View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-01-2005, 23:01
Mike Schroeder's Avatar
Mike Schroeder Mike Schroeder is offline
Gone the way of the dinosaur
AKA: "Big Mike"
no team
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: North Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 1,872
Mike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Mike Schroeder Send a message via Yahoo to Mike Schroeder
Re: Assuming a 3 vs 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Let's take a look at some history. Back in the day, when we had the 1 vs 1 vs 1 game format, it was noticed that a regular pattern of the game was to have two teams work together and gang up on the strongest team, take them out, and then leave the two weaker teams to fight for the finish. After two years of this, Woodie Flowers stood up at the kick off and announced "We know that you are unofficially working together to play the game, but without carefully thinking how to make the best of your partnerships. So we figured that if you were going to work together, then we would make it a requirement!" Thus, "alliances" were born and they have been a part of every game since then. In other words, they took a weakness of the game structure and made it into a strength.

So now let's consider the 2 vs 2 vs 2 possibility. Bill and others are probably correct when they posit that with such an alliance structure we would see a repeat of the earlier behavior. The weaker two alliances would probaly gang up on the stronger alliance, take them out, and reduce the game to a 2 vs 2 format through to the finish. But is there a way to make this weakness in the structure into a strength? Actually, it is simple - if you just broaden your imagination and consider what might happen if the alliance structures are not symetrical.

If we know that the two weaker alliances will gang up and create an unfair 4 (2 + 2) robots vs 2 robots situation, then there is one very easy way to restore balance. Imagine what it might be like if the match were designed to have two (weaker) alliances of two robots each, and a third alliance of 3 stronger robots. A 2 vs 2 vs 3 structure could make things very interesting! The team scouts and strategists would have a field day with this one.

But, nah, that is way too complicated. FIRST would never do that to us...

-dave

Way to freak people out dave, here is the problem, what is a strong team?
who/how do we decide it, from the past, well looking at some teams the past does not show the future, and what about rookies, its amazing to see what they can/ have never done before

(of course even though its less than a week until kickoff, dave can still change the rules to make bearhugging me in automode a bonus)
__________________
GOT SEARCH?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"-JFK
Reply With Quote