[Billfred]

Personally, I disagree that 3v3 is bad for competition.

Originally Posted by Petey

Now, look at the three partner alliance. This means that

1) Three teams will be awarded the same number of QP's, not 2, which means that there will be more teams with the same QP's than there were last year

In a very short tournament, this is an issue. Consider Robot Rodeo--they played four matches per team, so there wasn't much of a chance to score QPs. Thus RPs became important.

However, in a FIRST-sized tourney, you're dealing with seven, eight matches. There ought to be time for the spread to grow...but if you're worried, just get more RPs.

2) More teams will have the same Ranking points, for the same reasons.

True, but remember--you will play six or eight matches. There will be time for teams' scores to go up or down, especially since every match will be different.

3) Threee teams means that it is more unlikely that a good robot can carry an alliance. If one stellar robot is, by draw, paired with two less-than-stellar robots, that alliance will probably lose.

Agreed. And that's the way it should be--the alliance with the better robots (and people controlling them) should win.

This is unfair.

This is what led me to reply. To begin with, what makes a game challenge unfair? The challenge has been presented, you build a robot and strategy to deal with the stipulations of the game. On the other hand, Dean has repeatedly said that FIRST isn't necessarily fair. Life isn't either, so write it up as good preparation.

This is unfair because it is disingenuous to the very spirit of competition--any competition--to have hard work, ingenuity, and talent rewarded with loss.

Alright, I'll warn the rookies now...

YOU WILL NOT WIN EVERYTHING IN FIRST.

Take 1293 last year. We had all three of those things, and we went 3-4-1. We weren't picked for the elimination matches. On the field, we lost. But I know that 99.9999% of our team enjoyed the experience. So much so, in fact, that we're back. So, I ask you...is that winning or losing?

It is, as AnonymousMan said, a microcosm of the same reasons Communism failed, although on a vastly less melodramatic scale. I simply draw parallels.

I'd love to see how you can compare switching to 3v3 to Communism.

I predict that, at comp, you're going to have a bunch of dissatisfied teams with good robots and good strategies who are being held back by their alliance partners, and a lot of mediocre teams being vaulted to a position of prominence and winning that they do not deserve.

I am willing to bet that the mediocre teams will not advance too far. Will a great robot with relatively lousy partners not seed high? Probably so. However, teams know talent when they see it. The good robots will be picked.