3 Teams Per Side Too Many?

[Carter]

Originally Posted by SharkBite

I really think 3 on 3 is a bad idea. I loved it at the beginning of the season and I really liked the element of strategy that it added, but I have since noticed a few things that is has impacted negatively. There were huge lapses in scouting at nationals. I think this had a lot to do with 3 on 3 since it is nearly impossible to keep track of a match with 6 robots in it. You need 6 people watching each match and even then it is difficult to get a perspective on the whole match. Also it is more difficult for an individual well performing team to overcome an unlucky alliance pairing. It wouldn't be so devastating to be seeded lower due to alliance partner mishaps if you could trust that the top seeded teams had watched your performance and would pick you.

not to keep the neg talk going but you make another good point. that most teams dont have the people to scout that many bots and scout newton ,curie and so on. my team did it all this year but it was hard on all of us and my team has 75 people on it.

[Not2B]

3 vs 3 = good

-More rounds
-More teams
-You get field time with almost everyone
-Broken robots result in 2 vs 3, which isn't the end of the world
-Scouting is different, not harder. (You need to be more creative, and data driven - at least it worked for us.)
-More exciting, IMHO, than 2x2 (but that's not a good reason for or against)

3vs3, 2vs2vs2, or 2vs3 would all be fun.

(2 vs 3... with an uneven field... and you get equal number of matches on 2 as you get on 3. That would be wild.)

[the_short1]

i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

[George A.]

Originally Posted by the_short1

i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.

[Masterfork]

Originally Posted by M.O.R.T.

That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.

eyeah that is a real problem when your a good bot and you end up in like last cause of your alliances no chance at 1st,2nd, or any picking seed

[pyroslev]

Evolution of the competition.

Three robots mean:

1. that teams can have a better shot at having their weaknesses covered
2. Scouting is more important to all
3. Everyone can play more
4. More fun period

[ben281]

"1. that teams can have a better shot at having their weaknesses covered
2. Scouting is more important to all
3. Everyone can play more
4. More fun period"

can't number one be seen the other way? like i mean having more partners is a better chance at obtaining more weaknesses? It seems to me that if you are the best of the best, say capping 6-7 a match then the chances are pretty good that your partners are not going to be able to do that. so it would be better to have one partner than two. because more just brings your average down. i see this as a real challenge for the upper rated teams. sorry guys-the statistics just aren't on your side this year : (
Ben
TEAM 281

[Carter]

Originally Posted by M.O.R.T.

That's where scouting comes in. If a team's scouting team is up to par with the competition, then they will realizes that you got screwed over with pairings, they will also know if you got really lucky with pairings and rode other teams back to a high seed. FIRST has enough on it's plate keeping track of the rankings for 50+ teams without having to keep track of individual robot performance.

its doesnt matter how good your scouting is if you are ranked 43 like we were. the top seeded teams still get to pick and then you split up all the good team from picking each other.And by that happening the division best robots dont really come out of it.

[Carter]

Originally Posted by Carter

its doesnt matter how good your scouting is if you are ranked 43 like we were. the top seeded teams still get to pick and then you split up all the good team from picking each other.And by that happening the division best robots dont really come out of it.

oh i was talking with some of my team and were thinking that maybe FIRST would change the way the Alliance picking went and some how take out the luck of it. i just think that sometimes the best bots dont come out of the divisons.

[Masterfork]

Originally Posted by Carter

oh i was talking with some of my team and were thinking that maybe FIRST would change the way the Alliance picking went and some how take out the luck of it. i just think that sometimes the best bots dont come out of the divisons.

thank you, that is the best way to explain it.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by the_short1

i think on the official standinds, each robot should have the number of tetras they personally stacked.,..

for instance, giving credit to alliance team 1,2,3 even thought team 2 didnlt cap any. .. etc.... . or if your alliance lost a match because you were the only scoring team, so scouters can more accurately see how good an individual team is.... . this year.. it was all about alliances.. if you were a GREAT robot and had 2 really crap alliances.. theirs almost no way you can win . . even against 3 low strength robots

One problem, though...how do you track that?

This year on Curie, I did real-time scorekeeping. There was a shortage of RTS folks across the entire dome, so we resorted to creative means (read: recruiting a few media guys from Heatwave) to get the absolute minimum on our field. (Granted, RTS this year should have been a three-person job--but that's another story. Don't worry, I already suggested it to FIRST.)

Just from how recruiting volunteers can be at times (there was a white board each morning in the volunteer area with open positions), I really don't think FIRST has the ability to track the scores and the robots at the same time. Of course, you could always create such a system with your team and publish the information somehow.

[bhweezer]

I would like a 2v2v2 game more than another 3v3 game next year. We had a lot of bad luck this year where one or two of our alliance partners would get stuck or break, leaving us 2 on 3 and sometimes even 1 on 3. In a 2v2 game you have more of a chance to win a match alone than you would in a 3v3 game.

[ben281]

how would a 2v2v2 work? i don't think they could so a win-loss record any more. it would have to be done with a point system (maybe something like sports?) like 2 points for being the highest scoring alliance and 1 point for being the second highest? ....mm....haha that might not be that bad of an idea ; ) ttyl
Ben
TEAM 281

[Meyerman]

i think the 3 on 3 did mess with how teams were ranked and it was easier to get ranked good depending on yer matches just like any year but as far as the game goes im ready for 4 on 4!!!!!!! i thought the 2 extra robots made it more interesting and besides the selections having some not soo good teams up top at times because of it, i loved it.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bhweezer

I would like a 2v2v2 game more than another 3v3 game next year.

In the very old days, it used to be 1v1v1. I don't know how they did the rankings (I was too young to be on a team that year), but I bet someone on the forum knows. Do you really want 3 alliances? I think the reason FIRST only does two is, it's less confusing for everyone. I believe that when they started doing 2v2 they said something to the effect of "Three teams is too confusing, so we will have four teams...on two alliances." (Please don't quote me on that, as it is a paraphrase more likely than not.) In effect, there are two "teams" on the field, assuming you work as a team. (If you aren't working as a team, you are working as individuals and you will get creamed. "United we stand...") I highly doubt that FIRST will return to three teams/alliances working against each other for quite a while.