This thread is a spin-off of this discussion, and has been started to focus on radical tournament structure changes. This thread is intended to collect innovative ways to structure tournament play. Using previous years as an example, this might include ideas to add human players to a robot-only format, or to change the three robots playing at once to a two-team alliance format. Like the above thread, this thread is meant to collect creative ideas that can be applied to any game concept.
-dave
I think they should design a 4 on 4 relay race through an obstacle course.
Not sure how to utalize the human player though.
I’d personally like to see a couple of things happen in this department.
Ensure there’s a tiebreaker. It makes things simpler for the audience (especially from the football-heavy south, where there’s hardly EVER a tie). The tiebreaker could be anything–distance of your mobile goal from your alliance’s wall, as a 2k4 example.
Dump ranking points as it was this year. I’ve seen a lot of matches from a lot of good teams this year, and there just doesn’t seem to be an easy way to bring the scores of a weak alliance close without running the very real risk of gift-wrapping them the match. I guess the more radical way to handle it (assuming we’ve got a scoring system fairly similar to this year in total points) is what I call the 150 rule. If your alliance outscores your opponents by 150 points or more, YOU lose. (Kinda like the breakout rule set at some R/C tracks–go faster than this time, and you’re DQ’d.) It still allows for wins and losses, but it forces teams to consciously mix things up.
I’ll think of more later.
Instead of a NCAA tournament finals, have the finals like the little league, double elimination. Let the play countinue without all the alliance picking, and let the best robot win.
I loved 2004’s ranking system.
In future games, though, we shouldn’t penalize the winning team for the losing team’s transgressions. In 2004, your score was worse when your opponents commited penalties. The winners should get the losers’ unpenalized score.
I also truly loved it too.
I know I am prolly opening a can of worms by saying this but I’d love to see a 3v3 game or better yet a 3v2 game where alliances switch and the point is to limit the opposing alliance to a certian amount of points and then you try to outscore them. And to make things even more odd it changes half way through the match so your alliance has all three on but it may only have two active or three active.
just some ideas.
-Pat
Dave, you asked for it. Here comes radical: The requirement for my idea is that there must be an even number of qualifying rounds (6, 8, 10, or 12). Have an offense and a defense, much like football. In the qualifying rounds, you play half of your matches on defense and half of your matches on offense. Your qualifying ranking could be based on a few different methods:
Points allowed vs. points scored. Take your points scored * X - points allowed *Y + B. X and Y could both be 1 (I see lots of negative scores) or you could bias a little toward points scored or you could shift the score using B as an adder.
You could have a defensive ranking and an offensive ranking combining them to have an overall ranking. Let’s say there are 40 teams in your regional and you are 40th in defense and 1st in offense you would get 1 point for being 40th and 40 points for being 1st giving you an average of 20.5. Teams would then be ranked by the combined points. Encourages well roundedness.
You could keep the offensive ranking and defensive ranking separate and have the top 4 offenses pick and the top 4 defenses pick during alliance selection (I don’t really like that one).
The elimination rounds are where it gets interesting. There would be a minimum of 3 teams per alliance, but 4 would be preferred. You play 4 periods: 2 on offense and 2 on defense. You add up the points you get on offense in each half and that is your score. This focuses the game on one team scoring at a time, not both teams trying to score at opposite ends at the same time. If the score is tied, then we go to overtime and each team gets another crack at offense.
This would really mix up the tournament format. You want radical … you can’t handle radical!
-Paul
I mentioned something about an alliance switch in the middle of the game in front of a team member once and they told me they would kill me if I told Dave… One thought was that either you did not know whom your alliance partner was until the end of the match, which would make all robots work together but would take away from competitiveness possibly. But it could be set up that you don’t know who your partner will be until the last minute of the game… or something on the field that can be pushed to randomly change alliance partners at any time during the match. It could be pretty evil…
I think it would also be interesting to see a game that can be played completely in autonomous mode, but the teams can take over their controls at any time but points are worth more in autonomous mode.
