qualifiers, scores were pretty high, usually above 40. During the elimination rounds, there was a significant drop in scores during the match, maybe an average of about 20. Why? Because alliances realized how important defense was to the game.

[Mr. Van]

As a respected FIRSTer said before the 2003 season...

Originally Posted by sanddrag

A caution from team 696 to everyone attending:
Build'em tough people.

I think with the game (defensive periods) and the field (30 degree ramp) I would say that the game is "unforgiving".

Sandrag - I hope everything is repaired and look forward to seeing 696 in So. Cal.!

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599