2011 FRC Game Hint #2

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Dave Lavery where are you? Explain this mess to us! Pleeeeeeease...

I wonder if it could be...

Nah, that would just be way too...

Never mind.






.

[iblis432]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I wonder if it could be...

Nah, that would just be way too...

Never mind.






.

you wouldn't. haha. Now you have me even more confused.

Judging by this, I would guess that we have hit the nail on the head somewhere, but where?

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by iblis432

you wouldn't. haha. Now you have me even more confused.

Judging by this, I would guess that we have hit the nail on the head somewhere, but where?

The nail or your thumb?

[EricH]

Well, he did ask for that, Dave.

I'll ask for another hint in, oh, about 4 days; 6 if you're really feeling pressed for time to finish that rendering.

[Bjenks548]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I wonder if it could be...

Nah, that would just be way too...

Never mind.






.

At least that's one thing cleared up, thanks for the help Dave!






.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I wonder if it could be...

Nah, that would just be way too...

Never mind.






.

I can safely say I saw a response along these lines coming from a mile away.

[Are Jay]

A member on our team brought up the idea that maybe this hint could be that there are going to be three alliances... :/

Originally Posted by Are Jay

A member on our team brought up the idea that maybe this hint could be that there are going to be three alliances... :/

3 alliances with 2 teams on each? Or the standard 3 teams? That would be interesting!

[Are Jay]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

3 alliances with 2 teams on each? Or the standard 3 teams? That would be interesting!

He brought up the idea of the 3 alliances with 3 teams on each. and the teams would be the normal Red and Blue with an additional White...

[EricH]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

3 alliances with 2 teams on each? Or the standard 3 teams? That would be interesting!

More than you know.

3-alliance (OK, 3 single teams) games lead to the 2-alliance games we know and love. Seems that the "weaker" teams kept pairing up against the "strongest" team in a given match. 1 strong team isn't quite a match for 2 weak teams, so the strong teams lost quite a lot. It could not be proved that the weaker teams colluded/allied...but it couldn't be disproved either. The result? Alliances were required starting in 1999.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

3 alliances with 2 teams on each? Or the standard 3 teams? That would be interesting!

this was discussed earlier in the thread (i know its a huge thread but try and read it anyway before posting).
The response to the notion went as follows:

Originally Posted by Robert Cawthon

The problem with three alliances is that two of the alliances tend to team up against the third, especially if the third is a real good alliance. I don't think FIRST really wants this. Unless, of course, the game is designed to prevent that in some way.

EDIT: Of course, they may do it for one year just to get us out of our comfort zone.

.....which i completely 100% agree with

Originally Posted by Duke461

this was discussed earlier in the thread (i know its a huge thread but try and read it anyway before posting).
The response to the notion went as follows:

.....which i completely 100% agree with

You know what would be fun? A game on a GIGANTIC field, with 2 alliances, with 10 teams on each alliance! That would mix up the games A LOT!!!

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I wonder if it could be...

Nah, that would just be way too...

Never mind.






.

....

..

....yea.

Alrighty. I'll post some Sketchup fields tonight of some ideas.