Opinion on This Years Game

[Billfred]

Personally, I disagree that 3v3 is bad for competition.

Originally Posted by Petey

Now, look at the three partner alliance. This means that

1) Three teams will be awarded the same number of QP's, not 2, which means that there will be more teams with the same QP's than there were last year

In a very short tournament, this is an issue. Consider Robot Rodeo--they played four matches per team, so there wasn't much of a chance to score QPs. Thus RPs became important.

However, in a FIRST-sized tourney, you're dealing with seven, eight matches. There ought to be time for the spread to grow...but if you're worried, just get more RPs.

2) More teams will have the same Ranking points, for the same reasons.

True, but remember--you will play six or eight matches. There will be time for teams' scores to go up or down, especially since every match will be different.

3) Threee teams means that it is more unlikely that a good robot can carry an alliance. If one stellar robot is, by draw, paired with two less-than-stellar robots, that alliance will probably lose.

Agreed. And that's the way it should be--the alliance with the better robots (and people controlling them) should win.

This is unfair.

This is what led me to reply. To begin with, what makes a game challenge unfair? The challenge has been presented, you build a robot and strategy to deal with the stipulations of the game. On the other hand, Dean has repeatedly said that FIRST isn't necessarily fair. Life isn't either, so write it up as good preparation.

This is unfair because it is disingenuous to the very spirit of competition--any competition--to have hard work, ingenuity, and talent rewarded with loss.

Alright, I'll warn the rookies now...

YOU WILL NOT WIN EVERYTHING IN FIRST.

Take 1293 last year. We had all three of those things, and we went 3-4-1. We weren't picked for the elimination matches. On the field, we lost. But I know that 99.9999% of our team enjoyed the experience. So much so, in fact, that we're back. So, I ask you...is that winning or losing?

It is, as AnonymousMan said, a microcosm of the same reasons Communism failed, although on a vastly less melodramatic scale. I simply draw parallels.

I'd love to see how you can compare switching to 3v3 to Communism.

I predict that, at comp, you're going to have a bunch of dissatisfied teams with good robots and good strategies who are being held back by their alliance partners, and a lot of mediocre teams being vaulted to a position of prominence and winning that they do not deserve.

I am willing to bet that the mediocre teams will not advance too far. Will a great robot with relatively lousy partners not seed high? Probably so. However, teams know talent when they see it. The good robots will be picked.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Petey

We increased the field floor by a 18 square foot margin, but much of that is taken up by the end zones which are, for all intents and purposes, out of play.

The entire center of the field was "unplayable" last year. Sure, you could use it, but you couldn't exactly drive over it if something else was in your way. (At least, I never saw anyone use the platform for anything other than hanging.)

Originally Posted by Petey

Three teams will be awarded the same number of QP's, not 2, which means that there will be more teams with the same QP's than there were last year

That doesn't make mathematical sense. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are no ties. If each team plays nine matches, there is a total of ten different combinations of QP: 0, 2, 4, ..., 16, 18. With the new format, there will now be half again as many matches, meaning each team would get thirteen or fourteen matches, making fourteen or fifteen possible QP scores. There are still going to be as many wins as there are losses, so the scores will be spread out through the whole QP spectrum. Just imagine if everybody only played one match. A lot of people would have 2, and a lot of people would have 0. When you have more matches, there is more of a chance of different scores.

[Alyna]

Took the words right out of my mouth Petey! And this game dosent focus on the original design of the robot as much as being able to survive with 6 robots on a general sized field. This should be interesting.

[snipelfritz]

In this game your robot design essentially has to do two things; move and put tetras on tetras. The games strategy can be as shallow as puting as many tetras up as possible to as deep as finding the sensor ones, knocking down the "hangers", building rows, and getting your alliance to the endzone. The strategy is as complicated as you and your alliance partners make it. Teamwork is the key. I like this years game.

[Jeffrafa]

Originally Posted by Petey

A) If we had more alliance partners, increase the field size! Go to a hex shaped field.

--Petey

The field IS larger than last year, rather significantly actually (more than 300 square feet larger) as well as 90% of the field is open carpet, it dosen't have the obsticals and large area taken up by movable goals and the center platform we had last year. I think having 2 additional teams on the field at a time will make for much more happening on the field, and i'm sure there will be robots running into eachother during rounds, but this happens anyways- no matter how large the field.

[JohnBoucher]

Real head game. Very subtle. The game is also very forgiving for rookie teams. Could be anyone's championship this year.

[Aignam]

This game is the first in a while to almost force teams to manipulate the mainstream game piece, the tetrahedrons. In 2003, if you could get two robots on the ramp at the end, you had a fair shot for the win. In 2004, if you could have two robots hang, your victory was almost guaranteed. This year...10 points does little to alter the direction of the game, especially when the 10 points are as easy as driving backwards a few feet. We're going to see alot of on-the-fly strategy and last minute caps that win the game, and alot of robot-on-robot contact if teams play competetively.

[Ashley Weed]

I am thrilled that FIRST has finally added in a new game element, and hey my college chemistry class has finally paid off for something, and I can now say and talk and be "informed" about the tetrahedral.

I am excited about the 3v3. We shouldn't get discouraged, angry, or upset yet. It could be wonderful for a change-up for some of us long running veterans to have some new strategy sessions, and it will require a whole new way of co-opertition. No where does this state that it is permanent, and it wont go back to 2v2 next year or in the following years, so nobody should be discouraged by an interesting little twist of 3v3. Enjoy a little added fun for a bit.

Vision system! YES! All I can say is let me have at it! I can't wait to start working with the new software, the vision system, and programming.


Good Luck Everyone in the new season, and thanks FIRST for some new FUN!

[Cyberguy34000]

This year's game appearers to focus more on the strategy of the game itself more than the design strategy of the robot....