[FRC Blog] Five for FIRST

[JB987]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Did someone say "quest"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWS8Mg-JWSg

LIKE...

[mastachyra]

Ever since the video released the significance of the number five subtly lingered in my mind. Today, with the newest blog post, I have to post my thoughts.

The initial thing that got me thinking was the flag in the FIRST Stronghold logo. It consists of two red stripes surrounded by three blue stripes. The logo for a game has obvious significance, so I don't think this detail should be ignored.

Many people are speculating that one team would be defensive and another would be offensive, so perhaps these teams are not both 3 team alliances. I think there will be three blue offense teams and two red defense teams.

History shows that defending territory is easier than conquering, so unequal alliances would even the score a little. Plus, offense appeals to fans more than defense.

Today's FRC Blog post is Five for FIRST. Coincidence?

[itsjustjon]

Originally Posted by mastachyra

Ever since the video released the significance of the number five subtly lingered in my mind. Today, with the newest blog post, I have to post my thoughts.

The initial thing that got me thinking was the flag in the FIRST Stronghold logo. It consists of two red stripes surrounded by three blue stripes. The logo for a game has obvious significance, so I don't think this detail should be ignored.

Many people are speculating that one team would be defensive and another would be offensive, so perhaps these teams are not both 3 team alliances. I think there will be three blue offense teams and two red defense teams.

History shows that defending territory is easier than conquering, so unequal alliances would even the score a little. Plus, offense appeals to fans more than defense.

Today's FRC Blog post is Five for FIRST. Coincidence?

It's a possibility, but the likelihood of FIRST designing a game with one of its mechanics based on one side having a numbers advantage over the other doesn't seem like something they would do.

I'm not completely on top of my FIRST history, but I can't think of any years where one side was stacked more than the other in terms of number.

[Drivencrazy]

Originally Posted by itsjustjon

It's a possibility, but the likelihood of FIRST designing a game with one of its mechanics based on one side having a numbers advantage over the other doesn't seem like something they would do.

I'm not completely on top of my FIRST history, but I can't think of any years where one side was stacked more than the other in terms of number.

I mean, it's been 4v0 before. (Also 6v0 in some instances in 2010 but that's a whole different story)

[itsjustjon]

Originally Posted by Drivencrazy

I mean, it's been 4v0 before. (Also 6v0 in some instances in 2010 but that's a whole different story)

But isn't OP talking about 3v2? 3 Offense vs. 2 Defense?

[Drivencrazy]

Originally Posted by itsjustjon

But isn't OP talking about 3v2? 3 Offense vs. 2 Defense?

Agreed. Just pointing out it's not always 3v3, 2v2, etc.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by itsjustjon

But isn't OP talking about 3v2? 3 Offense vs. 2 Defense?

That's been done before, too. '06, second and third periods were 3v2 followed by 2v3. (The 3rd robot for either alliance had to stay on its offensive side of the field.) 3 offense, 2 defense. 1st period was auto, 4th period was 3v3, score wherever you like (preferably in your own goals).

[Sperkowsky]

If I showed that "What is first" video to my friends they would probably laugh and never come to robotics.

Its really cheesy.... Cant they do better?

Or cant we do better?

[g_sawchuk]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Do we really need another thread for this

We need five threads for this.