3 Teams Per Side Too Many?

[EOC]

I thought the 3v3 was great, lots of strategy, lots of action, lots of matches.

[AIBob]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

3 teams always win regionals just in the past when it was 2 vs 2 not everyone played all the matches but the number of winners stayed the same.

Not quite the same, on average per regional there were more, because in some cases there were four teams that won.

I personally like the 3v3 matches more because they go faster, and you can fit more teams in the championship, but i did not like the fact that it was too much luck in the qualifying matches.
I like having more teams to challenge, it makes the game more difficult/fun!

[Meyerman]

Originally Posted by omutton

I think 3 on 3 is fine, more Regional Champions . Also, it is more exciting to watch with 3 on 3.

its been 3 champions to every event since 2002 tho just this year you dont have at 3 on the feild at once.

[henryBsick]

Logistically 3 vs. 3 was great...
-# of matches
-# of teams

Competition wise was horrible (IMHO)
-1 good robot that should rank high could be in a match with two weaker robots against 3 good robots. A loss almost every time
-A fairly poor team can coast through matches on the shoulders of their good alliance partners and seed very high.


I personally have seen both scenarios happen So both sides of the story (2v2 or 3v3) have their ups and downs personally I would like to see 2 vs. 2 again. I drove a 2 vs. 2 match this year because of missing alliance partners and it was sooo much better in my opinion.

$.02
-Henry

[George A.]

I definately like the 3v3 idea. It has more intense matches. All of the eliminations I have seen this year (especially the ones in NJ and Einstein) were some of the best matches I've seen in my day.

Although I do like the 2v2v2 idea.

[ben281]

hey guys,
i would have to agree with petek. and i also like his refraising of the question. i do see a problem in a bad team riding there way to the top on pure luck. but it is more of a challenge for a team to be the absolute best. 3v3 does seem to be more action intensive and better for a spectator sport. though it did get a little confusing, i do no thing field size is what we are talking about here. was it worth the risk of letting a bad team get to the top by luck alone, or does this even happen?
responding to an earlier statement. In statistics, there is something called the Law of Large Numbers, which shows (in a nut shell) how when your sample size is large enough, the mean will approach the median. 7 games over say 5 or 6 is not enough for (statistically) to make that much of a difference, but of course it will change who is in the top 8. But to truly get the top 8 teams, at least 100 games would have to be played per team.
what does every one think?
Ben
TEAM 281

[George1902]

Originally Posted by M.O.R.T.

Although I do like the 2v2v2 idea.

This is the direction in which I'd like to see FIRST go.

Situations in where two weak alliances gang up on a third, strong alliance can be addressed with creative game design:

Originally Posted by George1083

Imagine:

Three two-team alliances: purple, green, and orange. Three goals to score in: red, blue, and yellow.

The purple alliance's score is the total of the red and blue goals. The green alliance's score is the total of the blue and yellow goals. The orange alliance's score is the total of the red and yellow goals.

Yes, two alliances could team up on the third, but they would need to score all of their points into just one goal to do so. Also, they would have to defend two goals. The third alliance would be able to score in two goals and only have to defend one. They would be at a two to one disadvantage in terms of robots, but would be at a two to one advantage in terms of offensive and defensive objectives.

[Kyle]

I am also in the 3v3 boat, its more fun to watch the matches and like it was said before more teams get to play more matches so everyone gets better.

[danield710]

i think it worked fine this year mainly because the open space on the field was much greater than that of last year, with last years game their would be no way to have 6 bots on the field at once

[Max Lobovsky]

3v3 is fun, allows more interesting strategies, and helps FIRST handle more teams. My only complaint is that it makes watching the game worse. It is hard enough to follow 4 robots playing, with 3v3, it is entirely impossible to keep track of whats going on.

[Carter]

Originally Posted by ben281

hey everyone!
i just wanted the opinions out there whether the increase in robots on the field increases the luck involved and if so is it worth it to help move through more matches quicker? i know there were lots of good teams that got lower seeds than expected because of this. let me hear what you guys think!
Ben
TEAM 281

i dont like the 3v3 this year because it puts to much of the game in luck. it was okay at the regionals bc there were only one or to really good good bots(not trying to bring down the other bots. but you can tell the difference in the really good and okay.) my team could over come all the other bots at the regionals. we seed #1 at both regionals we went to and won then at nationals we were 43 seed .but when you have to two bots that are on your alliance and they cant do anything and then you are play against 3 okay bots its not fair to the one bot. the teams work really hard and we do so good at regionals and then we cant over come the luck at nationals and it hard on us because we do work so hard those 6 weeks to make the bot good. my team wasnt the only team like that. others are 79,1251,179,71,61 and im sure i missed some but i hope i got the point out.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Carter

i dont like the 3v3 this year because it puts to much of the game in luck. it was okay at the regionals bc there were only one or to really good good bots(not trying to bring down the other bots. but you can tell the difference in the really good and okay.) my team could over come all the other bots at the regionals. we seed #1 at both regionals we went to and won then at nationals we were 43 seed .but when you have to two bots that are on your alliance and they cant do anything and then you are play against 3 okay bots its not fair to the one bot. the teams work really hard and we do so good at regionals and then we cant over come the luck at nationals and it hard on us because we do work so hard those 6 weeks to make the bot good. my team wasnt the only team like that. others are 79,1251,179,71,61 and im sure i missed some but i hope i got the point out.

Point well made. But I think 3v3 works just fine, but there needs to be less teams at nationals (i don't like saying that). As Joe J stated, have more matches would alleviate your situation. 7 matches is just not quite enough, 8-10 would be better. That would also alleviate the scouting problem for some of us small teams that have only 3-5 students scouting. Less teams seems to alleviate a lot of problems, but may raise the fees unfortunately.

[Ali Ahmed]

I think the 3 on 3 in fine and a very good thing for FIRST. FIRST is becoming very huge and the 3 on 3 allows more matches per team. For example, if this years game were to have 2 on 2 then we would have had something like 4-5 matches total. I don't know about anybody else but thats kind of boring. It is also for the rookie teams that are not able to go to the Championship. It allows them to have more machetes and therefore more fun or a better chance at winning and going to the Champs. And, like other people said, it makes for more interesting strategies and scouting.

[Squeje250]

Yea. truthfully i think it may have been better. knowing that if one of your teamates where disabled, or just isnt doin anything you have another to help you out, and its not just all you. althought they also have more help. i think both ways are fine.

[Jim Kosaski]

I enjoyed the 3 vs. 3 challenge this year. What will probably happen though, it will depend on what kind of a challenge First keeps coming out with each year. But, as others have said before, if the number of teams keeps growing, then you will keep seeing the field and the number of alliance partners on at one time, increasing.