Assuming a 3 vs 3

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by cdr1122334455

Well some of the competitions last year such as Eruption v3 at North Brunswick (#25) had 2 or 3 announcers rotating every 10 matches or so. what about that or having 2 announcers in one match, kind of like in the movie angels in the outfield where they had a switch that controlled either mic

Being an announcer at at least 2 regionals in 2005 I know that there are no plans to have additional announcers at the regionals. Announcing is not an easy job. I have done 1 off season event and it was a cakewalk compared to a regional or Championship. I believe that I did an average of 125 - 130 matches per regional.

I forgot to post this on my last post (I'm so bad). The robot size might be changed as per a post by dlavery. I quote :


"Have we considered the possibility that the teams that run up against weight problems each year just aren't taking 130 as a serious limitation until much too late in the process. They tend to do this because they are unconsciously thinking "130 pounds - that's a lot. We don't have anything to worry about - if we run into problems, then we will just cut a bunch of holes at the end." As a result, they don't plan their robot weight budget properly, and have to resort to hacking off entire subsystems or drilling 1482 lightening holes at the last minute.

I think we need to be going the other way. Rather than promote the belief that 130 pounds is a rather generous number, why not reduce the weight restriction to 120 pounds (or less)? I theorize that at 120 pounds, including the battery, nearly all teams will recognize that the weight restriction is a hard problem right up front and will begin to plan accordingly. As a result of the earlier (and arguably better) planning, I would predict that teams will have more weight-conscious designs and the number of last minute "slash-and-hack" weight reduction efforts will be reduced.

So, rather than increasing the weight restriction, we need to decrease it by 10 pounds or so (or just increase the mass of the battery or other non-negotiable parts by 10 pounds while keeping the restriction where it is, which would have the same effect). And then have FIRST throw a copy of the Atkins diet book in with each kit...

-dave"

We'll have to see.

[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

[Arefin Bari]

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

He didnt say anything about 3 Vs. 3... thats it... its 3 vs. 3...

::smacks himself over the head and says "stop jumping arefin, just wait till the 8th"::

[Swampdude]

7 teams? Dave... come on.... Look there's still time to fix this, you've got 5 days to come up with something else! STOP THE PRESS!!!!

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by dlavery

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

The mighty Dave has spoken, but he's up past his bedtime and I think he's just rambling now. And I know enough now not to trust anything he says.

Really, though, I think that a 3 on 3 structure would be very interesting, it would create a much more dynamic competition environment where all 3 strategies work together, not just a simple "you do this one aspect, we'll do the other." Additionally, the challenge of the field team keeping up with 3 opposing robots in addition to your own 3 would be nice, in my opinion, simply because of the challenge itself. I look forward to a challenge. After all, to use the cliched JFK quote: We choose to do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. (paraphrased) Afterall, that's why I'm in FIRST, because I enjoy the challenge. Also, it seems FIRST has been weening us towards this, from the 3-team finals alliances that we've seen the past couple of years.

[Mike Schroeder]

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)

[George1902]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

2v2v2 allows for the same "ganging up" that occured when it was 1v1v1.

This all depends on how the game is designed. Imagine:

Three two-team alliances: purple, green, and orange. Three goals to score in: red, blue, and yellow.

The purple alliance's score is the total of the red and blue goals. The green alliance's score is the total of the blue and yellow goals. The orange alliance's score is the total of the red and yellow goals.

Yes, two alliances could team up on the third, but they would need to score all of their points into just one goal to do so. Also, they would have to defend two goals. The third alliance would be able to score in two goals and only have to defend one. They would be at a two to one disadvantage in terms of robots, but would be at a two to one advantage in terms of offensive and defensive objectives.

[Denman]

genius!
And that could be referring to the "between pi you and me"