IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

[Chris Fultz]

IRI 2012 is July 20 - 21. Same location as 2011.
Details on timing for applications, invitations, fees, etc. will be coming soon.

For now - what ideas for rule / play adjustments do you have?

Remember, the goal of the IRI is to maintain the primary focus of the FIRST game, but sometimes make tweaks to rules or game play based on the benefit of seeing multiple events and how the game has played out. So, we won't make major changes or radical departures form the game teams have designed robots to play.

As thought starters, here are a few ideas i have heard -

1. Less value on co-op bridge (1 point vs. 2).
2. Use a "money ball" at the end that has extra bonus value if scored (option to help offset 40 point triple balance).
3. Longer Autonomous to encourage the use of Kinect.
4. Longer Teleop to allow for strategies to play out differently (3 minutes?).

[lemiant]

This probably wouldn't fit in IRI, but it would be pretty awesome to see a "hybrid" that was a minute long, where balls got returned.

Co-op balances with 1QP for every team past 1 and allow sketchier balancing devices.

[Wetzel]

If you want to drive Kinect use, allow a Kinect driven robot to ignore the backcourt violation.

Wetzel

[P.J.]

One thing I've been thinking about all season is maybe changing the rules involving hanging on the bridge. I don't know if this would be considered too "radical," but basically allowing structures like 118's original bridge hanging device from their initial reveal video to be used without incurring penalty.

[Billfred]

Instead of altering timing (which I'm a bit leery of, given how longer runs get our CIMs way too hot on last year's robot), how about this: A Kinect-using robot can pre-load a third ball.

A money ball could be fun to fight over--say that the ref puts it in the corral of the alliance that "won" the hybrid period at 30 seconds (at the train whistle). If there's a tie, put one in both corrals. With the right point value (+10 over the basket's value? 15?), it could open up a lot of new strategies (both offensive and defensive).

[Koko Ed]

Dump the Kinect. Waste of floor space.

[P.J.]

Dump the Kinect. Waste of floor space.

I vote for this. Totally agreed.

[Tristan Lall]

Instead of altering timing (which I'm a bit leery of, given how longer runs get our CIMs way too hot on last year's robot), how about this: A Kinect-using robot can pre-load a third ball.
Couldn't you then use a Kinect, but not do anything with it?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Last minute "hail marry" shots should be worth the hybrid period points (4, 5, and 6 points per basket, respectively).

[Koko Ed]

Last minute "hail marry" shots should be worth the hybrid period points (4, 5, and 6 points per basket, respectively).

I could go for that. That's one heck of a shot to hit those.
I finally hit one last weekend in DC after getting the field up and nearly threw out my elbow doing it. Kudos to those who hit it often.

[Chinmay]

I'd love to see a change in the penalty for contacting an opposing alliance's bridge; it would be nice to see no penalty for this unless you contact the bridge while the opposing alliance is. This would get rid of the 9 pt fouls and also introduce the possibility of snatching 2 extra balls if you are careful.

[Duke461]

I could go for that. That's one heck of a shot to hit those.
I finally hit one last weekend in DC after getting the field up and nearly threw out my elbow doing it. Kudos to those who hit it often.

I hit three shots :D
I also upvote the human player bonus idea :cool:


Here's my idea:
In eliminations, the co-opertition bridge can still be used. If a robot is balanced on that bridge, it receives 10 points. In other words, in elims a triple balance is worth 40 points, and a double and single balance gets you 30 points.
Now the actual "having control of the co-op bridge" is the real problem. I haven't picked a really nice solution yet, but maybe the money ball mentioned earlier could be used for this purpose of securing the co-op bridge to one alliance.

-Duke

P.S. I wholeheartedly upvote the CP bridge balance being worth just one seeding point (or maybe get rid of it altogether? Then apply my elims rule to all matches?)

[HD]

How about making the autonomous pre-loads 6 balls per alliance instead of 2 per robot. (so one robot could have 6 pre-loads)

[Andrew Lawrence]

How about making the autonomous pre-loads 6 balls per alliance instead of 2 per robot. (so one robot could have 6 pre-loads)

Good suggestion, but IRI is supposed to make the game more user-intuitive, but also a bit harder.

How about: Each robot can start with a maximum of 1 ball, and the remaining 12 are placed randomly on the 3 bridges.

[P.J.]

Good suggestion, but IRI is supposed to make the game more user-intuitive, but also a bit harder.

How about: Each robot can start with a maximum of 1 ball, and the remaining 12 are placed randomly on the 3 bridges.

I don't really agree with you on this point. IRI is not supposed to be harder (the teams that come make it harder, but the game is not changed to be more difficult) it's supposed to take the rules that people don't necessarily like and remove them, or add ones to make the game more fun.

I would prefer having 6 balls that can be distributed any way among your alliance rather than taking away balls from them and putting them on the bridges.

[Duke461]

I don't really agree with you on this point. IRI is not supposed to be harder (the teams that come make it harder, but the game is not changed to be more difficult) it's supposed to take the rules that people don't necessarily like and remove them, or add ones to make the game more fun.

I would prefer having 6 balls that can be distributed any way among your alliance rather than taking away balls from them and putting them on the bridges.

Agreed, prefect example is last year. Ubertubes could be scored in teleop, and the value of a minibot was depreciated. Didn't make it harder, just made the rules more fun and more agreeable.

-Duke

[Andrew Lawrence]

I don't really agree with you on this point. IRI is not supposed to be harder (the teams that come make it harder, but the game is not changed to be more difficult) it's supposed to take the rules that people don't necessarily like and remove them, or add ones to make the game more fun.

I would prefer having 6 balls that can be distributed any way among your alliance rather than taking away balls from them and putting them on the bridges.

Whichever way works. :) I haven't been to IRI yet, so I've only heard it's harder.

Note to self: Go to IRI sometime.

[Duke461]

Whichever way works. :) I haven't been to IRI yet, so I've only heard it's harder.

Note to self: Go to IRI sometime.

It's harder because every team there is really really good.
Even if your team can't go, you should go to watch. It's amazing.

-Duke

[dodar]

or how about giving bonuses to shots made with the Kinect station and give bonuses to shots made while balanced on the bridges. You could also then say that any ball made while on the co-op bridge in the quals those points go towards both alliances' QS ranking score.

[BrendanB]

What if you decreased the point value of two robots on the coopertition bridge and had a special value if three robots are on the coopertition bridge.

Just a thought I think it would be cool.

[EricH]

Whichever way works. :) I haven't been to IRI yet, so I've only heard it's harder.
It's harder because 85% of the 70-robot field is the caliber of 254 and 971. Not because the rules are harder. (The other 15% wants to be at that caliber.)

[Andrew Lawrence]

It's harder because 85% of the 70-robot field is the caliber of 254 and 971. Not because the rules are harder. (The other 15% wants to be at that caliber.)

WOW. :ahh: That's tough! I'll need to watch the webcast this year for sure!

