Just for the heck of it i looked at the “Team Updates” on the FRC page and
oddly found updates for 11-26-13 (twice) and 11-27-13. They all say the same thing “three” times. Here is the link
They all seem to reference this past seasons game, but its odd…three
updates all saying the same thing…and all referencing “Section 3”
Could this be yet another hint?
At this point, if these hints mean anything, I’m going to wager on either a 3-minute game or a 3-alliance game (sort of leaning more towards the latter, simply because it’d be a bigger departure from previous tradition).
In almost any game, even after discounting 3 robots per alliance, there is something to do with 3. Examples:
2013: Three point goal, Three goals, three pyramid levels,
2012: 3 bridges, 3 point vales for hoops
2011: Three levels of racks, three shapes
2010: Drawing a blank
2009: 3 types of balls
Overall, it is VERY likely that the game will have to do with the number 3.
If “three” is actually a hint (which I doubt, as it seems way too close to something that would constitute useful information to be a FRC game hint), I think it’ll be something really fundamental, like match length or number of alliances, for precisely this reason.
The link to 3.1.5.2 goes to the non-existent 2014 game manual, but rule 3.1.5.2 is what used to define the point values in 2013. Also the link goes to viewItem/180, which did used to be the game section (3) for the manual.
On top of that, it is the exact same wording as the real update of this that was issued in April.
Not to break anyone’s heart, but 3 is a great number for varying skill levels amongst teams. It just makes more sense than 2, and 4 is getting too complicated.
I disagree, in many years previous, there has been something to do with the number 3, it is likely there will be something on the field having to do with the number 3
It’s funny to see this whole thing with the number 3 again this year. I’m sure others remember last year’s red herring and game hint and their focus on the number 3. I wouldn’t read too much into errors like this.
Also, this video from Team 1902 is feeling more relevant than ever these days, particularly the ending: http://youtu.be/uQ_mdx8_6A4.
I think it could be an actual hint. There’s been a lot of this kind of stuff on the FIRST website. I’d believe a certain number of typos, but this is really a lot. Especially if they haven’t been fixed (have they?).
Of course, just because something is a hint doesn’t mean it tells us anything.