Lunacy Review

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

This to me is the biggest issue with this game. I have brought many non-FIRSTers to watch events this year and every one of them said that there was always a lot of chaos and it was hard to follow.

I've said this before (okay, I say it after EVERY YEAR), and I'll say it again: ever since the games went to 3 against 3, the games have been nearly impossible for casual observers to follow.

I also always propose this to the IRI powers that be: is it possible to run an hour of unofficial matches sometime during the IRI weekend as 2 vs. 2 just to see if it makes the game easier to follow? I still don't know if that's the cure, but I really would love to give it a try.

At our little dog-and-pony offseason event, we had 2v2 playing Overdrive. To my eyes, it made the game more exciting and easy to follow, and each robot had a trackball (if it wanted it).
It should be noted that the reason we did 2v2 is we only had 16 teams and a ton of technical difficulties, but I was happy with the outcome.
That being said, I believe the reason FIRST has gone 3v3 is the sheer number of robots competing. By putting six robots on the field instead of four, the playing time increases by 50%. At an event like IRI with 72 teams, each robot may play 3 or 4 times total in a 2v2 format. For some teams, LNHS is a long way to go to play three matches.

Since it seems en vogue to do so:

2006 Best
2009
2008
2005
2007 Worst

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I believe the reason FIRST has gone 3v3 is the sheer number of robots competing. By putting six robots on the field instead of four, the playing time increases by 50%. At an event like IRI with 72 teams, each robot may play 3 or 4 times total in a 2v2 format. For some teams, LNHS is a long way to go to play three matches.

It is my understanding that this is 100% true - the reason for 3 v 3 is to get the teams more matches. However, I think there are enough creative people to figure out how to get teams more matches AND have an easy to watch 2v2 game.

What about going back to pre-2000 and use two fields - reset one while a match is played on the other one. The big thing I would change from the pre-2000 days is to not wait until the most recent match is scored before starting the subsequent match. I think you can get down to a 4 minute turnaround this way.

Example:

Field A: Play match 1 (2:15)
Field B: Announce teams in match 2 (1:00)
Field B: Play match 2 (2:15)
Field A: Announce score from match 1 (0:15)
Field A: Announce teams in match 3 (1:00)
Field A: Play match 3 (2:15)
Field B: Announce score from match 2 (0:15)
Field B: Announce teams in match 4
etc.

Between the announcements and the match play, the field not in use should be able to be scored, reset, and ready to play while the other field is the center of the show. In the pre-2000 days they would score the current match before going on to the next one, which I believe adds at least one minute to the cycle time.

Anyway, that's just a single idea - I'm sure other better ideas are out there.

Also - I'm glad to hear you got to try 2v2.

[Aren_Hill]

I'd like to see 2v2v2 itd make it interesting