[P.J.]

Aw man, I saw EricH was the last one to post and I was really excited to see his suggestion for rule changes. No such luck. :(

[Koko Ed]

It's harder because 85% of the 70-robot field is the caliber of 254 and 971. Not because the rules are harder. (The other 15% wants to be at that caliber.)

It's like shaving the cream that has risen to the top of each championship division putting them into a blender and serving the concoction up to the FIRST community for dessert.

[bduddy]

9 points for incidental contact on the opponent's bridge, including contact that doesn't affect the game at all, is way too much of a penalty. Aside from that, I can't really think of anything that needs to be changed right now - it would probably be a good idea to wait for Championships to see what really high-level competition looks like.

[Ziv]

Co-op bridge: Most (if not all) of the teams at IRI will be able to double balance with reasonable reliability. I worry that deciding the point at which you stop scoring and go to the bridge will create a sort of prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma). (Delaying 10 seconds from an agreed balance time is good for winning an individual match but bad for earning other teams' trust.) However, I feel like removing its functionality altogether would take away a core aspect of the game. I like the idea of getting three robots on a bridge in teleop, but we don't want to be unfair to the team using two robots on the co-op bridge. Given all of this, how about the following?

Normal co-op balances are worth 1 QP. Maybe co-op non-balances are worth .5 QP, maybe they're worth nothing.
Triple co-op balances are worth 2 QP and 10+n points to the alliance with two robots on the bridge to cover the opportunity cost, where 0 ≤ n ≤ 5. If the triple balance rate were 100%, n would be 0, but the maneuver carries with it a relatively large risk; it'd be nice to at least throw a tiebreaker the way of the team taking it.
EDIT: Upon further reflection, n should probably be 0... we don't want any co-op balances sabotaged, and this reduces the chance of that.


Human player shots: They're cool, but I want to see robots doing things. If I want to see humans playing basketball I can watch TV :P. Only very slightly more seriously, 6 points is too much of a swing for such a luck-based event. On the other hand, giving bonus points to robots making shots from behind the barrier (not on the bridges, which give a height boost) would be pretty cool. However, it would be nontrivial to find the source of every shot without extra referees.

Bridge penalties: 9 points is too much. How about 3 points until there are 30 seconds left, then stock rules after that?

[Koko Ed]

9 points for incidental contact on the opponent's bridge, including contact that doesn't affect the game at all, is way too much of a penalty. Aside from that, I can't really think of anything that needs to be changed right now - it would probably be a good idea to wait for Championships to see what really high-level competition looks like.

MSC and the MAR championship should be a real good indication of how IRI will play out.

[Bjenks548]

That coop bridge would get balanced 99% of the time. I say throw it out all together and use elimination bridge rules (much more fun). I don't like the idea of bonus points for shooting from far away because a lot of robots are not designed to shoot past the key. It would be fun with more balls on the field though maybe start 3 or 4 on each bridge instead of 2.

[jason_zielke]

How about Inbounders can only hold one ball rather than two? This would make ball control by the robots rather than the humans more important.

In general, I think the best rule changes for IRI are the ones that create new strategies for winning that are competitive with those already proven as winners.

I think a money ball, or actually two, one for each alliance, that can be entered in the last thirty seconds, but only through the Inbound slot would be interesting if it was worth 5 times a normal basket. This would make it a toss up as to whether or not to go for the triple balance or for the money ball. But some of the best might pull off both especially if you worked as a team!

[AllenGregoryIV]

I want to see the triple implemented on all three bridges in qualification matches. It will make teams have to decide where to balance, triple on your own to win, or try to double all three bridges and hope for the win and coop. If you think you will loose you're better off trying to triple on the coop bridge with two of your robots and one from the other alliance. Rarely at IRI would you have a team not on the bridge at the end since they will be worth so many points.

1 QP for double coop bridge and 2 for a triple like others have said. I am not sure about giving a score bonus to the team with 2 robots, I don't see that playing out very well.

There have been so many creative triple balance strategies (NYC anyone), I would love to see impromptu triple balances on the coop bridge.

I also think that at least one ball from each alliance bridge should be moved to the center bridge. The battle for the bridge in hybrid is going to be so important at Championship that making it have more balls will increase competitiveness. Do you shoot first or go to the bridge first and shoot once you have the balls on your side. It would be much harder to 5 ball if you can't shoot your two first, though I guess you could shoot them while moving back to the bridge.

[EricDrost]

Perhaps alliance bridges (which should be cake to double balance at IRI) could be limited to use in the last 20 seconds. This makes you really work for those extra points. Penalties for early balancing would be similar to deploying a minibot early.

[efoote868]

Make the opposing alliance's bridge off limits for only the last 30 seconds of the match.

Increase the number of balls on the field, 6 more would be nice.

Make the key penalties 1 pt instead of 3.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Technical fouls are worth 5 points.

[pathew100]

I'd love to see a change in the penalty for contacting an opposing alliance's bridge; it would be nice to see no penalty for this unless you contact the bridge while the opposing alliance is. This would get rid of the 9 pt fouls and also introduce the possibility of snatching 2 extra balls if you are careful.

I like this idea, for incidental contact. But I'm not sure you should be able to drive over the other alliance's bridge, for example.


My idea for an off-season addition would be to add two balls to each bridge at the start.

[Gregor]

The removal of alleys. Makes it quite difficult to defend against the triple balance if all 3 enter from that side.

[Taylor]

The removal of alleys. Makes it quite difficult to defend against the triple balance if all 3 enter from that side.

I really don't see the purpose of having alleys anyway. Seems like a useless penaltymaker - I know why they were put there when the game was conceptual, but in actual gameplay they're just not good.

Get rid of the G28-G40 goofiness. Once again, makes sense in theory, but in practice it just invites negativity. Also puts some onus on the referees unnecessarily.

[Koko Ed]

The removal of alleys. Makes it quite difficult to defend against the triple balance if all 3 enter from that side.

I remember an off season last year (Battlecry if memory serves me correctly) got really lenient with the zone incursion rules and teams abused the lanes all day long to get tubes they would not have been allowed to get during the season. You may not like the rules guys but they are there to stop teams from going crazy on the playing field and stopping all those awesome plays that gets everyone talking.

[Tetraman]

Idea #1 - Bridge Points alterations:

Qualifying: 10 points for one robot on your alliance bridge, 20 points for two. 1 Bonus qualifying point instead of 2.
Elimination: 10 points for one robot on your alliance bridge, 20 points for two, 40 for three. Bonus 9 points for the first alliance to balance their bridge first during the last 30 seconds of the match - so long as the bridge remains balanced till the end of the match. If the "first bridge" that was balanced becomes unbalanced, the bonus is not scored to any alliance. If both bridges were balanced at the time the 30 seconds begins, both alliances 'qualify' for the bonus, and if a team unbalances, the bonus is lost to them, but still available for the other.


