PDA

View Full Version : 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?


ben281
04-25-2005, 02:35 PM
hey everyone!
i just wanted the opinions out there whether the increase in robots on the field increases the luck involved and if so is it worth it to help move through more matches quicker? i know there were lots of good teams that got lower seeds than expected because of this. let me hear what you guys think!
Ben
TEAM 281

DarkJedi613
04-25-2005, 02:39 PM
No, I think it worked out fine (but remember that almost all the floor was available for use this year, unlike other years).

And I think it'll be kept to allow larger regionals/championship and to allow more matches. :)

blckconsolation
04-25-2005, 02:43 PM
I still think it's too many. I know during the 2005 Championships that were just over, Hrt was pretty high up, then shot down because of bad luck. T_T. I still think that it should be focused more on each individual robot... teamwork is nice, but it involves too much luck.

MOEmaniac
04-25-2005, 02:43 PM
I think it worked really good and that since the field size was increased it worked even better. And with more teams per side it made it so that not just one team could be the deciding factor in a match.

D.J. Fluck
04-25-2005, 02:44 PM
I think it is a must.


More teams on the field = more matches per team, more matches per team = more practice, more practice = better performances in Atlanta.

3v3 provides a completely new experience for strategy and scouting. For teams that have several scouts watching matches, it gives an extra job to someone who normally would sit there bored. From a strategy perspective it gives you another team to pay attention to and another partner to keep track of. It's a nice change.

Finally, FIRST is just getting too big for 2v2. I'm willing to guess the 3v3 is on the same reasoning for why they went to 2v2 alliances in 99

omutton
04-25-2005, 02:46 PM
I think 3 on 3 is fine, more Regional Champions :D. Also, it is more exciting to watch with 3 on 3.

blckconsolation
04-25-2005, 02:48 PM
Haha okay... so I loose. But I still think that 3 is too many. T_T.

Kyle
04-25-2005, 02:51 PM
I am also in the 3v3 boat, its more fun to watch the matches and like it was said before more teams get to play more matches so everyone gets better.

danield710
04-25-2005, 02:54 PM
i think it worked fine this year mainly because the open space on the field was much greater than that of last year, with last years game their would be no way to have 6 bots on the field at once

Greg Needel
04-25-2005, 03:03 PM
I think 3 on 3 is fine, more Regional Champions
3 teams always win regionals just in the past when it was 2 vs 2 not everyone played all the matches but the number of winners stayed the same.

i think 3 vs 3 was great fun..there were alot more options and you are also less likely to get a bad alliance like in previous years. i think it also made teams think more about the dynamic of the alliance for elims because all teams played instead of swapping out every time.

I think we will see 3 vs 3 again and i will happily welcome it

dmurdz
04-25-2005, 03:10 PM
With FIRST growing so fast 3 vs 3 games are needed and they will most likely been seen for years to come, they would have to decrease the amount of matches played or add a day to competitions or make the day longer, FIRST is just growing so much.

I like the 3 vs 3 games because new methods of strategies are uncovered and there is more action on the field.

mathking
04-25-2005, 03:14 PM
I actually think that 3v3 decreased the luck factor over 2v2 for most teams. We were discussing this on the way back. Last year we had two matches where our arm was not really working, this pretty much killed our alliance's chances of winning that match. We felt bad about hurting another team's record. But we had a couple matches this season where a teammate was without a working arm/tetra manipulator and still won because we and the third team could still score.

xzvrw2
04-25-2005, 03:14 PM
I think that 3v3 is fun, but i think that there should be 4 teams to an alliance in the elimination rounds. Yes you can pull yourself out, but you cannot go back in. I think that it would be more fair to have an extra team to go in when you work on your robot and then call your timeout. Now i think that the pull your self out rule should still be there, but have it with 4 teams not only 3. And that also gives more teams a chance to get picked and win.

sw293
04-25-2005, 03:17 PM
No. I didn't see anything to convince me that 3 v 3 necessarily makes the field too crowded. And I saw a lot to convince me that 3 v 3 makes the game more interesting both as a coach and a spectator. So I'd stick with 3 v 3 next year, were it up to me.

Allison K
04-25-2005, 03:21 PM
I think that 3v3 is fun, but i think that there should be 4 teams to an alliance in the elimination rounds. Yes you can pull yourself out, but you cannot go back in. I think that it would be more fair to have an extra team to go in when you work on your robot and then call your timeout. Now i think that the pull your self out rule should still be there, but have it with 4 teams not only 3. And that also gives more teams a chance to get picked and win.

