After debating what the field and game would be like next year, I noticed that this was one major category and thought that it needed a thread and poll to its own. Personally I think that a 3 vs. 3 will be next year since that will have more robots on the fields which means more matches. FIRST is trying desperately to make room to expand, and that would help greatly.
~Tom Fairchild~
I must admit it sounds fun. If they did, they might want to make the playing fields a bit bigger.
I don’t really think it’s very likley to happen, but it would be cool, and it is a possibility.
I personally like 2 vs 2 vs 2, but that’s not on the poll. Other than that, I like 3 vs 1, but I accidently clicked on the wrong button.
Sorry! Didn’t think to include that one.
~Tom Fairchild~, who thinks that 2 vs. 2 vs. 2 would be fun.
I added 2v2v2.
If anybody wants to change their vote, pm me with your new choice…
I put 2 vs. 2 vs. 2 because I am a fan of the older games, but 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 is too impractical for the amount of teams.
I keep thinking this year’s game will be 2 vs. 2, but I also can’t help thinking that it is going to be a TOTALLY different competition format, like 3 vs. 3.
I was at the last 1v1v1 competition and at the Kickoff for the following year.
At the Kickoff Woodie commented that something that something very unusual had happened during the previous year’s Nationals. Of the top 10 seeds at the end of competition on Friday, not a single one was in the top 10 at the end of the seeding rounds. That year the game, “ladder logic”, had a feature where to score points you had to have balls on the ladders or rails. While it was difficult to place the balls on the rails, it was fairly easy to remove them.
Woodie said that in reviewing the tapes later, it was obvious that what was happening was that every time a leading seed went into the arena, the other two teams would clear the rails of the top teams balls and keep them clear. He was very careful to point out that he was not saying that the other two teams co-operated on this. It could just be that in every case, both other teams decided that the best way to improve their score was to hurt somebody elses. He also commented that FIRST felt that such co-operation was outside the bounds of Gracious Professionalism, though not necessarily the rules of the game.
He went on to say that since such co-operation could not be prevented, it would henceforth be required. Then the 2 v 2 format was revealed. The only way that there would be a a 1v1v1 game or 2v2v2 is if there was some way of preventing two robots or teams from ganging up on the third. Extraplolate as you will, this applies to virtually every combination of more than two teams competing.
At least that’s the gist as I remember it. That was in the bad old days before we had remote Kickoffs and I had arrived in NH at 2am that morning after having no fewer than three flights cancelled out from under me due to weather. A very stressful day to say the least, so my memory might not be all that good.
Any other old timers want to comment?
I don’t know why but I feel that FIRST has done something out of the ordinary this year. That is why selected 3 vs. 1. Personally I think that FIRST has made house bots during the off season or will during the 6 weeks since they have the man power. But this is just me, you can say what you want.
*Originally posted by team 713 *
**I don’t know why but I feel that FIRST has done something out of the ordinary this year. That is why selected 3 vs. 1. Personally I think that FIRST has made house bots during the off season or will during the 6 weeks since they have the man power. But this is just me, you can say what you want. **
i don’t know about having the man power:confused: from what i’ve heard FIRST only employs around 25. and they are maxed out all the time. unless they were to hire some employees from DEKA or Segway, which i see as very unlikely
My thoughts on this is a 2v2 game. as there are less teams at the nationals there will be more time.
The statement made last month by the designers of this years game when presented to Dean “Quote” “Fiendishly Evil” I believe was refering to the game but it could have been refering to the team set up.
Did any one think that it might be some thing really bizzare like… 3 + 1. For instance a split field with one bot on one side of the field and three on the other being kept apart by a ??? Thingy?.
4 days and we will see.
I sure hope it isn’t 3v1 because I don’t think it’s fair. No matter how the game is designed, if the scoring rules or the rules for victory are not the same for everyone, the game is not even. In a 3v1 game, the scoring can’t be the same for the 3 team alliance as it is for the 1 team alliance. Since the objective isn’t the same for both alliances, I argue that one alliance will have an inherent advantage based on the game design.
The only way to make a 3v1 game fair is to have each round in the elims be 4 matches, each team gets one shot at being the lone team. But that still leaves the problem of making the qualification matches fair; FIRST would have to guarantee that each team gets X matches as the lone team and Y matches as a part of the 3 team alliance (where Y=3X).
If FIRST designed the game that way, I’d be ok with it. I still prefer a AvA or BvBvB style game where the objectives are the same for each alliance, but I won’t pass judgement on the game until I think through it a bit.
Mike
ChrisH is right in his conclusions regarding 1v1v1.
I was on one of the Top 10 Seeds (Team #13) that year, and witnessed our opponents planning our defeat on at least two occasions. It was actually worse than ChrisH said though. Every one of the top 10 seeds at the end of seeding was knocked into the losers bracket by the third round. The finals ended up being two teams seeded in the 50’s. I’m not saying they didn’t deserve it, but there were some fantastic machines that didn’t have a chance.
1v1v1 is gone for good, and I’m quite happy about it.
Jason is correct… there were a number of teams who got ganged up on. I especially recall that ChiefDelphi got ambushed during about every match at Nationals and they were out quickly. This was largely due to the fact that they won 2 (or 3?) Regionals going into Nats, so everyone seemed to be shooting for them.
As for us, we were seeded 53rd and went on to win that year. But, we actually lost our second match of the elimination rounds and went to the finals by route of the losers bracket. I think that we played 5 or 6 straight matches in the losers bracket. We played some tough teams and matches in route to the finals. In the semi’s we won two incredibly close matches with team 67.
I agree that the days of having 1v1v1 or 1v1 is gone. There may be a way that they could do 1v1v1v1, but the game would have to discourage teams from “ganging up” on one of the robots.
Andy B.
Sorry folks, I didnt say 3 v 1. Read my post again. It said…
*** Did any one think that it might be some thing really bizzare like… 3 + 1. For instance a split field with one bot on one side of the field and three on the other being kept apart by a ??? Thingy?. ***
I have to agree with Andy and others that 3 v 1 would be some what un-fair and I dont see F.I.R.S.T. going that route again. A split field and 3 + 1 would be very interesting. we could see how an aliance of 4 pick the single bot to do the individual task alone. By this time tomorrow we shall know. I still think theres a stair case in there some where. choo chooo.
Nick237
Life is like a train*** some are engines some are a caboose and many are just freight. WHOOHOO.
I STRONGLY feel that it will be 2v2, but there will be some kind of challenge that will multiply everyone’s score, and the robots will have to cooperate to achieve this.
Eric.
Well, the mojority (65.17%) was right. 2v2 it is.
I was the .17% LOL
Nick237