Idea #2a though #2c - Rule Edits:

a) No "more than 3 balls" foul called during Hybrid mode. 5 second grace period after end of hybrid mode to clear out any extra balls before fouls are called.

b) Add two additional basketballs to the game, starting one on each alliance bridge.

c) Robots in Hybrid Mode get 15 seconds of autonomous use, and a robot controlled by the Kinect gets an additional 10 seconds. (aka, you can't just have one person stand in front of the kinect station and have 10 additional seconds of autonomous play, it has to be controlled via kinect.)


Idea #3 - Play the fourth robot

You aren't really supposed to like or want this idea, but if there was ever a year to have four robots on the field, this would be the year to give it a shot.

[CalTran]

How about just taking the ball holding cap off all together? I know most robots this year are designed specifically to only hold 3 balls, but it would make for interesting starvation play...do you shoot and give your opponents the ball or do you wait and starve them of the balls you possess?

[P.J.]

Make the key penalties 1 pt instead of 3.

I don't know if they're actually able to do this, as this requires going down into the actual software and changing things, which I know is fairly difficult if not impossible.

[Drivencrazy]

I would like to see <G28> changed to something like robots may not contact an opponent when breaking the plane of the opponents key or lane. It seems like teams have too much protection and it keeps teams from entering those high risk areas to take balls from their opponents. It also seems like refs are having a hard time with the <G28> <G44> <G45> combination. I would like to see that go away.

The removal of alleys. Makes it quite difficult to defend against the triple balance if all 3 enter from that side.

I like this idea. Allows for more open play on the offensive half of the court as well.

[Wetzel]

We spent an entire regional playing defense, gathering balls and mucking up traffic for the opposing alliance while only gathering 1 foul and winning the regional. It is not as hard to do as many seem to think.

Wetzel

[Aren Siekmeier]

I think the game is pretty near perfect as it is. Perfect point balance between bridges and shooting balls, and the coopertition bridge is an awesome aspect. And if everyone is balancing it as people have suggested, it wouldn't matter anyways. But why eliminate the incentive to work together with the other alliance? It's awesome to see two teams battle fiercely throughout the match, and then turn around and work together to balance that bridge in the last 30 seconds.

The one swing and a miss was the Kinect (as many of us were saying from the start). And given the extremely tight space at IRI, it would make a lot of sense to eliminate it, given that nearly no one uses it anyway.

[Marc S.]

I've got 2,

1) Every alliance gets one redo and/or time out.
The redo can only be used if the alliance looses a match due to; one robot breaking (like an obvious break (arm falls off, etc)), robot dies during the match (either unforeseen battery issue or loss of com), or something highly unexpected happens that causes the alliance to not get get as many points. Red cards may invalidate this redo... may not...

2) After the hybrid period the game stops until the head ref gives the OK to start again.
This solves any issue of hybrid balls not being worth full points due to either going in after the bell or because of a jam. There have a few matches that have been stop and replayed mid match due to a jam that occurred in the hybrid period, again this solves that issue. The pause could also be just 5 seconds to keep the flow of the match going.

[Wetzel]

2) After the hybrid period the game stops until the head ref gives the OK to start again.
This solves any issue of hybrid balls not being worth full points due to either going in after the bell or because of a jam. There have a few matches that have been stop and replayed mid match due to a jam that occurred in the hybrid period, again this solves that issue. The pause could also be just 5 seconds to keep the flow of the match going.

Perhaps a physical modification can be done to reduce the jam occurrence as well. Either way, I like this.

Wetzel

[Ken Streeter]

I remember an off season last year (Battlecry if memory serves me correctly) got really lenient with the zone incursion rules and teams abused the lanes all day long to get tubes they would not have been allowed to get during the season.

You remember correctly about the rule change at Battlecry, but it wasn't just referee leniency and team abuse of the rules.

Last year, Battlecry made one of their official rule changes (for the 2011 game) to have the protected lanes end at the lane divider, instead of continuing to the tower. The change was an official rule change published and announced to all teams competing at the event, not just a leniency by the referees. Accordingly, it wasn't that the teams were abusing the rules -- they were just playing by the Battlecry-modified rules.

Actually, I think that Battlecry "shorter protected lanes" rule change was the best I saw all year for any of the off-season tournaments we attended -- it eliminated nearly all of the "accidental lane crossing" penalties. However, the rule change did tip the game balance a little more towards offense than defense.

Back to the theme of the original topic -- in general, I like rule changes (for IRI or other off-season tournaments) that are very minor tweaks that don't really affect the balance of the game but are instead to "fix" problems in the rules that weren't apparent before the game was really played but that are consistent with the original game design. I tend to like rules that get rid of "incidental" penalties that don't give a significant advantage/disadvantage to either team (this year's accidental touch of the other alliance's bridge for a 9-point penalty is a good example of a penalty that could be changed).

However, I really don't like rule changes that tip the balance to one kind of robot, as there are teams that designed their robots to play the original game, and changing the game rules often has the effect of essentially "playing favorites" to some types of robots.

For example, giving a 3-point bonus to all shots from the far side of the barrier would favor long-distance shooters over fender shooters, so I don't think such a rule change would be fair. Similarly, a rule change which gives more points for Kinect hybrid-scoring over non-Kinect hybrid-scoring wouldn't be fair to all teams, either. Add to that list rule changes that allow robots to hold more than 3 balls, or receive bonus points for balls scored from on top of a bridge, or

Part of the realization is that *any* rule change tends to favor some robots over others -- the trick is coming up with rule changes that really serve to help all teams!

Even rule changes that initially seem to help all teams equally are likely to favor some teams over others. For instance, increased match length will favor robots optimized for shooting rather than balancing, as increased match time gives more opportunities for teleop baskets, but doesn't give more opportunities for balance points. Longer matches would also favor teams which use less of their battery during a match -- however, those teams might have intentionally designed their robot to use most of their battery in a regulation-length match.

In sum, I tend to like rule changes which reduce annoyances in the penalties without affecting game play.

[Ken Streeter]

2) After the hybrid period the game stops until the head ref gives the OK to start again.

This solves any issue of hybrid balls not being worth full points due to either going in after the bell or because of a jam. There have a few matches that have been stop and replayed mid match due to a jam that occurred in the hybrid period, again this solves that issue. The pause could also be just 5 seconds to keep the flow of the match going.

I like this idea!

One of my pet peeves with the scoring system this year is seeing robots shoot balls right before the end of hybrid that end up being scored as teleop points because the balls didn't trigger the auto-counting system soon enough.

[bduddy]

2) After the hybrid period the game stops until the head ref gives the OK to start again.
This solves any issue of hybrid balls not being worth full points due to either going in after the bell or because of a jam. There have a few matches that have been stop and replayed mid match due to a jam that occurred in the hybrid period, again this solves that issue. The pause could also be just 5 seconds to keep the flow of the match going.Many previous games have had this in place - why not this one? Maybe the GDC just didn't realize how much autonomous scoring there would be... could they maybe implement it for championships?

