4 team alliances...

[John Gutmann]

what about a game with a game piece 10 feet in the air where there are 3'4" steps and you have to make robots to get the game piece but you max height of anything on your robot is 4 feet. Would the winning aliance have 3 robots on the steps that drive up each other to get up and the final one drives up all 3 to get the piece. That would be awesome team work. But, I can see once multiple states like Rhode Island getting a FIRST team in every school like promised there will alot more regionals and alot more teams at championships. I can see there easily being 3000 active teams with over 60 regionals. Ofcourse that is gonna be by the time I have kids and nobody even remembers highschool football but championship then better be a nationall broadcasted event.

its fun to dream!

-John

[Pavan Dave]

Please do not give Dave ideas!

Anyways, this year the game involved robots stacked which was supposed to teach us about the real world and communication and coordination. Well, I think that if there are four on four matches next year or in future years. YOU WILL have to communicate and coordinate on an exponential scale of what we have to do this year. Think about, on top of this year's bonus, a 50 point bonus for a bot 15" high. YES I said it, 1 bot carries 2, that bot gets carried under another. Maybe it is not that reasonable but you get the idea.

MORE team members equals more real world skills. Now how many real world skills are there? When you give me an answer you will answer the question of how many robots on the field there will be!*

Pavan.

*Notice I did not say alliances.

[The Lucas]

I think part of the motivation for 3 team alliances was to fit more teams into the Championship (purely speculation on my part, no info from the GDC to back it up). It allowed ~52 more teams to compete at CMP while still allowing 7 qualifying matches per team (actually less total qualifying matches). I don't think teams per match is a limiting factor in CMP capacity anymore since they could always play more total qualifying matches again.

So 4 team alliances wouldn't help expand CMP and as others have noted, it may not work well at small regionals. So I don't think FIRST will go to 4v4 anytime soon.

[Warren Boudreau]

If the GDC is listening.....Please don't do it.

4 v 4 would make match scouting nearly impossible. It is hard enough to keep track of 6 robots at a time, but 8?

[Bomberofdoom]

Originally Posted by Pavan

Please do not give Dave ideas!

Anyways, this year the game involved robots stacked which was supposed to teach us about the real world and communication and coordination. Well, I think that if there are four on four matches next year or in future years. YOU WILL have to communicate and coordinate on an exponential scale of what we have to do this year. Think about, on top of this year's bonus, a 50 point bonus for a bot 15" high. YES I said it, 1 bot carries 2, that bot gets carried under another. Maybe it is not that reasonable but you get the idea.

MORE team members equals more real world skills. Now how many real world skills are there? When you give me an answer you will answer the question of how many robots on the field there will be!*

Pavan.

*Notice I did not say alliances.

I really liked that idea! This kind of competition opens a whole new type of strategy into the game. Teams, who are no longer in alliances, will have to start commnication bonds with other teams in order to have the same goal with eachother in order to have each team build the proper robot for the case that they will play together. This is really more challenging.
The idea of one robot hold 3 robots(on of them holding two others) sound a bit out of a Sci-Fi books, but, hey, things from Sci-Fi became real after all, but all I'm saying is this will be more difficult. The decision of what kind of robot will you make will decied what kind of teams you should be with, because your robot won't be able to do one or some roles out of the 4 given(being lifted by the lifted robot, be the lifted robot that lifts or the robot the lifts 'em all).
I guess that all the building and scouting time will have to be longer, so hopefully IF(I'm not quite sure if I want it to or not) FIRST uses this concept for next year's challenge they will give us a longer period for the building process.

It's my team's first, but I believe we will be able to counter this challenge. Good idea!

[nuggetsyl]

having 3 teams on the feild now makes my head hurt. And good lord that will be one full feild.

[Tetraman]

Why not have 12v12 on a football sized field?

[dbell]

I personally liked way it was back in the day when there was 1 on 1 on 1. more scoring, less denence. I'd like to see that again.

but 4v4....
Has some Drawbacks:
1..need a bigger field, (or smaller robots) which would not be possible for some regionals
2..It would be harder to space out the rounds so that teams don't have 2 rounds in a row
But it would be interesting.

[John Gutmann]

Originally Posted by dbell

I personally liked way it was back in the day when there was 1 on 1 on 1. more scoring, less denence. I'd like to see that again.

but 4v4....
Has some Drawbacks:
1..need a bigger field, (or smaller robots) which would not be possible for some regionals
2..It would be harder to space out the rounds so that teams don't have 2 rounds in a row
But it would be interesting.

well obviously some regionals can't handle, there has been a few regionals that in the past few years have had consistantly less teams then needed, so they wouldn't do it anytime soon. They would do it once regioanls became so over loaded that teams only have a few qualifiers.

And I don't think it would be hard to space out rounds,if you have enough teams to switch to 4v4 then you should be fine. I know teams have to repair robots between matches, but IMHO FIRST doesn't care if you have to repair your robot or not. That is the whole engineeering aspect of the game. I know catastrophes do happen, so somethings are unavoidable.

Also I think they would automatically have a bigger field. I think they made the field wider from 04-05. My only concern with a bigger field would be the cost of it for a regional, yes there are more teams going but then that means, more space etc that you need to spend money on.

-John

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Warren Boudreau

If the GDC is listening.....Please don't do it.

4 v 4 would make match scouting nearly impossible. It is hard enough to keep track of 6 robots at a time, but 8?

Too late!

But don't worry. If every team has Team 842's Digitally Enhanced Scouting System (DESS), it won't be too big of a deal to get data on 360 or so teams at an event.

-dave

[robostangs548]

I actually miss the 2 team alliance.... I thought that it was much easier to compete when there was only 3 other robots that you had to worry about rather then 5.... That is just my thought.

[Koko Ed]

My game design idea for next year will have 8 robots but it won't be 4 on 4.

[Cyberguy34000]

As far as I can see, going smaller would allow some more fun field elements, as they wouldn't have to hold up to as much stress from 120 pound Goliaths pounding into them.

What do you guys see as the pros/cons of going smaller?

-Crazy idea - what if you explicitly allow a wired mini-bot on robots? Could be kind of fun game element

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Cyberguy34000

-Crazy idea - what if you explicitly allow a wired mini-bot on robots? Could be kind of fun game element

AUUGGHHHH! See 2002's game. There were a lot of entanglement calls that year--and there's a reason you can't expand beyond xyz distance since then.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by EricH

AUUGGHHHH! See 2002's game. There were a lot of entanglement calls that year--and there's a reason you can't expand beyond xyz distance since then.

But it was fun watching mini teathered robots race off of bigger robots and watch the occasional opposing bigger robot try to catch and kill the little robots.