maybe like a rollercoaster theme. where youd have to go thru this whole weird track, pick things up and get to the next robot and then that robot goes to the next. the trick would be to pass the supplies you picked up by giving it to the next robot, the last robot would have to place all the parts in order on a platform higher then it.
cylindrical tupperware as pucks. 6 pucks on the field. Returned to the center similar to 2010, though with nothing to latch onto.
3 Goals at each end of the field. Only 1 robot allowed in the defensive zone.
Regolith surface. Same drivetrain wheels as 2009.
End game, last 30 seconds 2 ‘penalty’ shot pucks are allowed in play. They are worth 3 points, but can only be scored in elevated goals at each end of the ice.
Its too soon to do anything pseudo breakaway based
rich schools would just recycle their old breakaway bots, and teams (like mine) who use the parts of the previous year’s bot will have to start from scratch, i dont see it working too well
I’m pretty sure this never happens. Teams may use similar designs as they have in the past due to their familiarity and relevance (233 and 330 in 2007-2011), but nobody “recycles” their old robot because their school has money to blow. If you’re discriminating against well funded teams, you’re probably thinking of teams with hard earned, longtime corporate sponsorship. It’s not like they just happened upon all that funding; rather, they most likely worked for it.
If you’re frustrated with your team’s revenue sources, then I highly recommend shameless self-promotion. Get out in your community and talk to local businesses. Every little bit of donation money counts.
Maybe even ask Bank of America or Wells Fargo! I’m sure they’re looking for any bit of good publicity they can get.
Otherwise, please don’t make statements like that. They really aren’t necessary.
In 2011 there was a rule in place to prevent exactly this from happening. I think it was in the rulebook in 2010… and 2009… and 2008… and going back as long as I can remember. It simply states that robots may not be designed or manufactured outside of the build season (I’m paraphrasing). While the “rich” teams may seem to use similar designs that is not because they are reusing parts. It is because they are reusing ideas and improving on them. Design, you see, is iterative. Iteration requires repeating periods of innovation and evaluation. (If anyone has tips on how I could put more 'ion’s in this sentence I’d love to hear them)