Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Instead of eliminations being played as 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5

It would be 1v5, 2v6, 3v7, 4v8

So that 8 doesn't get completely dominated by 1.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

It would be really cool to have more than two alliances one the field. Instead of simply having 1-on-1 play, my idea is:

Six robots on the field.
Robot 1 & Robot 2 = Alliance A
Robot 3 & Robot 4 = Alliance B
Robot 5 & Robot 6 = Alliance C

All three alliances would be on the same field at the same time. :]

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Well, since I've heard plenty of stories about ganging up on the top team in a 1v1v1 game, suppose that we go to 2v2v2 with a twist.

Matches become three minutes in length, plus whatever autonomous tomfoolery you'd like to add. Once driver control begins, one alliance is disabled for the first minute of the match, and the other two slug it out. Then another alliance is disabled for one minute, and the first alliance is enabled. Then, at the two-minute mark, the third alliance is disabled and the second alliance comes back in.

Assuming that there is no descoring in the game, it becomes very hard for the two weaker alliances to gang up on the stronger one; you're either facing them head-on or facing the other weaker alliance, depending on the phase of the game. It also increases the strategy element, especially if you aren't sure beforehand when you will be disabled. If you were to find out out after autonomous, you then have to adjust your plans on the fly; get the first disable, and your human player might have more time to load you up. Get the last disable, and you're not only going to have to go and hang from that bar a little earlier, you'll also have to figure the best position to stay on the bar.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I was thinking about the random alinace choosing and here iare latest Ideas.

First Pick-#1
Second-Seventh-Random
Last Pick-#8

Second Round Picking goes based on combined record both teams 1-8

It makes sure the best team still gets the first pick. But other teams get a chance at having high pick

Other Idea

Captains 1-7 Pick then the second round again 1-7 then a random aliance of however many robots is picked, Highest seeded team not picked is automaticly the captain.

This creates a true underdog aliance, and gets more teams involved.

Last Idea

Pre-set aliances

Every team has same aliance during the whole competition. You pick your aliance before you attend and you and your group battle through together. It creates the ultimate teamwork and Co-Opertition form because you know who and how your partners will play. Scouting is much easier because you can scout a whole aliance instead of individual teams.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

How about this.
Instead of only the top 8 alliances getting to play in the playoffs, everyone gets to play.
You are seeded by your rank at the end of qualification matches.
The top 8 teams select based upon the same way as Mr. Bill Moore said.
So that right there takes out 24 teams out of the pickings.

Now the next top 8 seeds (if there are atleast 24 teams left) that haven't been picked yet, get to choose teams that are left over in the same fashion, and so on and so forth till all the teams get picked.
The number of alliance captains in each of the sets of the pickings depends on the number of teams left to pick. Does that makes sense? Kinda confusing.

I relaly would like to see 4 teams alliances like JHerbie53 said. Kinda like the pre 6 bots on the field era. Like where we had 3 teams per alliance, but only 2 played on the field at once, except we would have 4 team alliance where 3 played on the field.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

This would definitely allow the best teams shine. I also like the idea of adding a fourth team to the alliance to give teams more flexibility with their strategy to hopefully make for more competitive matches.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Perhaps, if we add in a "weenie period", we could add in a full contact-no dynamic scoring period. For example, take Stack Attack. The weenie period could be in the beginning of the game, but at the last, say, 30 seconds of the game, you would have a perfect opportunity to fight for the ramp. It would certainly make the last minute ramp/bar battles more exciting, but at the cost of an exciting last minute score. Spectators love violence...

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

5 minute periods - teams would be forced to manage their power and would give more total field time with less traveling between. Maybe include a 1 minute halftime period to make adjustments (no battery change), change partners - during the second half you are partnered with the other alliances bots so you make a new parternership.
Autonomous selection of alliance partners - robots can be programmed to activate another machine to be on their alliance and vice versa - with default selections. this could be done with light colors or shapes or "playing tag"
Weird yes but I like weird

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

This is just a radical idea coming from my mind.

I think that the Top 8 should not be able to pick in the 8. It would make the competition fairer and enjoyable to watch.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I'd be concerned about matches taking way too long. While it would be interesting, you'd have to make the tournament last all week in order to give everyone enough matches


A play on this that one of my teammates mentioned after the changing light thing at champs: Switching alliance partners with 2v2v2. You play the 1st period with team A verus B and C versus D and E. Second period (no breaks in between), the first parnter (You, B and D) all rotate so that it's You and C verssus B and E versus A and D. one more period (and rotation) makes the cycle complete. There are flaws, i know (You, B and D never play together), but it would be interesting to try to play.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

This idea would only work for the larger regionals (like VCU and GTR) or the Championship. The top sixteen teams each pick a partner who is NOT a top sixteen member. (picks going in order 1-16) Then a 2v2 version of the game is played bewteen alliances in a 1vs16, 2vs15, 3vs14, etc. pattern. One match is played and the winner gets to pick a team from the losers alliance to join them as a full three member alliance. Then the winners play a normal elimination ladder, where the teams are ordered by the lead teams seed. For example, #4 seed Team 13 picks Team 1121 and #13 seed Team 1517 picks Team 37. #13 beats #4 and chooses to take team 1121. The #13 alliances then is 1517, 37, 1121. Lets say 1, 2, 3, 13, 11, 10, 6, 8 alliances win. Eliminations are then played as 1 vs 13, 2 vs 11, 3 vs 10, and 6 vs 8. From there on it follows the current format.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

One thing that I would really like to see officially sanctioned in the manual are some rules for when events are ginormous (like GTR or some of the other larger regionals) or really tiny (read: under 24 teams). I know that GTR had twelve alliances (and thus a few eighth-final rounds), so it's not unheard of.

Another thing I'd like to see return is that of the clock-stopper, like in 2001, perhaps with the final score of an alliance divided by the number of robot-seconds used. Lots of the stuff getting crammed into the heads of USC business majors has to do with measurements per machine-hour, labor hours, units produced, et cetera. I can only assume that they're teaching us stuff similar to that found in the Real World. (You could extend this further by penalizing teams who waste their raw materials, like their tetras from 2005, but we'll save that for another time.)

Finally, one that might be interesting to see is a game that involves something like (American) football-style plays, with a bit of starting and stopping over the match. Suppose, for example, that when a robot on an offensive robot makes contact with the side barriers, play stops and both sides assemble again on a line of scrimmage near the site of contact and play resumes.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

Three upper goals, using the shifting lights, to change which one you need to hit for max points. Talk about programming having more fun and more impact :D

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

I'd like to see the human player engaged more in physical competition. I know that FIRST isn't a physical competition, but too often, the human player gets stuck in a secondary role, where they do little, let alone affect the outcome of the match. 2004 and 2006 were exceptions.

An engaging game would include something like an obstacle course, or button reaction and subsequent action, where the first human player or alliance to complete the task, or to continue completing the task gets a multiplier, or a more lucrative scoring opportunity. Spectators like to see physical involvement, because it shows human side of the competition a bit better. If we want FIRST to act more like sports- we need to include sport.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
 

GTR actually had 16 alliances. We played like a regional on each field (8 alliances) and then the winners from each field met for the finals.