The issue I see with four team alliances, it that it could really water down the elimination rounds. Eighth seed pickings are slim enough at small regionals with only three team alliances.

At the championship, there are so many good teams to pick from that often times the eighth seed looks just as intimidating as the first, but at many of the smaller regionals the eighth seed doesn't have much of a chance.

Back to the topic. I liked having more teams on the field. I think a 2 vs. 2 vs. 2 game would be interesting, although 3 vs. 3 was good too. It allowed more teams to play more matches. It was fun to be able to play with more different teams at each competition.

~Allison

xzvrw2
04-25-2005, 03:23 PM
The issue I see with four team alliances, it that it could really water down the elimination rounds. Eighth seed pickings are slim enough at small regionals with only three team alliances.

At the championship, there are so many good teams to pick from that often times the eighth seed looks just as intimidating as the first, but at many of the smaller regionals the eighth seed doesn't have much of a chance.

Back to the topic. I liked having more teams on the field. I think a 2 vs. 2 vs. 2 game would be interesting, although 3 vs. 3 would be good too.

~Allison


Yeah you are right. I never thought about that. See we go to Great Lakes and Midwest so there is a lot of teams and a lot of good teams. I forgot all about the little guys. Sorry :ahh:

petek
04-25-2005, 03:27 PM
I think it worked really good and that since the field size was increased it worked even better. And with more teams per side it made it so that not just one team could be the deciding factor in a match.[Warning: one person arguing with himself here]

From a philosophical perspective, I agree on both points, and I thought the game was especially entertaining and exciting this year.

I think this question might be rephrased to "which is more important: striving toward field dominating performance, or gracious professionalism?"

(Making a rash generalization) I expect that many teams which had otherwise dominating performance negated by weaker partners would argue that this 3 vs 3 performance-averaging approach makes luck too important a factor in seeding.

My own team might fall into this category, but I am not ready to blame the system. Even though we don't believe our seeding in Atlanta represented what we actually did on the field, we had a great year and Atlanta pointed out those areas where we had weaknesses. Maybe the GP way to look at this is that 3 vs 3 raises the bar for strong teams.

Kris Verdeyen
04-25-2005, 03:34 PM
...And I think it'll be kept to allow larger regionals/championship and to allow more matches. :)

I like having more robots on the field - Tripleplay was fantastic. But having three robots allows either a larger regional/championship or more matches, not both. How many matches did you have in your division last year? We might have got one more match, not 1.5 times as many, as you might have expected.

----An aside----
Having more matches makes luck less of a factor. If each team played 100 matches, you can bet that the most robust, best performing robots would be at the top, and luck would have evened itself out. Of course, this isn't feasible or even necessarily desirable, but there has to be some number of matches that's between 7 and 100 that would give us an acceptable balance between luck and skill.

DarkJedi613
04-25-2005, 03:36 PM
I like having more robots on the field - Tripleplay was fantastic. But having three robots allows either a larger regional/championship [b]or[\b] more matches, not both. How many matches did you have in your division last year? We might have got one more match, not 1.5 times as many, as you might have expected.
It can allow both, you increase both the amount of teams and the amount of matches slightly, instead of one by a lot. Personally I think too many matches is a bad thing, if you robot breaks you may have to miss two, perhaps three matches before its fixed instead of one.

AIBob
04-25-2005, 03:36 PM
3 teams always win regionals just in the past when it was 2 vs 2 not everyone played all the matches but the number of winners stayed the same.
Not quite the same, on average per regional there were more, because in some cases there were four teams that won.

I personally like the 3v3 matches more because they go faster, and you can fit more teams in the championship, but i did not like the fact that it was too much luck in the qualifying matches.
I like having more teams to challenge, it makes the game more difficult/fun! :D

Max Lobovsky
04-25-2005, 03:43 PM
3v3 is fun, allows more interesting strategies, and helps FIRST handle more teams. My only complaint is that it makes watching the game worse. It is hard enough to follow 4 robots playing, with 3v3, it is entirely impossible to keep track of whats going on.

Starke
04-25-2005, 03:44 PM
I agree 3v3 was successful this year. However, if FIRST went back to last years and put in this years longer field, it would not work. Robots would be hit each other.

