Re: Who thinks fixed alliances would be interesting?
 

Right but its a very real world application. Right now I am working on a project between 4 or 5 different companies, each bringing in their particular expertise working to build a product. Yes it doesn't always go smoothly but in technology based companies this is a very real experience.

I think having alliances through the build season would emphasize this more, I just don't know how it would be done throughout the build. That being said, it could be mandatory that each team on an alliance be the expert on each part, so you could have the drivetrain expert, the manipulator expert, and the minibot expert. Also making veteran teams wait on a minibot from rookie teams, is a very real experience. I can;t tell you how often I'm waiting for designs from a design firm, keeping me from getting started on anything.

I think if it was done through build, it would create an amazing real world experience, because in the real world many project span several companies. Trusting someone to deliver for you would also emphasize earlier deadlines, and the system would get around the COTS framework.

Again, its just an idea, i just think it would produce a totally different type of game.

Re: Who thinks fixed alliances would be interesting?
 

Another potential problem is that (excepting powerhouse teams) teams have enormously varying performance levels from year to year. It would be very difficult to group teams so that you had an even grouping based only on their past performance. For most teams, having an 80th percentile OPR or winning 90% of their matches last year means pretty much nothing about their performance this year. Maybe all their students graduated. Maybe they gained/lost a really good sponsor or mentor. Maybe they just didn't think of a good design this year. All those factors mean it'd be really difficult to group teams so that you had a good competition and not just a one-sided massacre.

However, that problem would be solved by running it as an off-season event. Assuming that teams didn't massively improve their robots after championships, you could probably use their best OPR or best Win% to group teams together.

Re: Who thinks fixed alliances would be interesting?
 

I actually like this idea as an off season experiment. The major uncertainty here is not robot improvement but regression due to a driver change. This is probably not as big of an impact as on the lower tier, so here is my suggestion:


-Hold an off season competition, cap the registration at a multiple of 6 teams
-Have a selection committee identify the lower third tier of robots, using stats and elimination draft postion.
-That lower third is notified a week before the competition that they are alliance captain than they need to make a pick list. Scouting data is shared with them.
-First thing we hold a draft where those team pick their 2 partners is serpentine fashion. No inter picking, no declines.
-One Practice round per alliance.
-Round robin play between alliances to determine seeding. Depending on the size of the bracket & number of alliances, you could eliminate the lower seeds from the elim bracket. Although, instead of excluding the lower seed alliances I prefer single elim play in games for the lower seed to get into the bracket.
-Play the elim bracket out as best of 3 series (outside of play in games), and crown a champion.

I like off season experiments they are interesting beyond the same old game. It requires more work as an organizer, but it may be more fun. I also like the role reversal with those teams the didn't make elims as an alliance captain with a week to make a pick list. It would be interesting.

Re: Who thinks fixed alliances would be interesting?
 

I think that would be pretty awesome, and a good experiment. Maybe we can convince some of the offseasons in the northeast to take up this idea, so I can see it first hand.

I like your idea of putting the lower third in the captains position to pick their teams, this would help keep the alliances balanced (no dominating powerhouses) and could be very good for those teams to work with the 'better' (I use the term very loosely) teams for their personal growth.

Matt