Out of curiosity, for all who went to IRI or watched the webcast, do you think that our decision to make it best of 3 was better than the traditional FIRST rules from this year, using elimination points and why?
I thought the IRI way was great! It made it so much more exciting during the finals. The only proof you need is in the final round. During the FIRST season, a close match like Finals 1 would have meant certain victory for 494’s alliance. With best of 3, 308’s alliance was able to pull off two amazing performances, and take the win. That kind of excitement is how a FIRST competition should be… 3 great matches, not one match followed by de-scoring. Elimination Points inhale audibly. Best of 3 was the right way to go.
I agree, best of 3 was far more exciting (even though we didn’t come out on top).
Well, as 308’s partners we liked best two out of three!!! If it had been by EPs like during the FIRST season, we would have beat in the quarterfinals by 47’s alliance. The final matches were awesome!!! You had to win two, not win one and lose one. It was great! Thanks again Andy Baker!!!
Am I the only one who liked EP points better?
*Originally posted by rlowerr_1 *
**Am I the only one who liked EP points better? **
I think so… 
Best out of 3 made it much more exciting. I mean, just think - w/ the point system it’s usually obvious who’s going to win, but with the 3 match system it’s anyone’s guess (usually).
We did the same thing at BattleCry@WPI 4, and everyone there also seemed to like the best 2 out of 3 method much better. I would be willing to bet that FIRST will revert back to this style next year.
*Originally posted by rlowerr_1 *
**Am I the only one who liked EP points better? **
Yes.
The best of 3 elimination round method not only made sure that you could redeem yourself after losing a match, but it made the competition all that much more exciting and unpredictable. The EP points kept the competition far too structured and predictable, in my opinion.
There was so much discussion about this topic during the season, with everyone rendering an opinion. I think the proof is here now. The best two out of three was a crowd pleaser and the excitement level was extremely high. As I have said before, the way finals were handled before caused teams who had lost the first match by a huge amount, to come back out and play a match they could not win. I think it was obvious from this competition that all the alliance partners had a better chance of playing in finals as well.
Like so many other things, the eliminations at IRI proved to be handled better than the “regular season”. Perhaps it was the foresight of the IRI crew that it would be more exciting. Perhaps it was the hindsight that the eliminations at Regionals and at Houston were not very exciting. One way or the other, it was much better. 2 out of 3, hands down.
If only all the competitions could be similar to the IRI. If FIRST was able to develop the game, and test it sufficiently (a tall order for sure - but effectively the entire season would be similar to the post season is now), then we’d have the same consistency in referees and the same excitement throughout the competition that the IRI seems to excel at year after year.
2 out of 3 is like an old friend… when you start playing it again, it just feels right.
However, most matches immediately degenerated into “Clear out ALL the boxes, then fight for the ramp”… these matches were more exciting in some ways, but… I must admit, going back to 2 out of 3 took away an interesting dynamic of the finals from this year.
Disclaimer: I like best out of 3 better… I’m just noting something.
*Originally posted by Paul H *
I agree, best of 3 was far more exciting
What he said ^
After attending both a regional and volunteering at this years IRI as well as being a driver for two years in FIRST, I agree with the majority of the people here. Two out of Three is the way to go…I hope FIRST will recognize this and adjust things accordingly.
I guess its not that I don’t like the 2 out of 3 method, it’s just that I don’t like the fact that it was changed from what was used during the season.
I have to admit that it was more exciting, but it seemed that there was much less strategy…
This is the cool part about ‘un-official’ tournaments.
We can modify some rules and see how it changes the game.
We thought about a weight increase to let teams put stuff back on their robots that maybe had to come off during those final days.
For 2004, maybe we should post a 'What Rules to Modify" forum before the IRI and see what the competing teams think.
There are positive and negative points for both scoring methods. With best 2 out of 3, there was much more annihilation of the opponents’ boxes and made the game a basic king of the hill match, with not much strategy at all, but it did give a good show with shoving matches. With highest qual points after 2 matches, much more strategy was involved, moreso in the first match than the second. It made teams think and strategize more and not just go out and trash the opponents, which is not the point of the game. It seemed that in the second match, though, if you were ahead by enough, there was no way the other team could win, but with best 2 out of 3, you at least have a chance no matter what the score was after the first match. I would say I am partial to both kinds of scoring.
It really wasn’t an innovation to bring the “best 2 out of 3” back for the IRI. Granted, it is a good idea, and we all wanted it back. But… keep in mind that this same format was used successfully at Battlecry this year, so it is not like we at IRI were taking a big risk. We saw that it worked at Battlecry, so we figured that it would work for IRI.
Andy B.
How many Offseasons this year will use the FIRST Elimination Round Method as opposed to the Best 2 of 3 Method? It will be interesting to see.