|
my thoughts on 3v1
I sure hope it isn't 3v1 because I don't think it's fair. No matter how the game is designed, if the scoring rules or the rules for victory are not the same for everyone, the game is not even. In a 3v1 game, the scoring can't be the same for the 3 team alliance as it is for the 1 team alliance. Since the objective isn't the same for both alliances, I argue that one alliance will have an inherent advantage based on the game design.
The only way to make a 3v1 game fair is to have each round in the elims be 4 matches, each team gets one shot at being the lone team. But that still leaves the problem of making the qualification matches fair; FIRST would have to guarantee that each team gets X matches as the lone team and Y matches as a part of the 3 team alliance (where Y=3X).
If FIRST designed the game that way, I'd be ok with it. I still prefer a AvA or BvBvB style game where the objectives are the same for each alliance, but I won't pass judgement on the game until I think through it a bit.
Mike
|