I think it would be cool if FIRST kept the teams guessing each year. Change it from year to year, and then have a year when it would be the same as the last. This would increase the strategy difference from year to year along with the game.

Joe Johnson
04-25-2005, 04:07 PM
I think 3 on 3 is probably too complex for its own good. I think the thinking was that we will get more folks playing more rounds. Partly that worked but partly it didn't. It worked in the regionals in that more matches were given, but it did not seem to work for the Championships in that only 7 matches were played per team.

In my opinion, 7 is to few to sort things out. I am not sure what the right number is but 7 with 84 teams was too low.

One think I DID like is that the entire alliance played every match not just at least once per round.

Read here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=375398#post375398) for proposal for tournament structure that keeps some of the things I like and gets rid of some of the things I don't.

Joe J.

Lil' Lavery
04-25-2005, 05:31 PM
I enjoyed 3v3 more than 2v2 for several reasons.
a) more matches
b)even if 1 robot breaks or doesnt show, 2 robots vs. 3 isnt always a loss, like it often was in a 1v2.
c)more strategic options
d)more action on the field
e)more room to create a "team" in the eliminations
What I mean by the last one is, in a 2v2 scenario, you have only 1 other robot to fill out your alliance during any one match, so you choose the robot that best helps you, and you alone. But with 2 others, you can create an alliance with more specific roles for each robot. Instead of 1 offensive bot and 1 defensive, or 1 capper and 1 hanger, ect., you have 1 "physical" defensive bot, 1 speed capper, and 1 height capper, or something like that.

Meyerman
04-25-2005, 05:45 PM
I think 3 on 3 is fine, more Regional Champions :D. Also, it is more exciting to watch with 3 on 3.
its been 3 champions to every event since 2002 tho just this year you dont have at 3 on the feild at once.

henryBsick
04-25-2005, 05:59 PM
Logistically 3 vs. 3 was great...
-# of matches
-# of teams

Competition wise was horrible (IMHO)
-1 good robot that should rank high could be in a match with two weaker robots against 3 good robots. A loss almost every time
-A fairly poor team can coast through matches on the shoulders of their good alliance partners and seed very high.


I personally have seen both scenarios happen So both sides of the story (2v2 or 3v3) have their ups and downs personally I would like to see 2 vs. 2 again. I drove a 2 vs. 2 match this year because of missing alliance partners and it was sooo much better in my opinion.

$.02
-Henry

George A.
04-25-2005, 05:59 PM
I definately like the 3v3 idea. It has more intense matches. All of the eliminations I have seen this year (especially the ones in NJ and Einstein) were some of the best matches I've seen in my day.

Although I do like the 2v2v2 idea.

ben281
04-25-2005, 11:02 PM
hey guys,
i would have to agree with petek. and i also like his refraising of the question. i do see a problem in a bad team riding there way to the top on pure luck. but it is more of a challenge for a team to be the absolute best. 3v3 does seem to be more action intensive and better for a spectator sport. though it did get a little confusing, i do no thing field size is what we are talking about here. was it worth the risk of letting a bad team get to the top by luck alone, or does this even happen?
responding to an earlier statement. In statistics, there is something called the Law of Large Numbers, which shows (in a nut shell) how when your sample size is large enough, the mean will approach the median. 7 games over say 5 or 6 is not enough for (statistically) to make that much of a difference, but of course it will change who is in the top 8. But to truly get the top 8 teams, at least 100 games would have to be played per team.
what does every one think?
Ben
TEAM 281

Joshua May
04-25-2005, 11:34 PM
I think 3 on 3 has worked out great this year. I tprovides so much more that a 2 on 2. I've gotten to the point where I can't even remember what it was like with 2 on 2, because the 3 on 3 has become very natural.

George1902
04-25-2005, 11:46 PM
Although I do like the 2v2v2 idea.
This is the direction in which I'd like to see FIRST go.

Situations in where two weak alliances gang up on a third, strong alliance can be addressed with creative game design (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=312745#post312745):

Imagine:

Three two-team alliances: purple, green, and orange. Three goals to score in: red, blue, and yellow.

The purple alliance's score is the total of the red and blue goals. The green alliance's score is the total of the blue and yellow goals. The orange alliance's score is the total of the red and yellow goals.

