Assuming a 3 vs 3

[Jeffrafa]

Not to mention more to keep track of on the field.

I actually think it would be awesome. Sure there's more to think about and keep track of, but it makes it that much more difficult and exciting.

I'm all for it!

[Elgin Clock]

This would mean 6 sideline refs would be needed to keep track of "real time" scoring of the teams, if they were to continue the tradition of real time scoring, and the tradition of sideline refs.

[Bcahn836]

And the staging areas would be completely packed

[Corey Balint]

If it is indeed 3 vs 3, it will make scouting much more important. Normally during competitions the 2nd pick(assuming that a 4th team will not be selected) of alliances normally goes overlooked and is not held accountable for much that goes on, many times they are just cast off to the side and only used once during each round. The pick might also be used to help out a team you are friends with because they havent had a good weekend. Many times, teams dont know who to pick in the 2nd round because some scouts dont look beyond the top bots and ignore the eventual teams that become role players.
With a 3 vs 3, the 2nd pick becomes much more important and will make scouting much more important and an absolute necessity.

With a 4 vs 0, the game will become much more boring and contain very little scouting/strategizing, well much less then a 3 vs 3.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

With a 4 vs 0, the game will become much more boring and contain very little scouting/strategizing, well much less then a 3 vs 3.

I agree. 2001 was not a very good year for spectators. And the competitors basically knew who was going to win as soon as the elimination round schedules were announced, barring any disastrous setbacks.

I can't see FIRST returning to 4v0 or any combination of 3 alliances or 3 single teams. 1 and 2 will always gang up on 3 and that's not what FIRST is trying to promote.

On the matter of space on the field for 6 robots, our current field is large enough. Assuming there's nothing like ball drops or ball corralls in the way in the alliance stations, you could fit 3 teams side by side. Now if there's any kind of center structure like last year, 6 teams starts to sound like an awful lot.

As I think Bill Gold pointed out in another thread, it would take relatively little work on FIRST's part to keep the same rectangular field, but extend the player stations to make the field wider.

3v3 would add a whole new element to the game and make us have to think even harder, as well as cooperate better, which is a main goal of FIRST, so I wouldnt be at all surprised to see this in the game come 5 days from now.

[663.keith]

I doubt that there will be 3v3 teams just because it would be way too much to handle.

*Building more durable robots sounds good, but is pretty difficult to attain, most teams don't purposefully build less sturdy robots because they think that they will have time to fix the robots. I can't imagine seeing the final matches, there would be so much time between them if one robot weren't allowed to sit out during a match.

*queuing six robots at a time would be a nightmare! the flow of 8 robots on and off the field is confusing enough, think of 12 robots. It would take forever to set up, and tear down the field

overall I think that some sort of 3v3 would be fun to participate in, but seems like just too much of a hassle to work

[Kyle]

i like that idea of the 3v3 because it would cause more teams to think about how they will build a robot that will last longer just like in real world applications of robot or other tech things being built. also having to scout 3 teams for each match will be alot of work but i can see how it will be alot of fun because then each team will get to know even more teams and more FIRST friendships can be made.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Kyle

i like that idea of the 3v3 because it would cause more teams to think about how they will build a robot that will last longer.

I agree with the idea that teams need to build higher quality robots. I know a lot of teams are limited in funds and resources, but I believe any FIRST robot should be worthy of sitting on a shelf in "Larry's Robot Store" if there was such a place. Before you go drilling big lightening holes of hacking off extra metal or zip tieing your mechanism to the robot, ask yourself, "Will that look good sitting on Larry's shelf?"

Here's to 2005, a year of quality.

[Kyle]

each year that i describe the game to people who don't know FIRST they always say something about battle bots or what else can your robot do other then play the game. maybe this years game will have something close to a practical use in the world to help gain more sponsorships for FIRST if all the teams were building things to solve real world problems while still having fun and staying in the spirit of FIRST.

[Swampdude]

Can you imagine the poor announcer on a 3vs3 all on the same field going head to head? He'd be worn out by lunch the first day (What do you think Steve W?). I can more easily see 2 fields running simultaneously. This would be much easier to basically look at the progress of each field and highlight the more functional teams at work. I dunno, but yes this 3 team alliance needs to squeeze every drop out of their picks.
I hate to think of the dominator type strategy teams that your bound to wind up with that will want you out of the way. But I'm sure with a 3 team goal/game we're going to have to work together harder than ever. We need some good lessons in cooperative design.
Early on in FIRST I used to always think you needed to pick 1 thing and be the best at it. But last year changed that for me. And a 3 team mixed bag system would really require diversity. I'll put my Beatty hat on for a 3v3.

[David Guzman]

l love the idea of 3 vs 3. It would be very important to learn how to work with other teams so that a goal can be accomplished. The time issue makes a lot of since. Now the only thing i am not sure about is the field size because may it is possible to fit 6 robots but they also need to fit the players from each team. Lets say it was 4 ppl per team that would be 24 ppl at the field.

Maybe they'll just change the size of the field who knows?????????

David
Techtigers 1251

[Mike Rush]

Why 3 vs 3? What about 2 vs 2 vs 2? This would be reminiscient of Ladder Logic but with the team format.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Mike Rush

Why 3 vs 3? What about 2 vs 2 vs 2? This would be reminiscient of Ladder Logic but with the team format.

2v2v2 allows for the same "ganging up" that occured when it was 1v1v1. Two alliances teaming up to take out the third is lame, imho. I, personally, much prefer the Alliance A vs. Alliance B at a time format.

Originally Posted by Cory

As I think Bill Gold pointed out in another thread, it would take relatively little work on FIRST's part to keep the same rectangular field, but extend the player stations to make the field wider.

Thanks for reading my posts, Cory

I was thinking "oh well, wouldn't be the first time no one read my post..." just before I came across your response in this thread.

[Swampdude]

I'm just starting to envision the Autonomous pile-ups, and un-intentional pinning, tangling. Heh, 6 robots roaming about the field on their own. So with that thought in your mind, now you see the need for a few very good autonomous modes. Not just 1 that goes back and forth etc., since the field variables just increased exponentially - not to mention 6 possible starting points.

A 3vs3 on 1 field just seems like too much. I'm still going with the 2 hex fields competing against each other against the clock. It just seems so much more do-able. Especially considering the thread Steve quoted there, that Dave suggested smaller bots/

Although I just noticed that the Great Lakes regional had 1 field last year and 60 teams. This year they capped registration at 60 teams again... so that puts a hole in my other theory.

After looking at this thread and considering all the possibilities, I'm hoping for a 2vs2. Not like the past hasn't been challenging enough....

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

2v2v2 allows for the same "ganging up" that occured when it was 1v1v1. Two alliances teaming up to take out the third is lame, imho. I, personally, much prefer the Alliance A vs. Alliance B at a time format.

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