Alliances in touble?

FIRST General Forum
#6

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/12/2000 11:03 AM MST

In Reply to: How about this? posted by P.J. Baker on 4/12/2000 9:58 AM MST:

: Seeding takes place all day Friday, and maybe one round on Thursday, like last year. At the end of the day Friday there is a draft and the top 16 each get two picks to form alliances. The remaining teams are then thrown into random alliances (based on seeding or something). Saturday is a double elimination tournament with all of the alliances (there would have been 90 this year) to determine the champs. If the number of teams is not divisible by 3, the extra teams are offered to the top seeded alliances so that they will have even more options.

This is something that I was thinking about. I think that every team should have a shot at the elimination rounds somehow or another. I would even like to get rid of the 3 team alliances and go back to 2 team alliances. The top half of the seeds get to pick until everyone is in a 2 member alliance (everyone gets to play - no one watches). This should bring back the excitement that there used to be in '98. I know I personally feel better when another team knocks me out rather than chooses not to select my team. It’s easier to live with that way.

#7

Posted by Thomas A. Frank.

Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 4/12/2000 3:08 PM MST

In Reply to: How about this? posted by P.J. Baker on 4/12/2000 9:58 AM MST:

: Seeding takes place all day Friday, and maybe one round on Thursday, like last year. At the end of the day Friday there is a draft and the top 16 each get two picks to form alliances. The remaining teams are then thrown into random alliances (based on seeding or something). Saturday is a double elimination tournament with all of the alliances (there would have been 90 this year) to determine the champs. If the number of teams is not divisible by 3, the extra teams are offered to the top seeded alliances so that they will have even more options.

Excellent idea! I hope FIRST is listening.

Tom Frank
Team 121

#8

Posted by Scott Vierstra.

Engineer on team #128, Cold Fusion (TOGA PARTY), from Grandview Heights and American Electric Power.

Posted on 4/12/2000 2:18 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? posted by Elaine Anselm on 4/12/2000 9:13 AM MST:

I agree that the use of arbitrarily selected alliances is great! It teaches that we have to be willing to rely on others to help us achieve a goal – that we can’t always rely solely on our own abilities and, if you choose to try such, the chances of success are less likely. I liked Woody’s term for it, ‘coopitition.’ As far as the crowds were concern, I would agree that it is dissapointing to see them dwindle during the finals. I think that the multiple final venues played a big part in this happening this year. I would have prefered fro the finals to have taken longer and have been able to watch more from within Einstien. By moving the finals from 4, down to 2, and finally to 1 arena, FIRST inadvertantly, encouraged reductions in the audiences. Had it all been at Einstein, I believe that the audience would have been huge. Unfortunately, with the small buffer between the arena and the crowd, it is difficult for a large audience to see the playing surface and watch the action. How about a coopitition that involves a sloped surface or a wall so that we can all see the action better?!?

A FIRST Aholic

: Chris - I guess I read through the same comments and saw something different. Teams were disappointed at not making the finals, ours being one. We had some great matches and the team wanted to see more. It looked to me like just about everyone who posted notes about being disappointed could see beyond that and felt it was a great year despite the dissapointment. I do think there could be improvements to the selection process, but I also think that alliances are the BEST thing that FIRST has done since they got rid of the tethers in 1993.

: I do agree with you on the attendance at the finals matches. In 1998 the stands were about as full as during the awards ceremony and the mood was electric during the finals matches. People were dancing, teams were all having a great time. Last year it was just too hot. This year I was dissapointed to see so few people in the stands for what was one of the best finals ever.

: So what happened this year? You may be right that people lost interest once they were not chosen. It is tough for people to cheer someone on when they did not pick your team as an ally. I also thought that things were too disjoint and did not promote a sense of oneness. If I remember correctly matches were 9-10:15, selection 10:45-11, finals 1-3 and ceremony 6-8. A 2 hour break after the selection with people disappointed resulted in a mass exodus. I think some people intended to come back but then didn’t when they thought about leaving again for after 2 more hours then coming back for the ceremony. If the format with alliances continues, which I personally would like to see, maybe the break should occur after the last seeding match, then have the alliance selection followed by a half hour break while teams strategize. During that time the DJ should get the crowds pumped up. In years past the DJ got the crowd moving, but this year it seemed like they just played music. Going back to a more gradual elimination like the one resulting from double elimination would be another alternative

: Our team has talked about telling team members that they cannot leave before the finals, but I would rather have them want to stay than make them feel forced into it.

