PDA

View Full Version : 2004 will be 2 v 2


Gadget470
10-24-2003, 04:16 PM
As probably expected, 2004 will (more than likely) be a 2 v 2 competiition.

I draw this from the "Championship Eligibility Criteria" which states:

2. Merit Based Qualifying Teams from the 2004 season:

Regional Chairman's Award winners (1 per Regional)
Regional Engineering Inspiration Award winners (1 per Regional)
Regional Rookie All-Star Award winners (1 per Regional)
Regional Champions (3 per Regional)

Each time we've had 2 v 2 there has always been one 'back-up' bot.. making for 3.

GregTheGreat
10-24-2003, 04:24 PM
Good Observation. I think personally that the 3 team sytem works so well, it will be years before it would ever be replaced.

-Greg The Great

IMDWalrus
10-24-2003, 04:56 PM
I've seen this mentioned on the site a few times already, but still... good job with the deduction. :)

Lately, 818's been lucky with alliances. We were picked by our division's second seed at Nationals, and we were selected by the first at an offseason competition. The system works just fine for me... :D

GregTheGreat
10-24-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by IMDWalrus
I've seen this mentioned on the site a few times already, but still... good job with the deduction. :)

Lately, 818's been lucky with alliances. We were picked by our division's second seed at Nationals, and we were selected by the first at an offseason competition. The system works just fine for me... :D

I would say kinda cocky, but then again you are a fellow programmer, so I will say "good 4 u". lol

-Greg The Great

dlavery
10-24-2003, 05:20 PM
Of course, it could always be a three-team alliance, with no backup team (subliminal message: "build 'em robust, or else!"). Or a single team with two alternates (subliminal message: "this game is so hard that we expect you to thrash two robots in the finals"). Or a set of three independent teams ("We are sick of alliances after all the whining last year.* It's a free-for-all, and the last three standing win!"). Or the ultimate evil option - a four team alliance, and the alliance has to pick which team has to stay behind for the benefit of the entire alliance (subliminal message: "do you REALLY understand the Nash Equilibrium (http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/NashEquilibrium.html) in the general class of non-cooperative games?").

Just because you know something, don't assume that you actually know something. :)

-dave


--------------------------------------------------------------------

*colluding to agree to not collude is still collusion

Gadget470
10-24-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by IMDWalrus
I've seen this mentioned on the site a few times already, but still... good job with the deduction. :)

Entirely possible, I couldn't think of good search terms to check up on it

JVN
10-24-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by dlavery
(subliminal message: "build 'em robust, or else!").

Dave,
This message is getting less subliminal every year... ;)

John

GregTheGreat
10-24-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by JVN
Dave,
This message is getting less subliminal every year... ;)

John

The message in my mind should be even more subliminal. Think about how many times you seen a robot where the battery fell out during competition, or radio links that were not plugged in completely, and not to mention were many teams poorly positioned their lights, to the point that they shattered them every other match. I say the more it gets pounded in the better. But thats just my 2 cents.

-Greg The Great

SpaceOsc
10-25-2003, 03:16 AM
Can anyone say:

"death from above?"



:D

Gadget470
10-25-2003, 04:05 AM
I think the message should be shortened a bit... "Robust or Bust!"

WakeZero
10-25-2003, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by GregTheGreat
...and not to mention were many teams poorly positioned their lights, to the point that they shattered them every other match.

See, what's so wrong with that? Don't be surprised if you see a light-a-pult on our bot this year <shakes fist>

...stupid light :yikes:

Andrew
10-25-2003, 09:56 AM
We call our light "Precious" now. We think it was getting a poor self-image due to all the abuse heaped on it, and it was throwing itself off the robot in an attempt to do itself in.

On the "Regional Champions (3 per regional)" I figured they would split us into three divisions (flyweight, middleweight, heavyweight) in a 1v1 competition. (Note: this also means that the weight limit is going to change!)

The single champion of each division gets a bid to Champs.

