3 Teams Per Side Too Many?

[George A.]

Originally Posted by the_short1

i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by the_short1

i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

One problem, though...how do you track that?

This year on Curie, I did real-time scorekeeping. There was a shortage of RTS folks across the entire dome, so we resorted to creative means (read: recruiting a few media guys from Heatwave) to get the absolute minimum on our field. (Granted, RTS this year should have been a three-person job--but that's another story. Don't worry, I already suggested it to FIRST.)

Just from how recruiting volunteers can be at times (there was a white board each morning in the volunteer area with open positions), I really don't think FIRST has the ability to track the scores and the robots at the same time. Of course, you could always create such a system with your team and publish the information somehow.

[Masterfork]

Originally Posted by M.O.R.T.

That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.

eyeah that is a real problem when your a good bot and you end up in like last cause of your alliances no chance at 1st,2nd, or any picking seed

[pyroslev]

Evolution of the competition.

Three robots mean:

1. that teams can have a better shot at having their weaknesses covered
2. Scouting is more important to all
3. Everyone can play more
4. More fun period

[Jim Kosaski]

I enjoyed the 3 vs. 3 challenge this year. What will probably happen though, it will depend on what kind of a challenge First keeps coming out with each year. But, as others have said before, if the number of teams keeps growing, then you will keep seeing the field and the number of alliance partners on at one time, increasing.

[EOC]

I thought the 3v3 was great, lots of strategy, lots of action, lots of matches.

[ben281]

"1. that teams can have a better shot at having their weaknesses covered
2. Scouting is more important to all
3. Everyone can play more
4. More fun period"

can't number one be seen the other way? like i mean having more partners is a better chance at obtaining more weaknesses? It seems to me that if you are the best of the best, say capping 6-7 a match then the chances are pretty good that your partners are not going to be able to do that. so it would be better to have one partner than two. because more just brings your average down. i see this as a real challenge for the upper rated teams. sorry guys-the statistics just aren't on your side this year : (
Ben
TEAM 281

[bhweezer]

I would like a 2v2v2 game more than another 3v3 game next year. We had a lot of bad luck this year where one or two of our alliance partners would get stuck or break, leaving us 2 on 3 and sometimes even 1 on 3. In a 2v2 game you have more of a chance to win a match alone than you would in a 3v3 game.

[ben281]

how would a 2v2v2 work? i don't think they could so a win-loss record any more. it would have to be done with a point system (maybe something like sports?) like 2 points for being the highest scoring alliance and 1 point for being the second highest? ....mm....haha that might not be that bad of an idea ; ) ttyl
Ben
TEAM 281

[Meyerman]

i think the 3 on 3 did mess with how teams were ranked and it was easier to get ranked good depending on yer matches just like any year but as far as the game goes im ready for 4 on 4!!!!!!! i thought the 2 extra robots made it more interesting and besides the selections having some not soo good teams up top at times because of it, i loved it.

[Jverdon]

With the way that the field and game was set up for this year 3 robots on the field was awesome. I would think that to just have two on two for this game would have been a bit boring. I think that the number of robots on the field from now on will all determine on the game and the field. FIRST did an awesome job with every thing this year. I was really impressed!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bhweezer

I would like a 2v2v2 game more than another 3v3 game next year.

In the very old days, it used to be 1v1v1. I don't know how they did the rankings (I was too young to be on a team that year), but I bet someone on the forum knows. Do you really want 3 alliances? I think the reason FIRST only does two is, it's less confusing for everyone. I believe that when they started doing 2v2 they said something to the effect of "Three teams is too confusing, so we will have four teams...on two alliances." (Please don't quote me on that, as it is a paraphrase more likely than not.) In effect, there are two "teams" on the field, assuming you work as a team. (If you aren't working as a team, you are working as individuals and you will get creamed. "United we stand...") I highly doubt that FIRST will return to three teams/alliances working against each other for quite a while.

[NeedMoreEngines]

Yeah i thought that 3 teams was too much. sometimes it was beneficial but sometimes it was too hectic on the field.
I think that next year if they're going to have 3 teams, they should
1. make matches longer
2. make the field larger
3.if possible, have more than one field at a competition

[Masterfork]

Originally Posted by NeedMoreEngines

Yeah i thought that 3 teams was too much. sometimes it was beneficial but sometimes it was too hectic on the field.
I think that next year if they're going to have 3 teams, they should
1. make matches longer
2. make the field larger
3.if possible, have more than one field at a competition

YEP THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT I WAS THINKING

there is just to much of a chance of have bad teams on top becuase they are riding on good teams back

[Shu Song]

The one thing that I disliked about 3v3 is that whatever the rankings turned out to be, they deviate more from what it should be than it would if it were just 2v2. There are teams in the top 8 at regionals where I've been to that really shouldn't have been there, while others that should have but weren't.

M.O.R.T suggested that in ranking, every team should be ranked based on their OWN stats, not combined stats. I think that one way to start is to do that is if a penalty were to change the outcome of a match, only the team that committed the penalty would record the loss. That way you don't end a great match where you just barely beat a rival team, only to lose because a partner made a penalty.

But other than that, I like the 3v3 system, especially in elims. Not having to sub out teams means noever worrying about who's better for the match, and trying to guess which robots your opponents will send against you.

Plus the amount of strategy that goes into a 3v3 game is tremendous. Being a coach myself, I love it. We even have a laminated copy of the field so we can use dry erase markers to draw strategies on it.

Bottom line: 3v3 is great, if there were some way to make rankings better reflect robots as they are, 3v3 would be even better.