: Elaine
: Team 191
: X-Cats

#9

Posted by Thomas A. Frank.

Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 4/12/2000 3:07 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? posted by Elaine Anselm on 4/12/2000 9:13 AM MST:

Hello All;

Allow me to add my thoughts here - this is somewhat lengthy, but please read all the way through, because I offer suggestions at the bottom to fix what I perceive as the problems here.

The alliance system (which should really be called coalitions; check the dictionary) is a pretty neat concept, but having the winning coalition receiving 3x the losing sides points is utterly silly. I get the feeling that the folks who design this competition (are you listening Woody and Dean?) have completely lost sight of what they are trying to emulate, which is sports. Can anyone think of any sport, or for that matter any aspect of real life, where the losers results have any direct consequence to/on the winners?

Furthermore, in either real life (or sports), can anyone think of a situation where one’s partner appear moments before things begin? If there is to be pairing, even if it is arbitrary, then there should be more than 2 minutes to work out the ‘details’.

Both issues above create a situation where you are at the mercy of other people, in situation that are beyond your control. Which is not how sports works, and when life works this way, it is usually considered detrimental…

On a related note, how many of you noticed the large number of teams that had trouble making their practice sessions early in the day, and what a difficult time FIRST had in organizing the opening of each day, due to teams not being ready, or not being there on time?

All of this can be fixed…

Item 1 - the practice schedule should be published on the Internet at least a week before the event for all events. That way teams will know if they need to make an extra effort to get there early.

Item 2 - Rather than dropping the alliance (excuse me, coalition) teaming sheet on the teams tables during the night, provide them right at registration. That way, again, teams that need to be there early will know and can make sure they are there. Even better, publish that on the Interent a week early also.

Item 3 - Keeping the teaming ‘secret’ until 2 minutes before the match is counterproductive, to say the least. It should be shown on the teaming sheet that is handed out at registration (or put out on the 'Net) per item 2 above. This pays several dividends; a) you put the right color light lens on before going to field (no delays or lost covers), b) teams that are fully operational will be out scouting their partners, and helping those that need it to get operational. As an aside, while we already help out other teams to best of our ability, if we knew beforehand that we were going to have the teaming info available to us, I am sure we would make an extra effort to form troubleshooting teams to go out and help our planned partners. If we knew who our partners were a week beforehand, we would call them and ask what help they need, and bring it…you can’t bring everything (goodness knows the overweight charge for our shipping crates proves we tried to), but if you KNOW that they need something, it can usually be arranged.

Item 4 - the winners of a match should be just that - the winners. Putting their fate in the hands of the opposition is simply wrong…in one of our qualifying matches, we tried to score for the other side, and they were trying to stop us! Now that’s not very nice/fair/rational, is it?

Anyone agree/disagree with these ideas?

Tom Frank
Team 121

#10

Posted by Mike Kulibaba.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 4/12/2000 4:09 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in trouble? posted by Thomas A. Frank on 4/12/2000 3:07 PM MST:

I think what FIRST did this year with the scoring system was a good change of pace. When you take the scoring system from 99(3 times your score)if you one 160-1, what does that prove? it proves that you can dominate a team. No one wants to lose 160-1. and not many people want to see one team get killed. But if you take this years scoring system( 3X the loser’s score) to dominate a team 56-1 that gets you 3 points and we all know 3 points per round won’t get you into the top 16. I think Dean and Woody( And I commend them for doing this) didn’t want to see teams lose 50-1. They wanted to see close games where the blue alliance had to put in points into the red alliance to help them get more points. Another case, Blue puts in points to red and then the red robot knocks the other blue robot off the ramp and red ends up winning. it was there way of showing us that we need to help out everyone not just our alliance partner. I call recall people were complaining about the 3X your score for the competiton last year because the mostly defensive teams couldn’t score big points. I think FIRST wanted to see Closer matches, they didn’t want to see 486-24 matches like we had in 99. I don’t know if I would do it again but I like the idea for atleast one year, I would do it again too.

Kuli Team 88

#11

Posted by Matt Rock.

Student on team #115, MVRT, from Monta Vista High School and Hitachi Data Systems - 3Com - NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/12/2000 7:11 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in trouble? posted by Thomas A. Frank on 4/12/2000 3:07 PM MST:

Those are good ideas, but for the sports thing, this isn’t the same as any other Sport this is: FIRST, unique in so many ways, why not the scoring system. As Dean stressed so many times:
‘If one person has one idea, and another person another idea, if they trade the both have two ideas.’
this concept can help the world in so many ways, so allready they are trying to stress this with the co:opertition(i hope thats spelling it right) THis year was much harder, and it will continue to get harder each year, Dean and Woody and the rest of those guys at the time are trying to push us and see how far we can go. This scoring system and alliances is seeing if we can work togetther without really knowing the other person, I say we show them that we can, and better than they hope.