Heidi
<=========>
I’m your only friend I’m not your only friend But I’m a little glowing friend But really I’m not actually your friend But I am –They Might Be Giants
here is a radicl idea for the structure of elimination rounds:
after qualification rounds, take the top [however-many] teams (no alliance picking) and send them into a second series of rounds similar to the qualification rounds. it would be set up so that each possible alliance of robots is used once. then the top 4 are taken to move on.
the team with the most wins from that series of rounds would choose an alliance partner, and the other 2 robots would be arbitrarily paired together. these two alliances would then face-off in a 3-out-of-5 final for the championship.
This one will bake your noodle, I dont think it gets much more radical than this…
Kit is released, teams have 6 weeks to build a robot to perform the game challenge. Competition begins…the qualification round structure is as follows.
Qualification Round 1: Team A + B vs Team C + D
Team A: Drives Team B’s Robot
Team B: Drives Team A’s Robot
Team C: Drives Team D’s Robot
Team D: Drives Team C’s Robot
Ipes! You don’t mean? We have to let other people control what we build? Thus deciding our fate?
Oh yes…
Here is why. In many cases in the real world, you have to design product for use by other parties. Doing this in the game would make for teams to not only come up with a solid engineering design, but also ease of control and learnability. It would promote more team interactivity before and during rounds, as well as hopefully promoting teams to reach out to struggling teams in the pit, and help them if they are having issues.
Elimination structure would remain essentially the same…
Top 8 Teams select 2 alliance partners. Best 2 out of 3 in rounds. Robots do the ol’ switcharoo once again in each round…with the exception of the final round, where all teams must drive their own robot!
I think the whole selection and elimination would add a very interesting twist. Imagine teams having to not only base selection on the strength of robot, but also on the driver skills and fast learning abilities of teams.
Very evil if you ask me…I kinda like it 
-Andy Grady
This bring the whole “1 Joystick, or 2 joystick” debate to a whole new level.
Andy, I like it.
What happens when your inexperienced partner smashes your beautifully hand crafted machine into the wall accidently, and breaks something.
Ut-Oh.
Better build em tough, or risk bad blood.
John
Robust, robust, robust…thats the key. Plus I think FIRST could allow for an extra coach on each team to actually be part of the other teams drive crew…just in case something goes wrong with the robot. I dont think bad blood would be any different than that of a team that slams into your robot repeatedly…when they are on your team. 
Of course, there are all sorts of small logistic things that would need to be worked out for that to work.
-Andy Grady
Here’s one that I’ve been kicking around for a while. I know it will never get implemented for a variety of reasons, but it’s still fun to think about.
You play the five week regional season as you would in any other season. The only change is that there is a video database of every single match throughout the season, to make scouting much easier. (You’ll see why this is so crucial)
After the regional season, all the teams are ranked from 1 to x in an order determined by some accepted method. This would be based not on potential, but sheer performance. eg., A certain amount points for winning an event, your seed, where you got picked, technical awards. There would be some sort of factor that looks “strength of schedule” which could make up for differences amongst the regionals.
A certain cutoff ranking would be determined by the capacity of Nationals, and only teams at this ranking and above would be invited to Nationals. (Exceptions could be made for Chairman’s, original teams, etc.)
The Thursday of nationals would proceed normally, and then at 5:00 pm there would be a dinner break. After the break, the largest draft in FIRST history would take place. The top ranked team would go and pick another robot from the entire field, to form an alliance which would last for the entire event. This time instead of the top 8 picking, every team from the top third would get to pick. By the end, the event would consist of a whole bunch of alliances of 3. From here the teams would begin a massive elimination tournament, until only one alliance remains. This tournament could be setup in a variety of ways. There could be a round robin portion to eliminate some of the alliances. We could play best 3 out 5 series, and go double elimination… There are lots of possibilities. The choice would be determined on size and time…
The pros of this setup:
Those dream alliances people are always talking about, can actually happen. If this was in place this year, Team 254 would most likely have had the 1st pick, and selects Team 60.
The Championship becomes a true championship, with only the best of the best competing.
This would be a great setup for TV audiences. If FIRST could get regionals on the air each week, fans could follow teams through the season and into the finals. It would have a real March Madness feel to it.
This system eliminates the flukey nature of the ranking system at nationals. With only seven matches, the best teams don’t always end up at the top. (Then again, if they don’t make it to the top, are they really the best… not this argument again)
I can’t picture a way to make this event more exciting. I get giddy just thinking about it.