[EricH]

Idea: There are 20 basketballs on the field. Yes, that's 2 more than normal. But those two extra basketballs are special. They're +3 if scored during either Hybrid or the end game. Each alliance starts with one. But...

They're NOT the normal basketballs. Either they've been given a funky covering, or they're actual basketballs (or you could just wrap a Poof ball in duct tape).


And, make more than 2 on the Coop bridge an extra bonus--1 Co-op point per extra balanced robot. If you really wanted to be devious, the Coop bridge also gives points based on how many robots are on it, at 10 for one, 20 for two, etc. If only one alliance is represented, that alliance gets all the points and no coop points. If both alliances are represented, each alliance gets the same amount of points (the highest possible) and coop points.

[Nawaid Ladak]

It looks like things may actually work out and I may very well find myself n Indianapolis that weekend (summer classes are either all online, or end on Wednesday's).

I absolutely love the money ball idea. It sort of reminds me of the NBA's 3 point shooting contest. where the last ball on the rack is worth 2 points instead of one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os3foD7mKJ0&feature=youtu.be&t=1m10s). Maybe inserting them at the 30 second mark and having them count for 2x the basket amount (2, 4 or 6 points). This could sort of have that super-cell endgame effect we saw in 2009.

I also think changing the number of basketballs used per match could make the game more interesting, Lowering the number could create a game similar to breakaway where ball control was key, or increasing the number of basketballs could have a plentiful effect and make the game play out more like Aim High or Lunacy.

[Hawiian Cadder]

I think that ALL the spare balls should go on the cooperation bridge at the begging of a match. At IRI almost everyone will put up a strong hybrid score, so incentives for a team to write code that beats every other robot there to the middle bridge would be cool. This would also make defense robot that cross the bump in hybrid important because they would have a reason to start the match between the opposing robots and the fender.

[Greg Needel]

Here are my rule change suggestions, I would not implement all of them, as some of them are contradictory, but each on their own should enhance the game in a different way. I really support the first one.


make the co-op bridge be worth 10 pts for a balance in eliminations. This way it is still better off to triple but would only be a 10pt difference if you got a double + the coop. Also this would be really exciting action for 2 alliances that can't triple. fight over the bridge at the end or score those last few points.


put more balls on the field, Increase the number of balls from 18 to 24-36, should increase the scores in the matches and will take away starvation choke hold strategies. You can accomplish this by either putting them on the bridges or allowing teams to pre-load 3.

Allow triple balancing during the qualification rounds, if a team does it they get 1 extra coop point (3 total for the winners)

Go back to the old ranking system where win-loss-tie determines the main ranking and then use co-op points as the tiebreaker.

[jspatz1]

Lasts year's IRI rules trimmed down the mini-bot scores, and added emphasis to teleop play by adding more scoring with ubertubes. This year's huge point bonus for triple balance could be trimmed from 40 to 30. That's still big enough to justify doing it, but would not overwhelm the teleop scoring quite as much.

[SM987]

Just make the co-op bridge the tie breaker as (IMO) it should be. Or alternatively implement some "king of the hill" battle for the middle bridge as part of the endgame. Getting rid of the lanes sounds fun as well.

[Koko Ed]

Just make the co-op bridge the tie breaker as (IMO) it should be. Or alternatively implement some "king of the hill" battle for the middle bridge as part of the endgame. Getting rid of the lanes sounds fun as well.

Well that would make for interesting strategy as teams would probably draft a "cannon fodder" bot to battle for those points "for the sake of the alliance" and save scorers from potential elimination participation ending damage from such battles or ignore going for such points altogether if it's not worth the trouble.

[Aren Siekmeier]

I still don't know why people want to nerf the coop bridge. It's an awesome game feature in every way.

[Ankit S.]

Or alternatively implement some "king of the hill" battle ... as part of the endgame.

What if the bridges lost their distinction of red/blue/coop, and at the end of a match teams had to race to the bridges and balance on any of bridges. The alliance with the most robots balanced across the three bridges would get a bonus.

In case of a tie, the alliance with the largest number of their own robots on a single bridge gets the bonus.

[rcmolloy]

Still going to edge on the three point line...

Gaffer's Tape in a semi-circle tangent to the top of the key like on a real college/high school/elementary court. Beyond that line, every ball shot has an additional 2 points added to the original score only in teleop.

[JosephC]

Let's remove the lanes!
This just made me remember a "God Bot" strategy I was talking about a few days ago.

1. Build a robot with a intake that was tall enough and wide enough to cover the whole feeder station opening.

2. Have your alliance make 7+ shots in hybrid mode. These all have to go in; if they don't additional balls have to be shot in during Tele-Op.

3. Immediately park your robot in front of the opposing alliance's feeder station.

4. Continuously shoot 3 pointers.

Because of the 6 ball holding limit; the Inbounders would have to throw at least 1 ball into your robot, since they can't throw it any where else. Once you score that ball they have to throw another one into your robot. Thus creating a constant scoring machine, much like the one 469 had in Breakaway.

In a regular season event this strategy only works until the opposing alliance comes to your side of the field and hits you; as you are in their lane. However, if IRI announces that they are removing lanes, I'm going to force my team to redesign our robot :rolleyes: .


Still going to edge on the three point line...

Gaffer's Tape in a semi-circle tangent to the top of the key like on a real college/high school/elementary court. Beyond that line, every ball shot has an additional 2 points added to the original score only in teleop.
Great idea, although I'd prefer an additional 1 point.

[efoote868]

Another idea, to enhance "coopertition."

During qualification, bridges are worth no points except for coopertition. A balanced bridge with two robots on it is worth 1 point, a bonus point is awarded if there is one robot from each alliance, for a maximum of 6 points.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Dump the Kinect. Waste of floor space.

Another +1 to that from me. At Boston, one team used it. I don't know how it was across the rest of FRC.

[JosephC]

Another +1 to that from me. At Boston, one team used it. I don't know how it was across the rest of FRC.

I believe one team wanted to use it at Northville, but it was broken.

[bduddy]

Another +1 to that from me. At Boston, one team used it. I don't know how it was across the rest of FRC.There were three different teams that used it at some point at St. Louis, which is the most I've seen. At SVR, I believe 840 may have been the only one that tried...

[Chris is me]

Replays in eliminations for communication issues on the field.

I know it'll never happen, but a man can dream, right?

[OZ_341]

Every year in recent memory, there has been something about the rules that really bugged me. Lane incursions, mini-bot point values, etc.....
But I really think that the GDC nailed this one. What about the crazy idea of leaving well enough alone?

Either way, we are hoping to go to IRI and get taken to the "wood shed" once again. Its a valuable, fun, and humbling experience. :)

[rick.oliver]

1. Pre-load with 3 balls each; no bonus points for balls scored in hybrid; 10 point bonus for leading at the end of hybrid.
2. Choose to pre-load or place in your own ball corral.
3. In-bounders may throw over the wall the entire match.
4. Make the Key a box (current width and 48" deep); robots are protected only when fully inside the box.
5. Bridge points 5, 10, 20 in quals and elims
6. 10 points plus 2 coop points to each alliance when balanced on coop bridge; no points for not balanced.