Good luck to all of the Teams that are staying it in next year.

-Matt
Team 115

: Hello All;

: Allow me to add my thoughts here - this is somewhat lengthy, but please read all the way through, because I offer suggestions at the bottom to fix what I perceive as the problems here.

: The alliance system (which should really be called coalitions; check the dictionary) is a pretty neat concept, but having the winning coalition receiving 3x the losing sides points is utterly silly. I get the feeling that the folks who design this competition (are you listening Woody and Dean?) have completely lost sight of what they are trying to emulate, which is sports. Can anyone think of any sport, or for that matter any aspect of real life, where the losers results have any direct consequence to/on the winners?

: Furthermore, in either real life (or sports), can anyone think of a situation where one’s partner appear moments before things begin? If there is to be pairing, even if it is arbitrary, then there should be more than 2 minutes to work out the ‘details’.

: Both issues above create a situation where you are at the mercy of other people, in situation that are beyond your control. Which is not how sports works, and when life works this way, it is usually considered detrimental…

: On a related note, how many of you noticed the large number of teams that had trouble making their practice sessions early in the day, and what a difficult time FIRST had in organizing the opening of each day, due to teams not being ready, or not being there on time?

: All of this can be fixed…

: Item 1 - the practice schedule should be published on the Internet at least a week before the event for all events. That way teams will know if they need to make an extra effort to get there early.

: Item 2 - Rather than dropping the alliance (excuse me, coalition) teaming sheet on the teams tables during the night, provide them right at registration. That way, again, teams that need to be there early will know and can make sure they are there. Even better, publish that on the Interent a week early also.

: Item 3 - Keeping the teaming ‘secret’ until 2 minutes before the match is counterproductive, to say the least. It should be shown on the teaming sheet that is handed out at registration (or put out on the 'Net) per item 2 above. This pays several dividends; a) you put the right color light lens on before going to field (no delays or lost covers), b) teams that are fully operational will be out scouting their partners, and helping those that need it to get operational. As an aside, while we already help out other teams to best of our ability, if we knew beforehand that we were going to have the teaming info available to us, I am sure we would make an extra effort to form troubleshooting teams to go out and help our planned partners. If we knew who our partners were a week beforehand, we would call them and ask what help they need, and bring it…you can’t bring everything (goodness knows the overweight charge for our shipping crates proves we tried to), but if you KNOW that they need something, it can usually be arranged.

: Item 4 - the winners of a match should be just that - the winners. Putting their fate in the hands of the opposition is simply wrong…in one of our qualifying matches, we tried to score for the other side, and they were trying to stop us! Now that’s not very nice/fair/rational, is it?

: Anyone agree/disagree with these ideas?

: Tom Frank
: Team 121

#12

Posted by Erin.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #1, The Juggernauts, from Oakland Technical Center-Northeast Campus and 3-Dimensional Services.

Posted on 4/12/2000 11:39 AM MST

In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:

Chris,

Not only was I totally saddened when the RoboStars were not chosen, I was even more hurt that so many awesome michigan teams were not picked either. I was even more hurt when that last alliance partner was called, and I had not yet heard the lone number ‘1’.

Being a second year member of this team, I could not even begin to think of reasons why we weren’t chosen. I kept thinking, ‘we did it last year, why can’t we do it this year?’ Being a soft hearted female didn’t help either, I pretty much cried my eyes out.

But that didn’t stop my team. The whole way through the finals we were there SCREAMING for the Huskies’ and their alliance of Aztechs and RAGE (who, might I add, both have awesome robots). I have no clue as to why we didn’t get picked when we have such a great record. I still haven’t a clue as to why you, team 66, team 288, team 5 or 49 weren’t picked, as well as a huge handful of other awesome michigan teams.

But I have to say, it is all a matter of location. If you look at the top 16 alliances, most come from the same general area or they attended the same regionals. I do not know how to overcome this problem except with my suggestion of scouting. OVER-SCOUT if you have to. Maybe other teams won’t notice you because they don’t know you, so annoy them a little bit. Don’t become a bother, but don’t walk away with them still wondering who your team is. Last year, my team didn’t know who 176 was as they said our name as their first pick for the finals. I guess the scouting we did paid off.

