Quote:
Originally posted by Todd Derbyshire
I have a question out there how many people would be opposed to changing the playing style of 2 bots vs. 2 bots to 1vs1vs1vs1. And than in the Elimination rounds you would have 2vs2. It seems now a days with alliances that while we are playing 2 vs. 2 in reality it really is 1on 1 with your alliance partner playing like a mini game with the other alliance's other bot. And how many times has your team gotten moved down in the ranks due to a poor alliance or maybe even dare I say it "collusion." So I throw this idea out to you so FIRST may benefit from this or you can call me crazy.
|
In many ways, it would be nice to have a team's score be based on its performance, so that you are not penalized if your partner has a problem. However I agree that 1vs1vs1vs1 would lead to teams ganging up on other teams, which would be unfair and cause hard feeling. Also, the communication between teams on an alliance is a positive aspect of the competitions.
So while I understand what you are trying to achieve: a team having control of its own fate, I don't think 1vs1vs1vs1 is the answer.
How about each team builds 2 robots and you have 2 vs 2 matches? Let's see. To answer my own question, that would do away with the inter-team communication aspect, and it would be too expensive for new teams. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)