I was wondering what everyone thought about having a 4 team alliance on the field. The same way it switched from 2 teams to 3 teams from '04 - '05 do you think they will ever do it? And if they do, when do you think they will? WHat do you think the game will be like, etc, etc…
-John
Unless the field is made bigger in conjunction, I think it would be too cluttered to work.
It’d definately be interesting though… lots of new possibilies created.
The 2001 game was a four team alliance.
I think he is implying 4v4.
Adam, I am assuming that you are thinking that John proposed to have a 4 teams alliance and every single one of those teams will play during a match, hence a 4 vs. 4 match. If that is the case, I don’t think that is what John was proposing.
This goes for everyone who joined FIRST after 2003 season and does not have the knowledge of previous games. Before 2004 season, during the elimination, each alliance would have 3 teams, but only 2 of them play during a match. The teams switched back and forth. I believe the rule was, each team on the alliance must play atleast one match, but other than that, it was up to the alliance to decide who plays the matches. So similarly, I think John is proposing to play a game where an alliance would consist of 4 teams, but only 3 teams play in a match; for the next match, one of the robots take a break and the team that didn’t play the previous match goes in.
Now back to the topic, I wouldn’t mind seeing 4 teams alliances since FIRST is getting bigger each year. It gives more teams a chance to play in the elimination. But if that is the case, each regional will require to have atleast 32 teams. This year Waterloo regional had 30 teams. That is the only problem I see, but obviously it’s up to FIRST to decide how we play the game.
If alliances get bigger than 3 (or even if they don’t) I wouldn’t mind seeing a game that rewards the passing of gamepieces from one partner to another. Some variation of Robo-Ultimate Frisbee would be awesome.
I’m wondering if they will ever go to 4 team alliances for the eliminations like Pre-2005. 2 teams on a field at once, but there were 3 in an alliance and all three had to play in each round at some point.
Will they ever do something like that in the future?
“Darn”… stole my thunder. I was going to mention 2001 
for 4v4 or 3v3 with 2 off, there would need to be 32 teams at each competition. As far as I know, thats not a problem at all, but it leads to something important:
Most all teams at smaller regionals will than be chosen, thus putting the ‘bad’ robots on the field and creating the issue of possibly disenfranchizing the high seeded teams. I know its not very GP, but thats the way it goes.
Quote from the [Official 2007 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas](http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47408) thread.
Well… if there’s four team alliances… you could go all UFC and have an OCTAGON FIELD… 4 teams start one side, 4 teams on the other, or even more fun you could alternate red/blue/red/blue/etc. around the octagon’s verticies… </craziness>
In all seriousness, I agree that unless the field was made bigger it would be too congested with an extra two robots on it. It would be eh… interesting keeping that many teams working together though for the coaches… I think three is a good number. Hey i’m arguing with myself. Fun stuff. Yeah. I’m stopping before i start hitting myself over the head… :rolleyes:
-q
Or just make the robots smaller.
I think that making the robot smaller would be an awesome idea, it would force team to plan the space inside of a robot more carefully or to decrease the weight limit, that would make teams plan materials better, and use lighter stronger things and do actual matsci for their robots.
But back on topic now that I have time to myself, I was origonally talking about 4v4 with everyone on the field, but now that Arefin brings up the 2004 idea, that would be interesting also. I think we would need wayy bigger regionals otherwise everyteam would get chosen. Not that that is a bad thing, but IMHO it takes away from the competition of qualifying matches. Also in the elims, I think it would make for more interesting matches because teams will be given time to repair their robot if it breaks. That would mean no 2v3 matches anymore (or wayy less atleast).
-John
I think that it’ll be a couple years before we see the FIRST increase the number of teams on the field. At the regionals, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the teams advance to the elimination rounds - that’s a pretty good number to keep everyone involved. Plus, increasing the number of teams on the field has implications on the championship logistics. To keep the championship the same overall length, you’ll have to 1) increase the number of fields and/or 2) decrease the number of matches played. I don’t see the FIRST community going for option 2 and, while I haven’t yet been to the championship since it moved to Atlanta, I understand that the teams are already stretched for time getting to and from the pits. FIRST might have to change the venue before it switches the 3v3 format. Will it eventually happen…yes. Will it happen soon…not that I see.
I would be interested in a game that had a 4-team alliance, but all teams worked together to get the best possible score. I’m sure this would please people since there’s no “oh so harsh” pushing and shoving (can’t we all just play nice? jeesh! >_>). Anyway, no defense, just all offense.
what about a game with a game piece 10 feet in the air where there are 3’4" steps and you have to make robots to get the game piece but you max height of anything on your robot is 4 feet. Would the winning aliance have 3 robots on the steps that drive up each other to get up and the final one drives up all 3 to get the piece. That would be awesome team work. But, I can see once multiple states like Rhode Island getting a FIRST team in every school like promised there will alot more regionals and alot more teams at championships. I can see there easily being 3000 active teams with over 60 regionals. Ofcourse that is gonna be by the time I have kids and nobody even remembers highschool football but championship then better be a nationall broadcasted event.
its fun to dream!
-John
Please do not give Dave ideas!
Anyways, this year the game involved robots stacked which was supposed to teach us about the real world and communication and coordination. Well, I think that if there are four on four matches next year or in future years. YOU WILL have to communicate and coordinate on an exponential scale of what we have to do this year. Think about, on top of this year’s bonus, a 50 point bonus for a bot 15" high. YES I said it, 1 bot carries 2, that bot gets carried under another. Maybe it is not that reasonable but you get the idea.
MORE team members equals more real world skills. Now how many real world skills are there? When you give me an answer you will answer the question of how many robots on the field there will be!*
Pavan.
*Notice I did not say alliances.
I think part of the motivation for 3 team alliances was to fit more teams into the Championship (purely speculation on my part, no info from the GDC to back it up). It allowed ~52 more teams to compete at CMP while still allowing 7 qualifying matches per team (actually less total qualifying matches). I don’t think teams per match is a limiting factor in CMP capacity anymore since they could always play more total qualifying matches again.
So 4 team alliances wouldn’t help expand CMP and as others have noted, it may not work well at small regionals. So I don’t think FIRST will go to 4v4 anytime soon.
If the GDC is listening…Please don’t do it.
4 v 4 would make match scouting nearly impossible. It is hard enough to keep track of 6 robots at a time, but 8?
I really liked that idea! This kind of competition opens a whole new type of strategy into the game. Teams, who are no longer in alliances, will have to start commnication bonds with other teams in order to have the same goal with eachother in order to have each team build the proper robot for the case that they will play together. This is really more challenging.
The idea of one robot hold 3 robots(on of them holding two others) sound a bit out of a Sci-Fi books, but, hey, things from Sci-Fi became real after all, but all I’m saying is this will be more difficult. The decision of what kind of robot will you make will decied what kind of teams you should be with, because your robot won’t be able to do one or some roles out of the 4 given(being lifted by the lifted robot, be the lifted robot that lifts or the robot the lifts 'em all).
I guess that all the building and scouting time will have to be longer, so hopefully IF(I’m not quite sure if I want it to or not) FIRST uses this concept for next year’s challenge they will give us a longer period for the building process.
It’s my team’s first, but I believe we will be able to counter this challenge. Good idea! 