Are there any other suggestions into helping teams get noticed and picked by teams who are picking? Please tell, I would like the info…

-erin

#13

Posted by Joshua Berthiaume.

Student on team #131, C.H.A.O.S, from Manchester Central HS and Osram Sylvania and Fleet Bank.

Posted on 4/12/2000 2:02 PM MST

In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:

It seems this year and last year there has been a huge debate on how the alliance selection is. The teams that are in the top 16 at the end of all the seeding rounds are there for a reson, they deserve it. This year in the qualifycation rounds the teams who could score the most points were at the top of the seeding.

The teams that could win matches were not in even the top fifty in all cases. our team this year (131) seeded 110, we seeded here because we couldnt score a ton of points. 47, 111, 157, 126 and all the other teams were in the top cause they could score points. teams like 25 us and a couple of other ball manipulaters seeded really low. But we knew we would so we set out team members to the teams that we thought we would make good alliance with. If teams are picked they are picked for a reson. If teams dont pick you it probably means that your robot doesnt compliment theirs.

What I am saying is that I like the selection that they use. If everyone was in the eliminations then there would be no reson to learn how to communicat with other teams and get out their and scout, or sell yourselfs to other teams.

I hope that first keeps it this way and keeps pumping out games like they have been.

Josh
Team 131 C.H.A.O.S.

#14

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/12/2000 2:52 PM MST

In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:

Please don’t interpret my post as a complaint for not getting picked. Of course I was upset at not getting picked, but that’s not the point. The point is that since Saturday, I’ve talked to five people who told me that they wished alliances would go away. I’ve also noticed a lot of people very upset (much more upset than I was). This is not the first time this has happened… A lot of people posted here after regionals about how upset they were that they weren’t picked.

The point is this: if having alliances (in the current manner) makes many people upset, is it a smart thing? How upset will some people get before they quit FIRST? I’ll guarantee that almost anyone that posts on this board wouldn’t quit over something like this. However, only a very small portion of the FIRST population posts on this site. I guess that anything that makes people this upset probably isn’t in FIRST’s best interests.

Once again, I’m not upset enough about not getting picked to complain about it. However, a lot of people were. To me, that puts up a red flag that something isn’t right. People will always disagree with something or another, but I’ve seen some pretty harsh posts on this board after some of the regionals and the nationals - harsher than over any other subject.

Okay, now I hoped no one questions my motives. Now I’ll shut up and let people post.

#15

Posted by Trevor McCulloch.

Student on team #349, The Robahamas, from International Academy and Ford.

Posted on 4/12/2000 6:15 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? - reason for post posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 2:52 PM MST:

It could also be the scoring system. The scoring system this year seemed a little out of whack, and that a lot of good teams were ending up at the bottom of the charts, especially at Great Lakes before everyone had really figured the game out. The scoring system this year also really screwed up defensive bots, because there was no way to seed if you denied your enemy points.

#16

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia.

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Interior Systems.

Posted on 4/13/2000 2:20 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? - maybe it’s the scoring posted by Trevor McCulloch on 4/12/2000 6:15 PM MST:

You might say that defensive bots were at a disadvantage, but I would say,’ Look at our machine we went through X many matches and scored 0 QP’s. We will make sure the other alliance has 0 points.’ My point is that defensive machines could have marketed themselves like that and who wouldn’t want to be partnered with them.

Now the flip side. If I were allianced with them or against them in the same qualifying match, I would be pretty upset if they were trying to keep everyone from scoring just to prove they are a good defensive team. But, it would have been totally within the rules.

What do you think?

Mike C.

#17

Posted by Matt Rock.

Student on team #115, MVRT, from Monta Vista High School and Hitachi Data Systems - 3Com - NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/12/2000 6:59 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? - reason for post posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 2:52 PM MST:

Even though you may get lowered down in the qp’s and stuff i really like the alliances. And about the scoring i really like the co:opertition (or whatever it was). I think these a great ideas, and its only been in it for 2 years, so i say give it some more time, and then it will work just fine in the end. Good Luck to all the teams staying in it for next year

-Matt Rock
Team 115
(didn’t make to finals, wanted to, but still had fun)

: Please don’t interpret my post as a complaint for not getting picked. Of course I was upset at not getting picked, but that’s not the point. The point is that since Saturday, I’ve talked to five people who told me that they wished alliances would go away. I’ve also noticed a lot of people very upset (much more upset than I was). This is not the first time this has happened… A lot of people posted here after regionals about how upset they were that they weren’t picked.

