is this another game hint?

[dellagd]

Weird.

The link to 3.1.5.2 goes to the non-existent 2014 game manual, but rule 3.1.5.2 is what used to define the point values in 2013. Also the link goes to viewItem/180, which did used to be the game section (3) for the manual.
On top of that, it is the exact same wording as the real update of this that was issued in April.

My guess is someone messed up. Not a hint...

[magnets]

Originally Posted by mrmummert

Could this be yet another hint?

This implies that there was a previous hint. There are no hints in FRC. Just the GDC messing with people.

[The_ShamWOW88]

I feel like there's so much to do with 3 in FIRST as others have pointed out to believe there's much to find in it being a "hint". I wouldn't waste too much time reading to far into it.

[rwkling1]

Yeah, I agree, there are so many possibilities that the number 3 could be, it's been different every year and unless someone sees someone see something that goes with the number 3, it won't really mean anything until kickoff.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by EricH

Sorry, gotta call you on that one. 3-team alliances were in play in 2002 for sure, maybe in 2000 (2001 was a 5-team alliance). But only in eliminations (play 2, sit 1)

1999 was the first year of 3 team alliances in eliminations, but only after 2*3 regionals had been completed. At the Great Lakes regional (last regional of the year), teams voted to allow a 3rd alliance member for eliminations, and that was carried through to championships.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...68&postcount=1

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

1999 was the first year of 3 team alliances in eliminations, but only after 2*3 regionals had been completed. At the Great Lakes regional (last regional of the year), teams voted to allow a 3rd alliance member for eliminations, and that was carried through to championships.

It's pretty cool that FIRST let teams decide something like this by voting.

Imagine, reducing the minibot points or changing the climbing rules by popular vote...

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

It's pretty cool that FIRST let teams decide something like this by voting.

Imagine, reducing the minibot points or changing the climbing rules by popular vote...

I would not enjoy this because engineering should not be based on voting. Imagine if 469's 2010 robot was outlawed by popular vote? Furthermore, teams strategize based on these constraints. For example, many teams did not pursue a climbing mechanism this year because they felt that climbing was too hard for the point benefit. If all these rules could be changed on a dime late in season these teams would be burned really badly.