3 Teams Per Side Too Many?

[Not2B]

3 vs 3 = good

-More rounds
-More teams
-You get field time with almost everyone
-Broken robots result in 2 vs 3, which isn't the end of the world
-Scouting is different, not harder. (You need to be more creative, and data driven - at least it worked for us.)
-More exciting, IMHO, than 2x2 (but that's not a good reason for or against)

3vs3, 2vs2vs2, or 2vs3 would all be fun.

(2 vs 3... with an uneven field... and you get equal number of matches on 2 as you get on 3. That would be wild.)

[Mike33]

3v3 was good. not as much traffic as i thought because most teams learned to stay in the home side of the field until they had to go make a 'blitz' play and take the opposing home row goal. you did need more scouters because there were more bots on the field. the unussuall two or three didnt work that well when collecting the data. compiling data was fine. and believe it or not, the human player still was valuable even if the team didnt use the manual loader. think about it, if the human wasn't there, the bot wouldnt go. if the driver wasnt there, the bot wouldnt go, and if the operator wasnt there, the bot couldnt score. so believe it or not, the role of each job was evenly split.

p.s. Thanks to all you human players for making our robots go.