4 team alliances...

[John Gutmann]

I was wondering what everyone thought about having a 4 team alliance on the field. The same way it switched from 2 teams to 3 teams from '04 - '05 do you think they will ever do it? And if they do, when do you think they will? WHat do you think the game will be like, etc, etc...

-John

[AdamHeard]

Unless the field is made bigger in conjunction, I think it would be too cluttered to work.

It'd definately be interesting though... lots of new possibilies created.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by sparksandtabs

I was wondering what everyone thought about having a 4 team alliance on the field. The same way it switched from 2 teams to 3 teams from '04 - '05 do you think they will ever do it? And if they do, when do you think they will? WHat do you think the game will be like, etc, etc...

-John

The 2001 game was a four team alliance.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

The 2001 game was a four team alliance.

I think he is implying 4v4.

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Unless the field is made bigger in conjunction, I think it would be too cluttered to work.

Adam, I am assuming that you are thinking that John proposed to have a 4 teams alliance and every single one of those teams will play during a match, hence a 4 vs. 4 match. If that is the case, I don't think that is what John was proposing.

This goes for everyone who joined FIRST after 2003 season and does not have the knowledge of previous games. Before 2004 season, during the elimination, each alliance would have 3 teams, but only 2 of them play during a match. The teams switched back and forth. I believe the rule was, each team on the alliance must play atleast one match, but other than that, it was up to the alliance to decide who plays the matches. So similarly, I think John is proposing to play a game where an alliance would consist of 4 teams, but only 3 teams play in a match; for the next match, one of the robots take a break and the team that didn't play the previous match goes in.

Now back to the topic, I wouldn't mind seeing 4 teams alliances since FIRST is getting bigger each year. It gives more teams a chance to play in the elimination. But if that is the case, each regional will require to have atleast 32 teams. This year Waterloo regional had 30 teams. That is the only problem I see, but obviously it's up to FIRST to decide how we play the game.

[Taylor]

If alliances get bigger than 3 (or even if they don't) I wouldn't mind seeing a game that rewards the passing of gamepieces from one partner to another. Some variation of Robo-Ultimate Frisbee would be awesome.

[Dan Petrovic]

I'm wondering if they will ever go to 4 team alliances for the eliminations like Pre-2005. 2 teams on a field at once, but there were 3 in an alliance and all three had to play in each round at some point.

Will they ever do something like that in the future?

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

The 2001 game was a four team alliance.

"Darn".. stole my thunder. I was going to mention 2001

[Tetraman]

for 4v4 or 3v3 with 2 off, there would need to be 32 teams at each competition. As far as I know, thats not a problem at all, but it leads to something important:

Most all teams at smaller regionals will than be chosen, thus putting the 'bad' robots on the field and creating the issue of possibly disenfranchizing the high seeded teams. I know its not very GP, but thats the way it goes.

[Jherbie53]

Originally Posted by Jherbie53

If there are three teams on a alliance like this year, at the regionals that are bigger, like the one with two fields in Canada [don't recall the name], you could have four teams on the alliances. Then at the smaller regionals they would have just three on a alliance, instead of four. This would allow more teams to play at the larger regionals, 32 teams, and still allow smaller ones that have trouble getting enough teams, 24 teams, to play.

Quote from the [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas thread.

[Qbranch]

Well.... if there's four team alliances... you could go all UFC and have an OCTAGON FIELD...... 4 teams start one side, 4 teams on the other, or even more fun you could alternate red/blue/red/blue/etc. around the octagon's verticies.... </craziness>

In all seriousness, I agree that unless the field was made bigger it would be too congested with an extra two robots on it. It would be eh... interesting keeping that many teams working together though for the coaches... I think three is a good number. Hey i'm arguing with myself. Fun stuff. Yeah. I'm stopping before i start hitting myself over the head....

-q

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Unless the field is made bigger in conjunction, I think it would be too cluttered to work.

Or just make the robots smaller.

[John Gutmann]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Or just make the robots smaller.

I think that making the robot smaller would be an awesome idea, it would force team to plan the space inside of a robot more carefully or to decrease the weight limit, that would make teams plan materials better, and use lighter stronger things and do actual matsci for their robots.

But back on topic now that I have time to myself, I was origonally talking about 4v4 with everyone on the field, but now that Arefin brings up the 2004 idea, that would be interesting also. I think we would need wayy bigger regionals otherwise everyteam would get chosen. Not that that is a bad thing, but IMHO it takes away from the competition of qualifying matches. Also in the elims, I think it would make for more interesting matches because teams will be given time to repair their robot if it breaks. That would mean no 2v3 matches anymore (or wayy less atleast).

-John

[akeisic]

I think that it'll be a couple years before we see the FIRST increase the number of teams on the field. At the regionals, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the teams advance to the elimination rounds - that's a pretty good number to keep everyone involved. Plus, increasing the number of teams on the field has implications on the championship logistics. To keep the championship the same overall length, you'll have to 1) increase the number of fields and/or 2) decrease the number of matches played. I don't see the FIRST community going for option 2 and, while I haven't yet been to the championship since it moved to Atlanta, I understand that the teams are already stretched for time getting to and from the pits. FIRST might have to change the venue before it switches the 3v3 format. Will it eventually happen...yes. Will it happen soon...not that I see.

[Michael Hill]

I would be interested in a game that had a 4-team alliance, but all teams worked together to get the best possible score. I'm sure this would please people since there's no "oh so harsh" pushing and shoving (can't we all just play nice? jeesh! >_>). Anyway, no defense, just all offense.