New Game Progress

[jax1488]

Originally Posted by EricH

4v2.

Back in the dark ages before alliances, the game was 1v1v1. One minor detail, though--the two "weaker" teams would gang up on the "stronger" team most of the time, forcing the "stronger" team to lose. While FIRST couldn't prove collaboration, they decided to require it, and now we have the alliance system. A 2v2v2 would bring that back.

i know that the game used to be 1v1v1. im just saying i think it would be exciting to watch it, and if the so called "weaker teams" do gang up on "stronger teams" then people are being ungraciously unprofessional.

but having 2v2v2 and that happening shouldnt be looked as a negative, it should be part of the game too, revolve a game around that, and see what happens.

we should all have learned by now that they can create any game for any situation and shock us to death. so you never know what will happen.

don't assume i didn't know about previous games and what happened at them.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jax1488

[...]and if the so called "weaker teams" do gang up on "stronger teams" then people are being ungraciously unprofessional.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is highly professional. If you know that someone else is better than you in a 1-on-1, you get a partner so it is now a 1-on-2 and you have a chance. Nothing prevents your opponent from doing the same thing. (Unless, of course, doing so is against the rules.) This happens in the professional world all the time, does it not?

Whether or not it is gracious is, however, up to interpretation.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by EricH

On the contrary, I would argue that it is highly professional. If you know that someone else is better than you in a 1-on-1, you get a partner so it is now a 1-on-2 and you have a chance. Nothing prevents your opponent from doing the same thing. (Unless, of course, doing so is against the rules.) This happens in the professional world all the time, does it not?

Whether or not it is gracious is, however, up to interpretation.

Actually in the last 1v1v1 game, it was not ncessary for the two "weaker" or lower ranked teams to gang up on a stronger or higher ranked opponent. It was enough for them to decide - independently - that there was no way they were going to leave one of "that team's" balls on the rails. Since it was possible for any team to knock off any ball in any position, and it was time consuming to get the ball up in the first place, the highest ranked team just had a bigger target on their back. Going after the balls of the highest ranked team was just good strategy, especially if you couldn't put up balls on your own.

Defending against such action by two robots with a single robot was nigh impossible. While you were keeping one away from your balls, the other would come from the back and take them down, because it was in their best interest to do so. Not necessarily because there was any agreement between any of the teams. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

[Dr Theta]

How's this for an idea? Have different robot placements that allow for varying difficulty as far as autonomous scoring goes and the value of the scores in autonomous are contingent upon robot placement at the beginning. Such as a position that only allows the robot to enter the field during the second half of autonomous period but your score multiplier is based on the roll of a d6 dice where 2 sides are 1, two are 2, and the other two are 3. after the robots are placed. It would be an interesting balance of risk, reward, and alliance strategy.

[Steven Sigley]

If i had to guess i'm going to say an uneven playing field with walls (to make you use the camera) and pool noodles as the playing object. Probably ramp in the middle for bonus at the end.