The cons:
Way too much emphasis on regional performance.
Who makes up the ranking system, and what does it consist of. How do we prevent it from becoming the BCS?
How do you account for teams who attend multiple regionals?
With the final rankings only being released after the last regional, travel arrangements would be a nightmare.
You guys asked for radical, I gave you radical. 
Let me know what you think…
I LOVE Karthik’s idea. However, I would love it even more if they did the following:
Now this is radical.
More than 4 robots on the field at a time. No nessesarily all moving though. An alliance in finals plays all 3 teams at the same time but has switches to disable the robots and only two are allowed on a time. 2003 Ex Team A has a ramp dominator and goes up to the ramp, locks into the mesh and shuts down, enabling team C to move around and stack while team B is destroying the other opponents stacks. 2002 Ex Team A starts the match by dashing forward and grabbing all 3 goals and moves into scoring position. Team A disables themselves and turns on robot C who works with B and both fill the goals with balls.
Drawback to Current Tournament Structure
In order to control your destiny, teams have to place into the top 8. Otherwise, you have to rely on a very political alliance selection process to get into the eliminations.
Ranking in qualifying is equally strongly affected by alliance pairings as it is by actual performance.
Teams whose performance (for whatever reason) places them at the bottom of the rankings, have to keep playing, without any real hope of making eliminations. This sometimes incentivizes “bottom of the ranking teams” to engage in wanton brutality.
Tournament Structure Idea
Day One … Qualifying
This would proceed the same way that qualifying currently proceeds. Random pairings. Ranking proceeds with wins/losses, high score, etc.
At the end of day one, the top 24 seeds are passed on to Round Two. Teams must pass a functional test/reinspection. Failing this would remove them from the seeding.
The remaining seeds are done for the competition. If the bottom teams want to spend day two working on their robot, they can do so without match interruption. If they want to go home and save some hotel money, they can do that as well.
This “cut” is the same as in golf.
Day Two … Seeding
Scores for the top 24 teams are zeroed; however, rankings are retained.
Teams are not paired randomly for seeding matches.
Round One
Seed 1+2 versus Seed 23+24
Seed 3+4 versus Seed 21+22
Seed 5+6 versus Seed 19+20
Seed 7+8 versus Seed 17+18
Seed 9+10 versus Seed 15+16
Seed 11+12 versus Seed 13+14
Round Two
Seed 1+3 versus Seed 22+24
Seed 2+4 versus Seed 21+23
Seed 5+7 versus Seed 18+20
Seed 6+8 versus Seed 17+19
Seed 9+11 versus Seed 14+16
Seed 10+12 versus Seed 13+15
Round Three
Seed 1+7 versus Seed 18+24
Seed 2+8 versus Seed 17+23
Seed 3+9 versus Seed 16+22
Seed 4+10 versus Seed 15+21
Seed 5+11 versus Seed 14+20
Seed 6+12 versus Seed 13+19
Rankings are determined by win/loss or high score total in these three matches.
Day Two Alliance Selection
Alliance selection proceeds with the top eight after the Seeding matches.
Day Two Eliminations
Eliminations proceed as they do right now.
Advantages to this scheme
Teams that are out of contention can focus on going home or preparing for the next competition.
Teams that are contenders can focus on making the top 24, instead of the top eight. You just have to make the cut to be within striking distance.
Teams that are contenders get more matches. Ie there is an instant reward for making the top 24.
Teams are rewarded for making the top eight in qualifying. They potentially have an easier match schedule at the beginning of day two.
Teams that “luck” into the top eight will have to win against a tougher schedule on day two and will probably not remain in the top eight.
Good teams that are “unlucky” on day one can play into the top eight on day two.
Teams in the top 24 have a smaller field to scout after day one and will make better alliance picks on day two. If you are in the top 24 at the end of day one, you know that you will be playing in eliminations and can prepare accordingly.
Day two is deterministic. It can be scheduled more tightly. FIRST can adhere to an agenda, especially vacating the arena on time.
Disadvantages to this scheme
A good team with exceptionally bad luck can be eliminated without making the cut.
