Assuming they had a partner who could score 100% of the points that were exclusively available to their alliance following the “block”, 2W was mathematically guaranteed a win. 2W, from Gladstone Secondary here in Vancouver, could expand and form a wall blocking off just over half the goals.
Last year’s VEX game had one robot that could perform a perfect chokehold. That said, I think that 469’s strategy in 2010 was one of the most unique and powerful strategies I’ve ever seen employed in an FRC game, but certainly there have been more and will continue to be more. And obviously given what happened on Einstein in 2010, they certainly weren’t unbeatable - so, given all of that I don’t know that any robot besides Beatty’s 2002 machine can be called “game-breaking.” And I’m sure that the GDC will see to it that it stays that way. No, they weren’t in the same conversation as teams like 67 or 1114 in terms of pure ability, but they could certainly hold their own until they got their cycles going. Even if they had no balls cycling, their robot was so well designed that they could still outplay probably a vast majority of teams conventionally. What made 469’s robot so special in 2010 was that they weren’t a one-trick pony. With that said, I think the GDC has done an extremely good job since then of ensuring that games can’t be “broken.” Yes, 469 in 2010 came as close to what you might call “breaking the game” as possible without doing so, but I would argue that their strategy - however difficult to defeat - was not unbeatable, and as such can’t be accurately called a game breaking strategy. Everyone pretty much agrees that Hammond broke that game. Really, the only team to really “Break” a game has been 71 in 2002. Which was the last year we had to deal with that sort of game design fail.
2003 had an… interesting strategy where an alliance losing in the eliminations could completely descore their own points and deny the “winning” alliance points necessary to win the 2 of 3 matchup. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure 2002 was the last year you could completely deny scoring to your opponents and win. The only scoring they’d have left is robots in home zones, which was weighted equal to a goal, so wasn’t enough to win. In short, if you could control all the goals, you could almost completely deny your opponent any scoring opportunities. Balls in goals scored for an alliance if the goal was on the opposite half of the field. Goals scored points for an alliance by being in the middle-ish zone on the opposite side of the field. In fewer words, robots scored points by being across the line closest to their driver station. Quals 100 at the 2010 Curie Division FIRST Robotics Competition in Atlanta, GA, USA.Ĭould someone give a quick summary of the objectives of the 2002 game, for those of us not familiar with it? I’m assuming it was worth more to move the goals into one of the specific zones, as opposed to trying to score the balls? Very cool design/strategy from what it looks like not letting the starting configuration rules limit an ingenious design. The team would then put them into the ball return and they would fall back into the robot… do you see where this is going? The Blue Alliance Quals 100 - 2010 Curie Division The trig was worked out so that that redirection would roll the balls into the goals. They wedged themselves under the tunnel and I believe applied some sort of brake and then allowed the balls to fall into their robot and then it would roll down a slide on their robot and redirect off of the colored bumps that separated field zones. Once an alliance scored a ball in the goal, that same alliance gained control of it and had to pass it quickly through the ball return.Ĥ69 would score 2 balls in auton and then drive to the center of the field where the ball return emptied and park there for the rest of the match. If you are familiar with the 2010 game, you will remember that there was a ball return that passed over the alliance wall to the center of the field.
0 kommentar(er)