[rick.oliver]

Every year in recent memory, there has been something about the rules that really bugged me. Lane incursions, mini-bot point values, etc.....
But I really think that the GDC nailed this one. What about the crazy idea of leaving well enough alone?

Either way, we are hoping to go to IRI and get taken to the "wood shed" once again. Its a valuable, fun, and humbling experience. :)

No changes is also a very good suggestion. Also hoping to attend again this year and would add that while it is humbling, it is also inspiring.

[JohnSchneider]

what about some sort of tip off. 1 member of each alliance can start hybrid at the middle ramp instead and said "moneyball" is on the middle ramp. When auto starts, the two robots would both push on the bridge, and the stronger bridge pull down would get the ball...or something to the equivalent.

Also Im going to be like the 30th person to suggest the Co-op bridge be 1 pt instead of 2.

[pathew100]

I believe one team wanted to use it at Northville, but it was broken.

Hey! I was FTAA at Northville. It was not broken. We had a bad 50ft USB cable that we had to swap out. It took 15-20mins to diagnose what was wrong. But the team (a rookie team at that) was able to use Kinect every time they wanted to.

Also at Livonia this past weekend, the host team Livonia Warriors FRC 2832 used Kinect in most of their qualifying matches.

I leave it to those teams to decide on how effective it was though...

[Nathan Streeter]

Coopertition Bridge Points
- 2 Supported robots on un-balanced bridge: 0 pts (instead of 1)
- 2 Supported robots balanced on bridge: 1 pt (instead of 2)
- 3 Supported robots balanced on bridge: 2 pts
- 4 Supported robots balanced on bridge: 3 pts
- 5 Supported robots balanced on bridge: 4 pts
- 6 Supported robots balanced on bridge: 5 pts

I really don't see more than 4 robots balancing on a bridge, but it makes sense that if you're that good at balancing you should be rewarded... I think with the level of the field at IRI, 2 robot balances on the co-op bridge would practically be a given. Reducing the point value of 2 balanced robots and adding the opportunity for more robots to balance would keep the challenge in it while preventing the co-op bridge points from getting ridiculous.

Qualification Alliance Bridge Points
- 3 balanced robots are worth 40 pts (same as elims)

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do this in quals... If you'd rather win the match at the expense of the most seeing points, go ahead. By requiring 40 bridge points (and three robots) to win, you've put the handicap of not being able to get more seeding points on yourself...

Hybrid Scoring
- Any balls shot in hybrid that score are awarded the hybrid bonus. As some have suggested, this could be achieved by pausing the match after hybrid.

I've found the fact that balls shot in hybrid often fail to be counted frustrating... It seems like if a robot shot the scoring ball under hybrid control, it should get hybrid points. None of this trying to see if the ball had passed through the rim of the hoop by the end of hybrid period...

Hybrid Period Duration
- Hybrid period lasts for 20 seconds, instead of 15. This would enable more teams to realistically attempt scoring balls off the alliance bridges in hybrid.

It seems like the limiting factor for (more) teams doing this is the time...

Alliance Bridge Foul
- Alliance Bridge Fouls only apply when either a robot of the appropriate alliance is contacting it or during the final 30 seconds of the match.

This would help minimize some of the "pointless" fouls, while retaining the purpose of the foul. It would become more like the key and the lanes, which are only protected when in use.

Contacting Bridge Stipulation for "Stacking"
- Repeal G30-1, which requires a stacking robots to be in contact with the bridge.

This move is hard enough as is... I don't see what the motivation for requiring contact with the bridge is beside making the maneuver more sketchy and dangerous.

[PayneTrain]

Replays in eliminations for communication issues on the field.

I know it'll never happen, but a man can dream, right?

We could just go cold turkey and roll with the IFI equipment, right? We can loan out a few of those.

[EricH]

OK, brilliance. The GDC themselves said that they could adjust the balance points in either direction at Championships, by 5-15 points per robot, if they wanted to. ([G40] blue box)

The IRI organizers should do the same thing. How is up to them.

[Duke461]

One really important rule change will need to be on the maximum amount of basketballs in the corral and with the human players during the teleop period.

Bolded is the rule change:

[G31]
Only Inbounders may contact Basketballs; each Inbounder may hold a maximum of two Basketballs. During Teleop, Inbounders must remove Basketballs from the Corral immediately upon arrival, unless doing so forces an Inbounder to posess more than two Basketballs. All Basketballs in the Alliance Station must be held by Inbounders once removed from the Corral.
Violation: Foul

Blue Box
The addition of the six-ball exception is intended for situations where a large amount of basketballs are scored in a small period of time, not for strategic benefits to the alliance. Strategies aimed at starving basketballs to gain an advantage through this rule will be kept under strict observation and may still result in foul, as determined by the appropriate referee
Blue Box


The idea behind this is for a situation where it's basically impossible to keep it under six basketballs. Most likely cause of this is a ton of scoring all at once, e.g, 2-3 basketballs per robot, robot A scores in left middle, robot B scores in right middle, robot C scores in top/bottom. While this rule kind of goes without saying, we definitely want to avoid someone complaining and claiming that there was a penalty on the opposing alliance after they score 9 basketballs in a matter of seconds. And since it's IRI, this very well could happen.

-Duke

[Travis Hoffman]

I like this idea!

One of my pet peeves with the scoring system this year is seeing robots shoot balls right before the end of hybrid that end up being scored as teleop points because the balls didn't trigger the auto-counting system soon enough.

In basketball, if the shot is released by the shooter prior to the buzzer sounding, it counts. It should be the same in Rebound Rumble.

[pfreivald]

In a regular season event this strategy only works until the opposing alliance comes to your side of the field and hits you; as you are in their lane. However, if IRI announces that they are removing lanes, I'm going to force my team to redesign our robot :rolleyes: .

Ahhh, the law of unintended consequences... It'll bite you every time!

[rick.oliver]

In basketball, if the shot is released by the shooter prior to the buzzer sounding, it counts. It should be the same in Rebound Rumble.

Agree. Other than a pause between Hybrid and Teleop, how could that be accomplished? Not opposed to a pause, just wondering what other ideas there are to ensure that all balls scored and only balls shot during hybrid were counted.

[BJC]

-I will reitterate the no lanes idea. Lanes are silly, perhaps turn the lane into only a square in front of the inbounder.

-I would love to see a moneyball that started on the co-op bridge along side of/ instead of the balls already there. This ball would be worth 3 points in addition to the normal basket points when scored and would be easily interfaced with the scoring system using the real time fouls. With one ball that is worth two I can see a lot of possible stratigy without changing the game play significantly.

