4 Team Alliances

[rick.oliver]

I wonder, for the Championship Event only, if F.I.R.S.T. would consider dropping the "Stand By" process and replacing it with a Four-Team Alliance process based on the Three-Team Alliance process used in 2004 (when there were only two robots per Alliance on the floor per match) ?

Seems like it would be an opportunity to involve more teams in the Elimination Rounds and create some interesting strategy options in this year's game.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

I wonder, for the Championship Event only...

...and create some interesting strategy options in this year's game.

FIRST will not change an underlying tournament rule that would change how the game is played. That would be like saying just for championships only 2 teams per alliance. Also there is plenty of strategy with the current game and system.

[Fred Sayre]

Originally Posted by Ricksta121

FIRST will not change an underlying tournament rule that would change how the game is played. That would be like saying just for championships only 2 teams per alliance. Also there is plenty of strategy with the current game and system.

I think what he is saying is instead of having 3 people on the finals alliance, have 4 but each round you have to pick 3 robots to play. The example was from when there was 2 playing each match, but there was 3 teams on an alliance.

I think it is an interesting option strategy wise, but I think there is some value in letting teams play each and every match in the finals if they make it that far.

[EricH]

I don't see it happening this year. Certainly not at the regional level (some regionals are just too small), and likely not at Atlanta. I would submit it to the radical tournament ideas thread when it opens after Atlanta.

On a side note, would anyone like to try this at a large offseason event? Offseason events are great places to tweak tournament rules to see if they can be improved. (Or to just play differently--the Fall Classic 2006 comes to mind, when there were only two robots per alliance and no backbot rules in place.)

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't see it happening this year. Certainly not at the regional level (some regionals are just too small), and likely not at Atlanta. I would submit it to the radical tournament ideas thread when it opens after Atlanta.

On a side note, would anyone like to try this at a large offseason event? Offseason events are great places to tweak tournament rules to see if they can be improved. (Or to just play differently--the Fall Classic 2006 comes to mind, when there were only two robots per alliance and no backbot rules in place.)

I know they have done it at Ramp Riot, however the 4th team did not have to be used.

[Jeff Waegelin]

FIRST has changed rules like this at Nationals in the past - something just like this happened in 1999, I believe. That's when the third team was added to the alliances of two. That being said, after 2 years without an additional team on each alliance, I would imagine that FIRST has decided that it's better this way. I wouldn't expect such a change.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

FIRST has changed rules like this at Nationals in the past - something just like this happened in 1999, I believe. That's when the third team was added to the alliances of two.

Wasn't that change was made at the beginning of the season, not at the Nationals? I seem to recall an alliance of 111, 128 and 188 at GLR that year.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Wasn't that change was made at the beginning of the season, not at the Nationals? I seem to recall an alliance of 111, 128 and 188 at GLR that year.

The change was made mid-season. It was announced at GLR on the Friday of the event.

The alliance was 111, 123 & 188.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by fsayre

I think what he is saying is instead of having 3 people on the finals alliance, have 4 but each round you have to pick 3 robots to play. The example was from when there was 2 playing each match, but there was 3 teams on an alliance.

I think it is an interesting option strategy wise, but I think there is some value in letting teams play each and every match in the finals if they make it that far.

I was giving an example of another radical rule change. Like if they changed it to best of 5 matches.