: The point is this: if having alliances (in the current manner) makes many people upset, is it a smart thing? How upset will some people get before they quit FIRST? I’ll guarantee that almost anyone that posts on this board wouldn’t quit over something like this. However, only a very small portion of the FIRST population posts on this site. I guess that anything that makes people this upset probably isn’t in FIRST’s best interests.

: Once again, I’m not upset enough about not getting picked to complain about it. However, a lot of people were. To me, that puts up a red flag that something isn’t right. People will always disagree with something or another, but I’ve seen some pretty harsh posts on this board after some of the regionals and the nationals - harsher than over any other subject.

: Okay, now I hoped no one questions my motives. Now I’ll shut up and let people post.

#18

Posted by Travis Covington.

Student on team #115, MV ROBOTICS, from Monta Vista High School and Hitachi Data Systems - 3com - NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/12/2000 6:46 PM MST

In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:

Hi all

I remember a week or so before nationals some talk about making the competiotion NCAA style.

It would consist of 4 different groups of about 70 or so (spaeaking of this year) And regular qualifying and eliminations in each group. Then you end up with top 4 or so in each group or who will go on to finals against the other top 4 in each group.

This would make the scouting problems absolete. Alot less teams to get to know and also a group to cheer for during finals.

When I read the posts before I was wondering about how the groups would be didvided…Any thoughts? I was thinking seeding at regionals or ranking after finals at regionals…something of the sort. Or just randomly divided.

Just throwing out ideas.

But when I did hear this, I thought it was pretty neat. We sure would not have the problem of teams not knowing other teams.

Any suggestions or thoughts.

Travis-Team 115
(another team disapointed about not being picked)

#19

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia.

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Interior Systems.

Posted on 4/13/2000 2:06 PM MST

In Reply to: Yet another solution posted by Travis Covington on 4/12/2000 6:46 PM MST:

What if FIRST had some type of event (maybe Wed. night before nationals or at some regional) that would choose which team went into which region. For example, we have parobably all seen the lotto drawing where there are some number of balls that are dropped into a glass container and then the 6 balls flow into the top of the container where they can be read.

My suggestion would be for an event to be held to determine which team is placed in which region. This would be totally random and could become quite a spectacle. I could envision teams cheering and hollering as teams and their region were being announced. I also know that there could be logistical problems with this, but I am sure that FIRST could work them out.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike C.

#20

Posted by Janna.

Student on team #349, The RoBahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Company.

Posted on 4/13/2000 7:49 PM MST

In Reply to: Lottery Ball Drop posted by Michael Ciavaglia on 4/13/2000 2:06 PM MST:

Yeah, I think that would be fun. It would obviously be totally random…but then you might end up getting in a ‘region’ with a bunch of really really good robots. And if you’re robot is average-good, you would have less of a chance of making it to the finals than perhaps if you were in another ‘region.’ And then, at the end, you couldn’t really compare QPs among the regions either since the robot abilities would be varied by region - higher QPs could mean something better in a region with better robots. I don’t know. But I think that you can’t really find a perfect solution to this- you just can’t have all the teams together and be known amongst each other at the same time. And the region suggestion definitely has fewer disadvantages than having everyone together. So yeah, good idea. I like it. : )

Janna

#21

Posted by Chris Orimoto.

Student on team #368 from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames.

Posted on 4/13/2000 6:51 PM MST

In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:

I’ve read through most of these posts about the
alliance problem and I think that most teams aren’t
angry at the alliances themselves, but angry at the
fact that they didn’t get picked for the elimination
tournament. The top 8 teams (16 nationals) are up
there for a reason, therefore they deserve to
participate in such an event as a tournament to decide
the final champions. The alliance thing allows teams
to get to know other teams well, which definitely aids
the alliance picking process.
Now for the scoring system. I believe that getting 3x
the losing team’s score adds the aspect of strategy to
the game. This way, big offensive robots can’t kick
the crap out of little ones and make out big.
Versatile and consistent robots become much more
valuable over ‘super-robots’.
All in all, I hope that FIRST keeps consistent with the
idea of alliances and strategy, and also that they
continue to devise complicated games for us.

#22

Posted by Brownscombe.

Other on team #49, Delphi Knights, from Buena Vista High School.

