Posted by Jason.
Coach on team #252, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.
Posted on 7/24/99 3:14 AM MST
In Reply to: Michael and Hulk posted by Dodd Stacy on 7/22/99 1:40 PM MST:
Dodd,
Thank you for that post. Those are some great thoughts and the examples you used are very compelling. I couldn’t have expressed my opinion any better, so I will just second yours.
Jason
I might also add that I like ‘Robot Wars’, (I love FIRST, but I do like Robot Wars). However, the great thing about FIRST is that it is different & unique. FIRST is unique as is Robot Wars - why try to make them similar? As it is now, there is a choice - teams should enter both if they like both formats. Just my two cents.
: : The task aspect of F.I.R.S.T. is what differentiates it from Robot Wars.:
: Ah, yes, the task, the complex game of strategy and - this year - teamwork with your ally. Could Michael fly through the air for the slam dunk task with Hulk Hogan on his back?
: The discussion lately seems to focus on how much the design of the game and the rules and their interpretation by the referees should limit defensive play from interfering with execution
: of the offense. I’m totally supportive of requiring robust construction, expecting to need self righting capability, defining a free-for-all zone like the puck, and so on, but I have two bases for
: advocating the continuance (and refinement) of limits on defensive engagement.
: First, the sports perspective. What sport does not place limits on what the defense can do to prevent the offensive shooter from scoring? OK, there probably are some, so I’m not a sports
: nut. But you can’t grab the hoop shooter, and you can’t goal tend. You can’t interfere with the pass receiver, and you can’t rough the passer. You can’t even tie up a boxer in a clinch! Etc.
: Why not? Probably because no goals would be scored, and the games would all ultimately degenerate to brawling - robot wars. OK, but then there would never be Air Jordan. We’d never
: see artistry, grace, and magical movement in sports. What athlete would bother to develop outrageous moves to amaze, delight, and inspire us - to challenge the way we think about the
: limits of the possible?
: Then, the engineering perspective. I hope the young people in FIRST will see engineering as a fundamentally creative endeavor, a pushing of the envelope. I think at a basic level that to DO
: is hard, to prevent is easy, the natural order. Flying is hard, knocking down is easy. That’s why criticism is forbidden in brainstorming. That’s why first we had the Wright Flyer, and only
: now we have armored aircraft. Look at Dean’s wonderful development to liberate the chairbound. We have yaw rate sensors in the kit - how long before some whacko team fields a robot with
: a spherical ball unicycle drive? A long time, I think, if we tilt toward no-holds-barred games. If we don’t preserve some room in the game for stumbling around with new ideas, we’ll never see
: what they might grow up to be.
: So I vote for 6 - 7 in the poll.
: Dodd
doesn’t have a chance. Scoring adds strategy, thought, skill, and enhanced design. We can all build strong tough boxes that won’t break, move fast, and can terrorize the world- not quite as challenging as figuring out a way to pickup floppies, eh? Some people couldn’t even make something to do that- or felt it wasn’t necessary- but i personally see that as a more intense challenge then building an undentable frame.