2013 Game Hint!

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by F22Rapture

I also can't see 3 teams, since that would require an unorthodox field shape and pose all sorts of issues.

It could be done using the current field layout... just put one team from each alliance on each end of the field. Each end would have a red, blue, and yellow driver's station.

Since each alliance is split up like that, the microphone could be that someone on each drive team would have an earwig and microphone headset to communicate with their partner on the other side of the field.

Just a random guess, but I think it might be an interesting idea.

[billbo911]

One random thought I had with respect to 3 alliances is it would also address another issue facing FIRST right now. It would reduce the number of teams qualifying for World Championships.




(Although, that doesn't seem to apply this year, based on the number of teams allowed to register.)

[Siri]

Originally Posted by F22Rapture

I also can't see 3 teams, since that would require an unorthodox field shape and pose all sorts of issues.

Why's that? You could do a lot of things: think about Rack 'n Roll with 3 alliances, 1 robot of each alliance starting on each end of the field. You could play anything Lunacy-like (please, no), or Overdrive-like (maybe smaller balls...), or even a weird Breakaway-type twist: 3 goals on each end, one for each alliance. No need to limit yourself to a something offering a sort of three-way symmetry.

That said, I don't expect a 2v2v2 because: the change to the FMS and other tournament structures doesn't seem worth it, it makes it more confusing to spectators, and I confess I don't really see the benefits. But heck, it's the GDC.

[Jon Stratis]

Another issue with 2v2v2... alliance selection will become even more unbalanced. Right now, someone in the 8th seed can progress pretty far because they get 2 picks in a row. In the first seed, they can form a "super alliance" with their first pick, but their second pick ends up providing some balance, since they pick last.

[EricH]

You all do realize that anything you may discuss on this thread is sure fodder for the 2014 game, right? (How else is the GDC going to come up with crazy ideas--oh. Wait. Nevermind.)

[bardd]

Originally Posted by EricH

You all do realize that anything you may discuss on this thread is sure fodder for the 2014 game, right? (How else is the GDC going to come up with crazy ideas--oh. Wait. Nevermind.)

Didn't they design 2014's game already? I've heard rumors claiming they design games two years in advance ever since 2009.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bardd

Didn't they design 2014's game already? I've heard rumors claiming they design games two years in advance ever since 2009.

AFAIK, 2 years in advance was a fiction in 2009. It wasn't until at least 2011 that they started doing that.

As I understand it, it goes like this (we'll just go with the 2013/2014 games):
Kickoff 2012 happens. At that time, 2013 is well under development. Sometime around the end of the competition, 2013 starts the refining process (applying 2012 lessons and some tweaks) and 2014 starts the conceptual phase. Right about now, they'd still be in development on 2014, while making sure they have all their ducks in a row for 2013 Kickoff.

So, no, 2014 isn't designed, it's in development. I'd bet that 2013 is designed but not quite fully tweaked. 2015 is barely being thought of... yet.

At least, that's what I remember the process being, or something like that.

[Robert Cawthon]

I keep thinking back to Dave Lavery's "Hints." Because he was on the GDC, everything he posted was examined, torn, spindled, mutilated, and discussed to the nth degree. I am thinking that this may be the same.

[Littleboy]

Anyone remember the pictures of the elves carrying the "hint" sign last year and how they fit into kickoff? Yeah, I have a feeling this will turn out similar. People stressed over them and it turned out it wasn't any help at all.
Now on the other hand, there may be something small being showed in here, just nothing major. Anything it possibly does show, is something we already expected. For example, many people probably expected longer match times as has been discussed already.

[Jibri Wright]

Lol mutilated? Oh jeeze

[Whippet]

Perhaps the fact that there are two red pins implies unbalanced gameplay, like maybe the red alliance's goal will be different from the blue alliance's?

[Peyton Yeung]

Don't the rules about the wildcard slots say "Wild Card slots are filled in the order of:

1. Finalist Alliance Captain

2. Finalist First Pick

3. Finalist Second Pick

4. Finalist Backup Team"

Shouldn't this insinuate that there will be alliances of at least 3?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tubatroopa

Don't the rules about the wildcard slots say "Wild Card slots are filled in the order of:

1. Finalist Alliance Captain

2. Finalist First Pick

3. Finalist Second Pick

4. Finalist Backup Team"

Shouldn't this insinuate that there will be alliances of at least 3?

Actually... It does the opposite. Alliances of no greater than 4 (including backup). More likely, alliances of no greater than 3.

Before 2005, there were 3-team alliances in the eliminations--but only 2 teams were on the field. (Exception, 2001, 5-team alliances with 4 on the field.) So, it is entirely possible that two-team alliances are in the offing--pick your own backup, play them at least once per round. The backup team in this case would be played under normal 3-on-the-field rules; teams just get more time to take care of broken robots by sitting them out.

Or not.

[momter]

Word is ...Arduinos are in the KOP. It could very well be the return of the minibot.

[momter]

Maybe Never gonna give you up means you need to accumulate game pieces by taking them away from your opponent.