Well, I won't say there haven't been matches where our partners have saved us (111 at GLR comes to mind), but the overwhelming majority of the time, it seems our partners manage to let us down. I will say, though, when we do get a good partner, we really do appreciate it. We end up praising them all weekend for what they've done for us. So it evens out for us... help us and we love you, hurt us and we curse you.

In regards to 1vs1vs1vs1 I don't think the precedent would be standard in the given situation. Think about it you have lets say two teams that go out and try and dominate against a higher ranked team that leaves one team to do whatever it pleases and in the right situation it could be determental pending on the game to leave that robot roaming about free. Also in the free for all type you could have the game turn into a degenerate 2vs2 mercenary type were two teams that are high up in the rankings enlist the services of another robot in the match and square off on each other. This game could be a disaster however (not to take anything away from the current or former champions) but it would put more of a meaning on a true champion.

As I've previously asserted in my other posts in this thread, and just so the entire world is clear about how I feel, being a Champion is, in my eyes, completely meaningless.

There exist few circumstances where, if a single team were ignored for the entirety of a match, it would be "detrimental." If you imagine that teams were to gang up against the highest seeded team in any match, it stands to reason that the three lower ranking teams would find it advantageous to take them out of the equation. If one of the three teams is ranked within distance of that top tier team such that they have a chance at overcoming them in the standings, there's still more incentive to single that high-seed out.

Any way you try to slice it, the high-seed teams will draw attention from all three teams. A team that ignores the other three may have the potential to achieve a high score, but the end result is still that the high-seed teams will be at the brunt of the attacks.

Whether a competitive team goes solo and scores a lot of points because they're unbothered or they go after the top-seed team in a 3- or 2 vs. 1 matchup, the end result will still be that they move up in the seedings.

If a low-seeded team is left to go solo and scores a high amount of points, their rank may increase, but that change would be insignificant in the overall standings. A move from 10 to 8 is considerably more meaningful than a move from 40 to 30, or even 20. As this low-seeded team climbs to the top, they themselves will become a target.

A system of alliance partners ensures that the welfare and performance of all competing teams is a concern for everyone. It discourages outright decimation in a competition that encourages friendship and positive relationships.

1 vs. 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 would be finding a new way to repeat the last two seasons, where overpowering a team with force was a better way to win than outsmarting them with design. How can you ever have a true Champion when three lesser robots always team up to take the best of the best down? If anything, it seems to me like such a system would immediately eliminate the true leaders, with a winner emerging from somewhere in the middle. ...just as precedent suggests.

How about a 2v2 where instead of being matched up with your alliance before the match it happens during the match. So you have a little control over who you are matched up with but another team could match you up with someone else. I don't know exactly know how this could be done but it would give another objective to the competition.

So then what would keep three teams from ganging up on one team? and what if one team suddenly decides that they dont like who theyre currently with and tries to help out the other side. Far too complex and confusing in my mind.

Cory

Is there ever anything too complex for FIRST to come up with? Well maybe but I think this could work. It might be as easy as there being four balls out there each a different color. Then there are also two goals that hold only one ball. The two balls in there at the end of the match count as an alliance and the the two teams that did not have a ball scored count as an alliance. If none are scored then there would be a form of tie breakers like the two closest balls. This is just one way of doing it. I am sure there is a better way of doing it so you don't have to be able to manipulate something. This would also be cool because then part way through the match your alliance could change.

This sort of goes along with Dean's idea of the alliances being like businesses where you don't want to destroy the competition because you might be working with them later.

This came up at the FIRST forum in manchester... and I could almost make it a direct quote from the person running it that "we will never go back to 1v1v1v1"

She mentioned the specific example given earlier that the three other teams would illegally collude and gang up against the one "better robot," because of this: 2v2 is here to stay


ByE

erin

Sorry Shyra771
 

It was the first time ever that we had flipped. Like your drivers told us before your team was bad luck. But don't worry, with a great team like yours, your luck will change. I hope next time we pair together we'll do better. It really sucked spending a whole match on our back, especially when we were sooo close to getting first seed. Oh well. Next year game is only seven months away, and we will be way more prepared. To bad they lose a great HP like myself.

Oh yeah, I kind of like the 2 v 2 style though, anything more would be a crowd. And what's the fun in 1v1v1v1, or 1v1. I guess I like alliances of 3 where the game is 2 v 2, and the alliance has to decide which two will compete. It could be unfair (if you were bad and paired which 2 good robots everytime you would be rated well. But what are those odds?) but it would eliminate 1 v 2 matches.

Re: Re: 3 vs. 3 games
 

I would think that with smaller regionals, the number of matches could be spread out a bit so that teams still play 10 or 11 matches. In Phoenix, where there were 37 teams, we played 11 matches, and it was great. (Congratulations to the Arizona Regional planners on making the first Arizona regional such a big success.) In Los Angeles where were there about 64 teams and Houston where there were about 73 teams in our division, we had 7 matches, and speaking personally, that just didn't seem like enough matches (although we sure walked far enough in Houston.)

3 on 3 could give us more matches, but in places like Sacramento, where they played an amazing 14, they would have to slow things down.

All right. I admit it. I want more matches in LA and Houston. Otherwise, we might have to go to Sacramento and Seattle next year instead.