Yes, two alliances could team up on the third, but they would need to score all of their points into just one goal to do so. Also, they would have to defend two goals. The third alliance would be able to score in two goals and only have to defend one. They would be at a two to one disadvantage in terms of robots, but would be at a two to one advantage in terms of offensive and defensive objectives.

Goldeye
04-25-2005, 11:54 PM
Triple Play would be impossible with only two teams. In some cases, a game will be too simple if made for a 2v2. Triple Play was probably a pretty decent median. Their wasn't really crowding on the field, and although there was a lot of action making it hard to follow each action in the game, the fact that there's only two teams made it easy to tell the current game status in a few glances.

The best answer is variety. If they can make a game where two robots are needed to accomplish a difficult task on a very large field, even 4v4 could be reasonable (with serpentine alliance picking). I'm sure they can make a great 2v2v2 game too. Whatever they come up with, I'm sure it'll be good.

SharkBite
04-26-2005, 01:51 PM
I really think 3 on 3 is a bad idea. I loved it at the beginning of the season and I really liked the element of strategy that it added, but I have since noticed a few things that is has impacted negatively. There were huge lapses in scouting at nationals. I think this had a lot to do with 3 on 3 since it is nearly impossible to keep track of a match with 6 robots in it. You need 6 people watching each match and even then it is difficult to get a perspective on the whole match. Also it is more difficult for an individual well performing team to overcome an unlucky alliance pairing. It wouldn't be so devastating to be seeded lower due to alliance partner mishaps if you could trust that the top seeded teams had watched your performance and would pick you.

ben281
04-26-2005, 01:57 PM
hey guys,
i do agree that 3v3 might introduce more interesting games and strategies. This is the first forum that i have seen anyone throwing out the idea of 2v2v2. haha that could get really cool! once again, the previous problems exist with that, since every match you would have 2 wins for ever 4 losses. oh well. i also agree that scouting needs to be more thourough next year to insure that the good teams with bad luck still get picked.
till later
Ben
TEAM 281

Carter
04-26-2005, 02:44 PM
hey everyone!
i just wanted the opinions out there whether the increase in robots on the field increases the luck involved and if so is it worth it to help move through more matches quicker? i know there were lots of good teams that got lower seeds than expected because of this. let me hear what you guys think!
Ben
TEAM 281

i dont like the 3v3 this year because it puts to much of the game in luck. it was okay at the regionals bc there were only one or to really good good bots(not trying to bring down the other bots. but you can tell the difference in the really good and okay.) my team could over come all the other bots at the regionals. we seed #1 at both regionals we went to and won then at nationals we were 43 seed .but when you have to two bots that are on your alliance and they cant do anything and then you are play against 3 okay bots its not fair to the one bot. the teams work really hard and we do so good at regionals and then we cant over come the luck at nationals and it hard on us because we do work so hard those 6 weeks to make the bot good. my team wasnt the only team like that. others are 79,1251,179,71,61 and im sure i missed some but i hope i got the point out.

Carter
04-26-2005, 02:51 PM
I really think 3 on 3 is a bad idea. I loved it at the beginning of the season and I really liked the element of strategy that it added, but I have since noticed a few things that is has impacted negatively. There were huge lapses in scouting at nationals. I think this had a lot to do with 3 on 3 since it is nearly impossible to keep track of a match with 6 robots in it. You need 6 people watching each match and even then it is difficult to get a perspective on the whole match. Also it is more difficult for an individual well performing team to overcome an unlucky alliance pairing. It wouldn't be so devastating to be seeded lower due to alliance partner mishaps if you could trust that the top seeded teams had watched your performance and would pick you.


not to keep the neg talk going but you make another good point. that most teams dont have the people to scout that many bots and scout newton ,curie and so on. my team did it all this year but it was hard on all of us and my team has 75 people on it.

Not2B
04-26-2005, 04:44 PM
3 vs 3 = good

-More rounds
-More teams
-You get field time with almost everyone
-Broken robots result in 2 vs 3, which isn't the end of the world
-Scouting is different, not harder. (You need to be more creative, and data driven - at least it worked for us.)
-More exciting, IMHO, than 2x2 (but that's not a good reason for or against)

3vs3, 2vs2vs2, or 2vs3 would all be fun.

(2 vs 3... with an uneven field... and you get equal number of matches on 2 as you get on 3. That would be wild.)