-I like the traditional win loss tie that has been the standard at IRI, perhaps make the co-op bridge 1 point. I do not like the triple balance for 2 co-op points because it will mean that there will be a lot less playing the game in quals in favor of the co-op points.

-I would consider making the key smaller (read: smaller safe area to shoot from.)

Looking Forward to IRI!
Regards, Bryan

[KrazyCarl92]

-I will reitterate the no lanes idea. Lanes are silly, perhaps turn the lane into only a square in front of the inbounder.

I thought so too until this weekend. At the CT regional, the #2 seeded alliance employed a strategy where 177 and 228 were almost always in or around the key, and their alliance partner, 236 would go over the bridge and stay sitting in the alley doing nothing until they decided to attempt the triple balance. With all of the robots in protected areas for the vast majority of the match, it made their triple balance seemingly indefensible. Maybe it's still "silly" but it's not as though it isn't important strategically!

[jvriezen]

Its too easy to score in Hybrid. Start the match with the bots touching the barrier. Maybe even on the far side of the barrier. Then you either have to shoot a longer distance accurately or move closer before shooting in hybrid.

Allow each driver to decide when Hybrid ends for his bot via a button at the alliance station. Each ball scored in Hybrid gets the +3 bonus points. This would definitely encourage Kinect to control the robot so that it can scoop up and shoot more balls in Hybrid. Probably not practical though, since it requires someone to track who is still in hybrid and who is not -- might work if hybrid continued for an entire alliance until someone on the alliance ended for the entire alliance simultaneously. Then the automatic scoring is not dependent upon where the ball came from.

[Tetraman]

Another thought - do something about the ball hoarding/corral. In most every event, none of the refs patrolled that rule. Either strip it away, or have an extra eye on following that rule.

Also, and this is probably the easiest rule addition for everyone - Any basketballs shot over the player station wall by robots are put into that player station's corral rather than returned to the field. Fouls/Technicals given for purposefully passing balls in that way. This way, any of your missed shots over the top of the wall become "rebounded" and at least controlled by the opposite alliance.

[DjScribbles]

Teleop balls scored from the key worth (3/2/1)+1 point. This gives key shooters a small advantage over the fender shot (when there is no defense at least :) )

[CalTran]

Teleop balls scored from the key worth (3/2/1)+1 point. This gives key shooters a small advantage over the fender shot (when there is no defense at least :) )

As opposed to the (3/2/1)+3 for defense on the key?

[Gigakaiser]

Another +1 to that from me. At Boston, one team used it. I don't know how it was across the rest of FRC.

We use the driverstation kinect as an "e-stop" in hybrid. It actually saved our turret from twisting for 15 seconds in one instance (gyro issue). Later it saved our robot from ramming the co-op bridge which was being held up by an opposing team. The kinect may also be used to delay qualification match shots since most teams will be shooting two to four balls in hybrid at IRI. It only seems to be a waste if you try to actually drive your robot with it for 15 seconds.

[Conor Ryan]

Add Minibot towers at the end of each alley against the drive station (on the side of the field where there isn't a human player chucking balls. Same rules as last year, must score in the last 15 seconds. Points are based off the order you score in. But you can also score in hybrid.

[pfreivald]

Add Minibot towers at the end of each alley against the drive station (on the side of the field where there isn't a human player chucking balls. Same rules as last year, must score in the last 15 seconds. Points are based off the order you score in. But you can also score in hybrid.

You are evil. I like you.

[Siri]

One really important rule change will need to be on the maximum amount of basketballs in the corral and with the human players during the teleop period.

Bolded is the rule change:


The idea behind this is for a situation where it's basically impossible to keep it under six basketballs. Most likely cause of this is a ton of scoring all at once, e.g, 2-3 basketballs per robot, robot A scores in left middle, robot B scores in right middle, robot C scores in top/bottom. While this rule kind of goes without saying, we definitely want to avoid someone complaining and claiming that there was a penalty on the opposing alliance after they score 9 basketballs in a matter of seconds. And since it's IRI, this very well could happen.

-DukeThe GDC already covered this in January, didn't they?

Q: What is the definition of immediately? Suppose that 7 balls are scored in rapid succession. Each inbounder may hold 2 balls at a time, which means that the ball coral cannot be emptied immediately. So, how fast do the inbounders have to empty the coral to be considered "immediate"?
A: In that scenario, the Alliance would need to rectify the situation to be in compliance with all Game rules as quickly as [sic] safely as possible.


I like the idea of limiting the time in which you're allowed to balance, though at IRI I expect it will be largely self-limited. Still, some kind of bonus for shorter time to balance would be cool and probably make matches eve with more exciting. Not sure about scoring system implementation, though.

[Conor Ryan]

You are evil. I like you.

Thanks!! I came up with the idea because over the weekend, a few vets and myself were discussing our favorite games and we all agreed on 2004 because there were so many ways to score. So, lets add some new ways to score!

[JohnSchneider]

If you want minibots why not a mini-bridge with extra points if your minibot balances on the mini bridge :rolleyes:

[Chris Hibner]

The GDC already covered this in January, didn't they?

Q: What is the definition of immediately? Suppose that 7 balls are scored in rapid succession. Each inbounder may hold 2 balls at a time, which means that the ball coral cannot be emptied immediately. So, how fast do the inbounders have to empty the coral to be considered "immediate"?
A: In that scenario, the Alliance would need to rectify the situation to be in compliance with all Game rules as quickly as [sic] safely as possible.


My only rule change is this one. I would like to see a penalty for ANY balls in the player station greater than 6 (i.e. eliminate the "return as safely as possible clause). If a team wants to hold on to 6, then they should know they're playing with fire. If a team lines up to shoot, they better start inbounding. The only exception would be for the first 5 seconds of teleop (in case some alliance scores more than 6).

I think this would keep the offense flowing.

[Duke461]

The GDC already covered this in January, didn't they?

Q: What is the definition of immediately? Suppose that 7 balls are scored in rapid succession. Each inbounder may hold 2 balls at a time, which means that the ball coral cannot be emptied immediately. So, how fast do the inbounders have to empty the coral to be considered "immediate"?
A: In that scenario, the Alliance would need to rectify the situation to be in compliance with all Game rules as quickly as [sic] safely as possible.


Ah, i hadn't seen that. Thanks!

My only rule change is this one. I would like to see a penalty for ANY balls in the player station greater than 6 (i.e. eliminate the "return as safely as possible clause). If a team wants to hold on to 6, then they should know they're playing with fire. If a team lines up to shoot, they better start inbounding. The only exception would be for the first 5 seconds of teleop (in case some alliance scores more than 6).

I think this would keep the offense flowing.

What i really intended this for was for situations where 7 basketballs were scored super duper quickly. But i agree completely with the "playing with fire" part.
-Duke

[daniel_dsouza]

Idea: There are 20 basketballs on the field. Yes, that's 2 more than normal. But those two extra basketballs are special. They're +3 if scored during either Hybrid or the end game. Each alliance starts with one. But...