Sachiel7
10-25-2003, 11:16 AM
OooooOOooohhhhh.... Weight divisions....
:cool:

Maybe heavyweight > 130lbs ??? :D :D :D
Personally, on a BB level, I like lightweights. They're small, fast, and can get ripped up/do damage fairly well.

Another thing I think FIRST should implement into the game... maybe... is a way for getting teams out by flipping them, sorta like BB. The only problem with that is that rookie teams would have a hard time keeping from flipping.

ZACH P.
10-25-2003, 11:24 AM
How would we get in each division? By choice? Assignment? If it was by choice, then i guess that the lower wieght categories would be sparsely populated.

generalbrando
10-25-2003, 12:06 PM
Heavy weights that act like BB's? Personally I like the challenge the weight limit imposes. And as for making things more like BB - I'm totally opposed. Battlebots suck and there's no real ingenuity in building a robot tank. If we were all attempting to make BB's, do you think we'd have all these insanely awesome drive trains (crab, omni, etc) and cool arms (telescopes, stackers, etc)? What good would it do if you're just trying to bash each other?

GregTheGreat
10-25-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by ZACH P.
How would we get in each division? By choice? Assignment? If it was by choice, then i guess that the lower wieght categories would be sparsely populated.

They might assign a set weight to your team.

For example:

Team Numbers 1-400 have to be under 70 pounds
Team Numbers 401-800 have to be between 70 and 110 pounds
Them Numbers 801-Highest This Year have to be between 111 and 150

Just one idea.

-Greg The Great

GregTheGreat
10-25-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by generalbrando
Heavy weights that act like BB's? Personally I like the challenge the weight limit imposes. And as for making things more like BB - I'm totally opposed. Battlebots suck and there's no real ingenuity in building a robot tank. If we were all attempting to make BB's, do you think we'd have all these insanely awesome drive trains (crab, omni, etc) and cool arms (telescopes, stackers, etc)? What good would it do if you're just trying to bash each other?

I am in total agreement, I think it would be highly unlikely that FIRST would do a weight devision game like what has been suggested, I would have to say that they would not do it, because of what you said about turning FIRST into BB. It's something I certainly don'r want to see.

-Greg The Great

dlavery
10-25-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Gadget470
I think the message should be shortened a bit... "Robust or Bust!"

OOOHHHH! That's really good! I like it! Can I use that?

-dave

Sachiel7
10-25-2003, 01:44 PM
I wasn't saying we should make more things like BB, I was just saying that FIRST might form some form of weight class like it.

generalbrando
10-25-2003, 03:57 PM
Another thing I think FIRST should implement into the game... maybe... is a way for getting teams out by flipping them, sorta like BB. The only problem with that is that rookie teams would have a hard time keeping from flipping.

You did sort of say that FIRST should be more like battlebots. Certainly if they followed your suggestion to give credit/discredit for flipping/being flipped, it would be much more like battlebots (imagine the change in strategies among teams). I don't want to start a witch hunt or anything - and I don't mean to push technicalities. However, my point was in respect to this idea, not the one reguarding weight classes (which may make things interesting, I admit).

Wetzel
10-25-2003, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by dlavery
Of course, it could always be a three-team alliance, with no backup team (subliminal message: "build 'em robust, or else!"). Or a single team with two alternates (subliminal message: "this game is so hard that we expect you to thrash two robots in the finals"). Or a set of three independent teams ("We are sick of alliances after all the whining last year.* It's a free-for-all, and the last three standing win!"). Or the ultimate evil option - a four team alliance, and the alliance has to pick which team has to stay behind for the benefit of the entire alliance (subliminal message: "do you REALLY understand the Nash Equilibrium (http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/NashEquilibrium.html) in the general class of non-cooperative games?").

Just because you know something, don't assume that you actually know something. :)

-dave


--------------------------------------------------------------------

*colluding to agree to not collude is still collusion


...

*brain explodes*

I love you Dave.

*Goes and thinks about various ways to work stratagy with the various ways of playing various games*


Wetzel