Mike33
04-26-2005, 05:29 PM
3v3 was good. not as much traffic as i thought because most teams learned to stay in the home side of the field until they had to go make a 'blitz' play and take the opposing home row goal. you did need more scouters because there were more bots on the field. the unussuall two or three didnt work that well when collecting the data. compiling data was fine. and believe it or not, the human player still was valuable even if the team didnt use the manual loader. think about it, if the human wasn't there, the bot wouldnt go. if the driver wasnt there, the bot wouldnt go, and if the operator wasnt there, the bot couldnt score. so believe it or not, the role of each job was evenly split.

p.s. Thanks to all you human players for making our robots go.

Doug G
04-26-2005, 06:53 PM
i dont like the 3v3 this year because it puts to much of the game in luck. it was okay at the regionals bc there were only one or to really good good bots(not trying to bring down the other bots. but you can tell the difference in the really good and okay.) my team could over come all the other bots at the regionals. we seed #1 at both regionals we went to and won then at nationals we were 43 seed .but when you have to two bots that are on your alliance and they cant do anything and then you are play against 3 okay bots its not fair to the one bot. the teams work really hard and we do so good at regionals and then we cant over come the luck at nationals and it hard on us because we do work so hard those 6 weeks to make the bot good. my team wasnt the only team like that. others are 79,1251,179,71,61 and im sure i missed some but i hope i got the point out.

Point well made. But I think 3v3 works just fine, but there needs to be less teams at nationals (i don't like saying that). As Joe J stated, have more matches would alleviate your situation. 7 matches is just not quite enough, 8-10 would be better. That would also alleviate the scouting problem for some of us small teams that have only 3-5 students scouting. Less teams seems to alleviate a lot of problems, but may raise the fees unfortunately.

Ali Ahmed
04-26-2005, 07:10 PM
I think the 3 on 3 in fine and a very good thing for FIRST. FIRST is becoming very huge and the 3 on 3 allows more matches per team. For example, if this years game were to have 2 on 2 then we would have had something like 4-5 matches total. I don't know about anybody else but thats kind of boring. It is also for the rookie teams that are not able to go to the Championship. It allows them to have more machetes and therefore more fun or a better chance at winning and going to the Champs. And, like other people said, it makes for more interesting strategies and scouting.

Jim Meyer
04-26-2005, 07:24 PM
I think this question might be rephrased to "which is more important: striving toward field dominating performance, or gracious professionalism?"

I don't think that gradious professionalism and "dominating performance" are at odds with each other in FIRST. If we want FIRST robotics to be more of a sport than a science fair I think competition is a key element. If FIRST wants to gain mainstream appleal good robots should seed at the top. Poor ones should be at the bottom.

Like Dr. Joe mentioned, the randomness isn't any worse than previous years if the numper of matches played goes up appropriately. I think this was the problem at Nationals. Didn't we play 8 matches last year? I was expecting 10 or more this year. :confused:

I think this year was better than last on a whole. The Regionals did play more matches to help with the randomness issues. I loved the fact that all the robots played all the time in the finals. It worked well with this year's game but could be pure chaos with a different type of game. I might be a little biased though. :)

Amanda N.
04-26-2005, 07:59 PM
I agree with what a lot of people have been saying in here so far.. I definitely was glad to have more matches (my team usually only gets to go to one competition, so it's nice to have as many matches as possible there). I think the games are more interesting/exciting (but harder to keep track of) with 6 robotics out there. It's nice to get to work with more teams, too.

I think it would be wierd to go back to 2 vs 2 next year.. I got used to having 2 other teams in the driver station, and maybe this is just me, but I think it would seem more simple/small/boring (well, a robotics comp. could never be boring.. I just can't think of the right word for what I'm trying to say right now though) with just 2 teams per alliance again.

Masterfork
04-26-2005, 08:38 PM
With FIRST growing so fast 3 vs 3 games are needed and they will most likely been seen for years to come, they would have to decrease the amount of matches played or add a day to competitions or make the day longer, FIRST is just growing so much.