They're NOT the normal basketballs. Either they've been given a funky covering, or they're actual basketballs (or you could just wrap a Poof ball in duct tape).


I'd say make those kickballs or dodgeballs. They fit almost perfectly in most systems.

[sprocketman92]

I think it would be really interesting if every robot was able to pre load 3 balls for autonomous.

[ratdude747]

My Idea for Qualification balancing:

- Toss out the whole coopertition bit. Let's be honest; Coopertition has no place at IRI.
- Allow triple balances during Qualifications. I personally think having separate game rules during Eliminations vs Qualfications is stupid... They should be the same game.

Also, I think trolling and side-hanging (118) should be legalized... trolling is quite a feat and I think it presents a challenge worth points... since most troll bots couldn't do much with the balls*, its a reasonable trade off.

* At IRI, one could find a way...

Also, I think that it should be made legal to use the 6 Autonomus balls in any way the alliance sees fit, as long as no bot has more than 3 in the bot any given moment... so 3 + 3 + 0 and 1 + 3 + 2 would be legal configurations

I agree that hail mary shots deserve more credit... just not so much that they become like the supercells were in 2009.

I also agree that the kinect needs axed... Useless.

On a last note, I am not sure if it would fit in but I think it would be cool to revive "best play of the day"...

[Koko Ed]

Also, I think trolling and side-hanging (118) should be legalized... trolling is quite a feat and I think it presents a challenge worth points... since most troll bots couldn't do much with the balls*, its a reasonable trade off.



Yes. When I saw 118 at Alamo I thought "Yep. That's illegal but very very cool. IRI should allow them to do that. IT would be quite a show."

[IndySam]

Also, and this is probably the easiest rule addition for everyone - Any basketballs shot over the player station wall by robots are put into that player station's corral rather than returned to the field. Fouls/Technicals given for purposefully passing balls in that way. This way, any of your missed shots over the top of the wall become "rebounded" and at least controlled by the opposite alliance.

I hated the idea that a ball shot out of bounds was given back to the alliance that shot it. I like this idea.

[Nathan Streeter]

My Idea for Qualification balancing:

- Toss out the whole coopertition bit. Let's be honest; Coopertition has no place at IRI.

I really hope you don't mean that Coopertition is just a silly game element that can be pulled out of FIRST...

Perhaps you could make a case that the Coopertition Bridge is just a silly game element that doesn't belong at IRI; however, even that would make me wonder why you think it doesn't belong at IRI... About the only thing I could see is because you think that IRI (unlike everything else in FIRST) isn't about Coopertition... rather it's a no-holds-barred fight amongst the best robots to crown the champions. That simply isn't true. IRI seeks to invite the very best robots to play the FIRST game, achieving the highest level of play, while keeping in place the FIRST atmosphere.

Really though, I don't understand the antagonism against ranking teams better that can consistently work with their opponents to balance the center bridge. I think that at IRI (with the strong, deep field) Coopertition balances will be the norm, hence why I'm in favor of reducing the double Coop balance to 1 point, and allowing a triple Coop balance for 2 points. This ups the amount of skill and effort required to achieve the same boost in rankings. I wish that the norm I foresee at IRI (working together to accomplish a single goal) was so easily achieved by all...

[dodar]

I hated the idea that a ball shot out of bounds was given back to the alliance that shot it. I like this idea.

I guess so do the regionals because both regionals my team attended(weeks 2 and 5) everytime a ball went out of bounds it was placed back in the field, not in the corral.

[qzrrbz]

Second on the "shot out of bounds goes into the corral" idea! Makes it very much more in keeping with "real" bball play.

Think that might tweaked to just be those that go out behind the endline, not those that fly out over a sideline for whatever reason. Harder to figure out whose ball it should be, and there aren't any inbounders on the sides. Keep the stock rule in play for the sidelines -- put it back on the field close to where it went out. Sort of like lacrosse... hmmm... game idea? :-)

Definitely an IRI flavor rule!

[Koko Ed]

Also the field should be 68 teams- to stick with the basketball theme.

[Libby K]

My Idea for Qualification balancing:

- Toss out the whole coopertition bit. Let's be honest; Coopertition has no place at IRI.


I think you meant "I don't like the Coopertition bridge."

Coopertition is not just a game element, it's not just a bridge, it's not just a ranking point. It's part of the core values of FIRST.

Coopertition is the teams who see their opponent in the finals is broken... and then walk over with the part they need.

It's the spirit of the FIRST Community. It's how we do things here.

If you don't like the Coopertition bridge, that's fine. Quite a few people don't. However, Coopertition itself should certainly have a place at all FIRST events.

[Alan Anderson]

Also the field should be 68 teams- to stick with the basketball theme.

I'm expecting 66 again this year. It makes the match schedule come out even, and even that many is pushing the limits of a two-day event.

[Chris Hibner]

I think that at IRI (with the strong, deep field) Coopertition balances will be the norm, hence why I'm in favor of reducing the double Coop balance to 1 point ...

I agree with your reasoning, but I think the opposite should be done with the coop points (increase them, not decrease them). Here's why:

At the IRI, coop bridge balancing should be the norm. It might even occur in every match. If it does occur in every match, than it has no value at all. Every team has the max CP value so we're back to win/loss record.

If coop balancing occurs in 90% of the matches, even then it has very little affect on the outcome of seeding. In thid case, it becomes a minor penalty for the odd match that coop balancing isn't successful.

Because of the fact that coop balancing will probably occur in 90% of the matches at IRI, coop bridge points need to be increased in order to increase it's affect on seeding. Make the coop bridge worth 4 points for a double balance in order to really penalize a failed attempt.

[kramarczyk]

I propose 1 seeding point is awarded to any alliance that connects to the field before Paul starts ranting about the green light.

[qzrrbz]

I propose 1 seeding point is awarded to any alliance that connects to the field before Paul starts ranting about the green light.

Hmm, this year Paul may get confused? All those pretty green lights *on* the field have to go off for things to get under way! :-)

[Nathan Streeter]

Because of the fact that coop balancing will probably occur in 90% of the matches at IRI, coop bridge points need to be increased in order to increase it's affect on seeding. Make the coop bridge worth 4 points for a double balance in order to really penalize a failed attempt.

I can see what you're saying, but I don't think a single element of the game (the ability to balance the bridge) should be able to overwhelm the several elements of the game and various intangibles that go into winning a match. Several things concern me about more than 2 points being awarded for a standard co-op balance:

- When two robots in a match failed to get co-op points for a "silly" reason... perhaps a robot was flipped on the bridge, they got a wheel stuck on the siderail, etc.... you'd have the failure of a single robot at the last second dragging down six teams in the rankings. This wouldn't be a single point, this would be equivalent to winning two matches! So, your un-defeated, super-awesome team whose only flaw was that they trusted their capable partner to balance the co-op bridge for them is suddenly set back anywhere from a 1 or 2 to 10 or more places in the rankings.