Posted on 4/14/2000 10:16 AM MST

In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:

: The problem if there is one at Nationals is that in the seeding rounds a team will only play with a very small percent of the total robots. At even the largest regional teams played with 25 or so teams out of 60 or about 40% of the teams; where as at the Nationals we played with only about 7% of the teams present. If a team attended two regionals and the Nationals they would have played with about 21% of the teams at some point in the competition if there were no duplicates. The way FIRST makes random choices seems to lead to about 3 or 4 teams being paired in the same games at the regional so the percentages are off slightly.

The Parings at the Nationals could be enhanced if the teams were placed in groups of about 60 teams that play among themselves on all the fields. These groups should contain teams that have not been together before this time. The Top teams from each group could then select alliance members (from the entire group of robots present) for the finals. The minimum number choosing should represent about 10% of the teams present so that almost a third of the teams will be represented in the finals. Also since teams will be selected from each group teams that end up playing in groups that are strong defensively or in groups where scoring is low will not be penalized. This is from a team that averaged 23 points a round and won 6 out of 7 games at the Nationals but placed 109 in the rankings.

The last comment of a long suggestion is what an incredible Game.

#23

Posted by mike graser.

Engineer on team #174, Arctic Warriors, from Liverpool and Carrier.

Posted on 4/14/2000 11:43 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? posted by Brownscombe on 4/14/2000 10:16 AM MST:

I agree with this suggestion for a number of reasons.

  1. 268 teams is too many to pick from, too many to scout, too many to know. People pick on
    scores and reputation.
  2. Do you know what its like to finish 268th in the seeding rounds? If there were groups of 64 the
    worst you would finish is tied for 64th out of 254.
  3. People might root for their section or region to win the championship.

To add to the original suggestion:

Regions could be assigned stages on a permenant basis, always on Einstein or Watt for example.
This would make predicting the match schedule easier.

To make regions fair assign each region an equal number of rookie teams and split up the old-timers, Delphi’s, UTC’s etc…

Alliances are good. But the goals should be:

              1. Maximum number of matches for all teams
              2. Maximum sense of accomplishment for all teams
              3. Strengthen sense of partnership and co-operation
              4. Make real friendships and bonds

One last suggestion:

When showing a match on the screen - post the match number on the screen.
Have a board that shows what match is going on - for each stage.
#24

Posted by Brownscombe.

Other on team #49, Delphi Knights, from Buena Vista High School.

Posted on 4/14/2000 1:36 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Alliances in touble? posted by mike graser on 4/14/2000 11:43 AM MST:

: The problem with using one field is that there are slight differences in scoring and interpretation of rules on each field. That along with the fact that every space affects the performance of a team would keep a team from appearing on Einstein only in the Finals for the event and being overwhelmed.

The other suggestions are right on!

Add
FIRST should not be so afraid of publishing results. We all could learn from them. (I realize that winning is not all there is but building better robots is and how an idea functioned against others provides proof)

#25

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/14/2000 2:27 PM MST

In Reply to: Alliances in touble? posted by Chris on 4/12/2000 7:05 AM MST:

: Any thoughts? Does anyone have any ideas as to how to improve the system? Does the system need any improving? Please share your thoughts.

Thinking back to when alliances came into being last year, along with the fact that not everyone would advance to the elimination rounds, I remember a few of the different things that came up. The majority of the comments below this one seem to be pointed towards the fact that the ‘new’ game structure isn’t good because such-and-such a team didn’t make it, despite their performance. While I was on one of those teams that, deep down, thought that we had put on a good enough showing to make it into the finals as a chosen ally(our 23-6 solo win on Friday comes to mind), we have to look at how much the competition has grown in the past few years. As Dean said at closing ceremonies, this is growing at a rate of 50% a year…which means that, eventually, it will simply not be possible to accomodate all the teams at nationals, and the regionals will act as qualifiers for the national competition. I believe(and a few other people did too, if I remember the discussions last year correctly), that the fact that not everybody advances was put into place by FIRST to prepare teams for the year that, for the first time, you DO have to qualify for nationals.

People have made comments about how not making it to the ‘big show’ detracts from the goal of inspiring the students. However, on years when a sports team doesn’t make it to the state finals, you don’t see half the team dropping out. Instead, they plan for how they can do better next year. Also(speaking from personal experience now), for the past two years, I was with a team that, while we thought we had a good machine, never quite pulled off making it into the finals. However, after 2 yrs, I’m still here, and more involved with FIRST than I ever was. So, rather than saying that a loss causes a loss of interest, I believe that it causes MORE interest, as the students who came so close in years past push even harder to get to the top of the heap.

Just my thoughts…

Nate