This is a disadvantage to the current scheme as well. It is just not as apparent.
Another Tournament Structure Idea
Ditch the qualifying, alliance selection, etc entirely.
Maintain the 2v2 format.
Go with a fully deterministic n-loss elimination bracket, where n depends on the number of teams at the tournament.
Start by randomly assigning all teams at the tournament to a position in the opening bracket. Assign byes to each bracket based on the number of teams in the tournament.
The mechanism…
Two teams play against two teams.
The winning alliance moves to the next level in the current bracket, but the alliance members are split.
The losing alliance drops to the next bracket, at the current level of that bracket.
If a team loses n times, it is eliminated.
The winners of the n brackets play into a single elimination tournament to determine the eventual winner. For large numbers of teams, you would have to have fewer than 8 brackets. But, you could terminate the loser’s bracket play early. For instance, the winner of the first loser’s bracket would be the second seeded alliance and the loser of the first loser’s bracket would be the third seeded alliance.
Final alliances are determined “randomly” by how you end up in your bracket. Ie no alliance selections.
Let’s say you have 40 teams at an event.
The winners bracket would be 5 levels
40 teams (10 matches)->20 teams (5 matches)->10 teams (2 matches + 2 byes) -> 6 teams (1 match + 2 byes) -> 4 teams (1 match) -> winner 1
The first loser’s bracket would be 7 levels
20 teams (5 matches)->20 teams (5 matches)->14 teams (3 matches + 2 byes)->10 teams (2 matches + 2 byes)->8 teams (2 matches)->6 teams (one match + 2 byes)->4 teams (1 match) -> winner 2
The second loser’s bracket would be 8 levels
10 teams (2 matches + 2 byes)->6+10 teams (4 matches)->8+6 teams (3 matches + 2 byes)->6+2+4 teams (3 matches)->6+4 teams (2 matches + 2 byes)->4+2+2 teams (2 matches)->4+2 teams (1 match + 2 byes)->4 teams (1 match) -> winner 3
This can be continued into the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh loser’s bracket.
Although this looks complicated (and I probably made a mistake or two), it is algorithmic and can be programmed without much effort. The result being, with N teams and n losses (where n is ideally 8), you can figure out how many matches are required, what teams get byes at each level, etc.
If you play the first round, then the first loser’s round, then the second loser’s round, etc. Then resume with the second round, the second first loser’s round, etc., you automatically get the desirable “time between matches” match spacing.
This tournament structure would have two corollary benefits.
The teams which are going to “lose out” would be eliminated fairly early. This would give them time to work on their robots for the next competition or enjoy the rest of this competition. In other words, if you go 0-8, you’ll be all done by about 2:00 on the first day, having played in the first round of each bracket.
On the other hand, the suspense for this tournament would build as you approach the winners of the brackets. The top seed would be spat out first, followed by the second seed, etc.
You could even have a team go 4-0 early in the first day, only to lose the winner’s bracket final. This team (4-1) could potentially play (and lose) in all of the bracket finals.
Another wrinkle, to retain alliance selection, the eight alliances could pick a third partner for final eliminations. Since neither alliance partner would be “captain” this would require considerable cooperation between the two.
Sick and twisted… …how about this wrinkle: Alliance B can somehow influence which robot on Alliance A is disabled (and vice versa). I don’t know what it would be that alliances would have to do to toggle the disabled button on the other alliance, but it DOES open up possibilities.
Think about it: Maybe if you knock off the ball during autonomous, you get the right to disable one robot from the competing alliance at some point during the competition for 10 seconds. Maybe if you cap a goal you get to “unfreeze” one of your partners (and freeze yourself or the 3rd alliance partner).
I don’t know if it is good idea, but it sure is different.
Joe J.
Actually, as far as I know, all it would take for, a member of 433 (pure example here) to drive our robot this year would be for them to acquire one of our operator badges. Maybe throw in a shirt to keep the eyebrows from being raised.
Although I think there’d have to be some original team control…lest you have teams driving it like they stole it. And wrecking it accordingly.
I think it would be more fun if the random computer alliance selection was a little more random instead of it being where the lower number teams were allied with the higher munber teams.