3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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. :)

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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
  

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

I think 3 on 3 is fine, more Regional Champions :D. Also, it is more exciting to watch with 3 on 3.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

Haha okay... so I loose. But I still think that 3 is too many. T_T.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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.

Re: 3 Teams Per Side Too Many?
 

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