I like the 3 vs 3 games because new methods of strategies are uncovered and there is more action on the field.
well its not too bad but there is way too much luck involved but it could be fixed by having more matches which would lower the chance of a bad team up on top who really doesn't deserve it

Squeje250
04-26-2005, 09:34 PM
Yea. truthfully i think it may have been better. knowing that if one of your teamates where disabled, or just isnt doin anything you have another to help you out, and its not just all you. althought they also have more help. i think both ways are fine.

ben281
04-26-2005, 09:41 PM
hey everyone,
does anyone actually know how many games were played per team at nats last year? i seem to remember 6 or 7 but someone said 5. do you think that first needs to run the matches later in the day to fit more in? Unfortunately 1 more game per team equals another 15 matches for a division of 85 teams. At least everyone seems to agree that we need more matches no matter how many teams per side there are. tell me what you think! : )
Ben
TEAM 281

the_short1
04-27-2005, 12:59 PM
i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

George A.
04-27-2005, 01:26 PM
i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.

Billfred
04-27-2005, 01:32 PM
i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

One problem, though...how do you track that?

This year on Curie, I did real-time scorekeeping. There was a shortage of RTS folks across the entire dome, so we resorted to creative means (read: recruiting a few media guys from Heatwave) to get the absolute minimum on our field. (Granted, RTS this year should have been a three-person job--but that's another story. Don't worry, I already suggested it to FIRST.)

Just from how recruiting volunteers can be at times (there was a white board each morning in the volunteer area with open positions), I really don't think FIRST has the ability to track the scores and the robots at the same time. Of course, you could always create such a system with your team and publish the information somehow.

Masterfork
04-27-2005, 06:34 PM
That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.
eyeah that is a real problem when your a good bot and you end up in like last cause of your alliances no chance at 1st,2nd, or any picking seed

pyroslev
04-28-2005, 12:39 PM
Evolution of the competition.

Three robots mean:

1. that teams can have a better shot at having their weaknesses covered
2. Scouting is more important to all
3. Everyone can play more
4. More fun period

Jim Kosaski
04-28-2005, 01:03 PM
I enjoyed the 3 vs. 3 challenge this year. What will probably happen though, it will depend on what kind of a challenge First keeps coming out with each year. But, as others have said before, if the number of teams keeps growing, then you will keep seeing the field and the number of alliance partners on at one time, increasing.

EOC
04-28-2005, 01:15 PM
I thought the 3v3 was great, lots of strategy, lots of action, lots of matches.

ben281
04-28-2005, 01:50 PM
"1. that teams can have a better shot at having their weaknesses covered
2. Scouting is more important to all
3. Everyone can play more
4. More fun period"

can't number one be seen the other way? like i mean having more partners is a better chance at obtaining more weaknesses? It seems to me that if you are the best of the best, say capping 6-7 a match then the chances are pretty good that your partners are not going to be able to do that. so it would be better to have one partner than two. because more just brings your average down. i see this as a real challenge for the upper rated teams. sorry guys-the statistics just aren't on your side this year : (
Ben
TEAM 281

bhweezer
04-28-2005, 02:58 PM
I would like a 2v2v2 game more than another 3v3 game next year. We had a lot of bad luck this year where one or two of our alliance partners would get stuck or break, leaving us 2 on 3 and sometimes even 1 on 3. In a 2v2 game you have more of a chance to win a match alone than you would in a 3v3 game.

ben281
04-30-2005, 12:28 AM
how would a 2v2v2 work? i don't think they could so a win-loss record any more. it would have to be done with a point system (maybe something like sports?) like 2 points for being the highest scoring alliance and 1 point for being the second highest? ....mm....haha that might not be that bad of an idea ; ) ttyl
Ben
TEAM 281

Meyerman
04-30-2005, 02:36 AM
i think the 3 on 3 did mess with how teams were ranked and it was easier to get ranked good depending on yer matches just like any year but as far as the game goes im ready for 4 on 4!!!!!!! i thought the 2 extra robots made it more interesting and besides the selections having some not soo good teams up top at times because of it, i loved it.

Jverdon
04-30-2005, 01:26 PM
With the way that the field and game was set up for this year 3 robots on the field was awesome. I would think that to just have two on two for this game would have been a bit boring. I think that the number of robots on the field from now on will all determine on the game and the field. FIRST did an awesome job with every thing this year. I was really impressed!

EricH
04-30-2005, 01:45 PM
I would like a 2v2v2 game more than another 3v3 game next year.

In the very old days, it used to be 1v1v1. I don't know how they did the rankings (I was too young to be on a team that year), but I bet someone on the forum knows. Do you really want 3 alliances? I think the reason FIRST only does two is, it's less confusing for everyone. I believe that when they started doing 2v2 they said something to the effect of "Three teams is too confusing, so we will have four teams...on two alliances." (Please don't quote me on that, as it is a paraphrase more likely than not.) In effect, there are two "teams" on the field, assuming you work as a team. (If you aren't working as a team, you are working as individuals and you will get creamed. "United we stand...") I highly doubt that FIRST will return to three teams/alliances working against each other for quite a while.

NeedMoreEngines
04-30-2005, 02:10 PM
Yeah i thought that 3 teams was too much. sometimes it was beneficial but sometimes it was too hectic on the field.
I think that next year if they're going to have 3 teams, they should
1. make matches longer
2. make the field larger
3.if possible, have more than one field at a competition

Masterfork
05-03-2005, 09:08 PM
Yeah i thought that 3 teams was too much. sometimes it was beneficial but sometimes it was too hectic on the field.
I think that next year if they're going to have 3 teams, they should
1. make matches longer
2. make the field larger
3.if possible, have more than one field at a competition
YEP THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT I WAS THINKING

there is just to much of a chance of have bad teams on top becuase they are riding on good teams back

Shu Song
05-03-2005, 10:46 PM
The one thing that I disliked about 3v3 is that whatever the rankings turned out to be, they deviate more from what it should be than it would if it were just 2v2. There are teams in the top 8 at regionals where I've been to that really shouldn't have been there, while others that should have but weren't.

M.O.R.T suggested that in ranking, every team should be ranked based on their OWN stats, not combined stats. I think that one way to start is to do that is if a penalty were to change the outcome of a match, only the team that committed the penalty would record the loss. That way you don't end a great match where you just barely beat a rival team, only to lose because a partner made a penalty.

But other than that, I like the 3v3 system, especially in elims. Not having to sub out teams means noever worrying about who's better for the match, and trying to guess which robots your opponents will send against you.

Plus the amount of strategy that goes into a 3v3 game is tremendous. Being a coach myself, I love it. We even have a laminated copy of the field so we can use dry erase markers to draw strategies on it.

Bottom line: 3v3 is great, if there were some way to make rankings better reflect robots as they are, 3v3 would be even better.

Joe J.
05-04-2005, 10:04 AM
I personally liked the 3v3 it helped the events move quicker and allowed teams more matches. With the size and lay out of this years field 3v3 was great, but with past fields platforms, and ramps it would have been too crowed. Also from the game stand point 3v3 made it more more exciting 2v2 would have been a little boring, and the score would have been lower. I also like that the three teams on the tournament alliances could all be playing at once and not have one team sitting out. Also it gave the drive teams more options on the field as a result there was a lot more interesting game play.

Carter
05-04-2005, 10:25 AM
That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.


its doesnt matter how good your scouting is if you are ranked 43 like we were. the top seeded teams still get to pick and then you split up all the good team from picking each other.And by that happening the division best robots dont really come out of it.

Carter
05-04-2005, 11:35 AM
its doesnt matter how good your scouting is if you are ranked 43 like we were. the top seeded teams still get to pick and then you split up all the good team from picking each other.And by that happening the division best robots dont really come out of it.


oh i was talking with some of my team and were thinking that maybe FIRST would change the way the Alliance picking went and some how take out the luck of it. i just think that sometimes the best bots dont come out of the divisons.

Mark McLeod
05-04-2005, 01:57 PM
does anyone actually know how many games were played per team at nats last year?
2004 had:

73 teams per division
7 matches per team

Masterfork
05-04-2005, 05:10 PM
oh i was talking with some of my team and were thinking that maybe FIRST would change the way the Alliance picking went and some how take out the luck of it. i just think that sometimes the best bots dont come out of the divisons.
thank you, that is the best way to explain it.

Kit Gerhart
05-15-2005, 06:24 PM
hey guys,
This is the first forum that i have seen anyone throwing out the idea of 2v2v2. haha that could get really cool! once again, the previous problems exist with that, since every match you would have 2 wins for ever 4 losses. oh well. i also agree that scouting needs to be more thourough next year to insure that the good teams with bad luck still get picked.
till later
Ben
TEAM 281
Before '99, the format was 1v1v1 double elimination until the quarter finals, at which time the tournament became 1v1. With the 1v1v1 format, there were definitely cases where a strong robot, real or perceived, was "ganged up on" by the other two. Also, it that format, there were two losers/match in the pre-quarter final part of the tournament, so about a third of the teams only played two "real" matches in an event.