- If a 2-robot co-op balance were worth more than a win, you'd be radically skewing the ranking system toward a single capability: balancing. There's a lot more to this game than balancing though... hybrid scoring, ball harvesting, accurate shooting all in addition to the intangibles like strategy, driver skill, etc. By elevating any single element so dramatically the rankings would skew dramatically too.

Taking Troy as an example, as it had many co-op balances, I was interested in seeing how applying 4 points for each balance instead of 2 would affect the rankings... Attached are two plots side-by-side for comparison. I also attached the spreadsheet from which I made the plots.

The plots indicate a noticeably higher correlation between Rank and Points Scored and Rank and Wins when the co-op balances are worth 2 points. They also have fewer outliers. One could say the graphs for 4 point balances are almost characterized by outliers, producing a loose correlation.

Interestingly, the top 12 teams remained the top 12 teams, but the order jumbled around a fair bit... instead of proceeding "1->12", it went, "1, 8, 2, 3, 5, 4..." The greater changes seemed to be in the mid-tier teams though...

This graphing really didn't provide any overwhelming change in correlations, but it certainly looks like it'd put at least one more team in the top 8 that would make you scratch your head.

[ratdude747]

I think you meant "I don't like the Coopertition bridge."

Coopertition is not just a game element, it's not just a bridge, it's not just a ranking point. It's part of the core values of FIRST.

Coopertition is the teams who see their opponent in the finals is broken... and then walk over with the part they need.

It's the spirit of the FIRST Community. It's how we do things here.

If you don't like the Coopertition bridge, that's fine. Quite a few people don't. However, Coopertition itself should certainly have a place at all FIRST events.

I'd argue that gracious professionism is the core value and the spirit of the FIRST community.

Coopertition is a game concept. Not a core value.

Gracious professionalism does belong at all FIRST events. IRI has always had it.

Coopertition, not so much. The whole concept is the opposite of IRI. IRI is about being GP off the field but performing the best on the field.

Think back to 2008 when coopertition didn't exist... to rank well for seeding you had to play your best. Alliance seedings were more accurate and helped ensure that the best robots were the ones driving on saturday afternoon. There still was GP and off the field teams were just as helpful to eachother as ever.

Compare that to now, where some of the alliance captains, well, to be blunt, are not best teams on the field, in some cases "boxes on wheels." It isn't fair to the teams who didn't get picked because the elite 24 was crowded with lesser performing robots, the teams that get picked by such captains and are more or less "doomed" (or have to burn the backup coupon), and to the spectators that are cheated out of seeing the best quality matches.

I see no need for coopertition in the first place. This is FRC: FIRST Robotics Competition. While it is more than a simple "robotics competition", there still is a robotics competition as part of it, and I think that is how it needs to be. We have plenty of non-robot awards; two of them are higher than winning the competition and are highly regarded in the community.

[Chi Meson]

All of my wonderful ideas have been stated by others already! So here's my vote:

Coop points deleted! Instead, during quals and elims, make the center bridge worth another 10-points if balanced. A robot may only contact the bridge from their own side of the field. Preventing balance of center bridge is allowed, but only from home side of the bump.

Autonomous: 6 balls placed anywhere the alliance wants.

Moneyball may be "hail maried" in final 30 s or introduced by human player through feeder station to robot; extra rule: moneyball may not hit the floor, if it does it becomes a normal ball ("dead money"). Once scored, opposing alliance may either feed to robot or try a hail mary.

[Libby K]

I'd argue that gracious professionism is the core value and the spirit of the FIRST community.

Coopertition is a game concept. Not a core value.


I think FIRST would beg to differ.
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/gracious-professionalism

Under the header of "Core Values"...

CoopertitionTM produces innovation. At FIRST, Coopertition is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition. Coopertition is founded on the concept and a philosophy that teams can and should help and cooperate with each other even as they compete.

Coopertition involves learning from teammates. It is teaching teammates. It is learning from Mentors. And it is managing and being managed. Coopertition means competing always, but assisting and enabling others when you can.

As do I.
Just because this year's game involves Coopertition does not mean it's just a game element.
FIRST kind of says it for me, but that's how I see it too. Kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition.

EDIT: Also, Coopertition was coined in the late 90s (as far as its use in the FIRST world), and the 2000 game was called Coopertition:FIRST. Coopertition has been a value long before its use this year.

[gyroscopeRaptor]

Moneyball may be [...] introduced by human player through feeder station to robot; extra rule: moneyball may not hit the floor, if it does it becomes a normal ball ("dead money"). Once scored, opposing alliance may either feed to robot or try a hail mary.

This right here. It encourages movement from one side of the field to the other, quick aim and accuracy, defense on the money robot, and communication.

Would the moneyball be one for each team or awarded to the best scoring team in hybrid like scoring periods in Aim High?

[Chi Meson]

I would give one moneyball to each alliance, kept behind the wall, like the Lunacy supercell.

[Tetraman]

[IRI 01] The hybrid mode does not end until all basketballs that have been launched by robots during the hybrid mode have either landed on the court or settled into the corral. (This will mean all basketballs that landed into the hoops during hybrid mode but after the buzzer will score the additional 3 points.)

[IRI 02] Any basketballs that are shot over the player station wall will be put into that player station's corral, rather than being put back into the field. Teams that intentionally shoot basketballs over the player station wall will receive a Technical Foul and possible Red Card for repeated violations.

The Moneyball

[IRI 03] In the last 30 seconds of each qualification and elimination match, a Moneyball may be entered into the corral of the alliance whom scored the most amount of points in the Hybrid Mode. The Moneyball will be entered by either IRI field crew or referee.

[IRI 04] The Moneyball will give a 1 point Coopertition bonus to the first alliance that scores it during qualification matches. In Elimination matches, the Moneyball will score a bonus 9 points to the first alliance that scores it in a hoop. After the Moneyball has been scored for the first time in either case, it no longer provides the additional Coopertition point nor bonus points but may still be scored as a normal basketball.

[IRI 05] During Qualification matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will not be entered into either alliance's corral and skipped for that match.

[IRI 06] During Elimination matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will be entered into the corral of the alliance with the highest combined total of Coopertition points earned in the qualification matches. If this is also a tie, the moneyball will be entered into the corral of the lower seeded alliance's corral. (In this way, the Moneyball will be used in every Elimination match, either to the alliance whom scored the most hybrid points, or to the alliance that has the better tiebreaker. Scoring the Moneyball in Qualification matches will increase the odds of being given the Moneyball in elimination matches if a Hybrid Mode tie occurs.)


EDIT:

I was also thinking, it would be interesting to set up an additional field, or at least half of one. Set up a series of basketballs on one or two bridges and all over the court in certain places. You put one robot on the field on the key with a basketball and have it try to pick up and shoot as many of the basketballs as it can within, say, 30 seconds. Enforce a 1 Basketball hold limit, give additional points for ending the 30 seconds on the bridge and maybe something with a Moneyball. Teams can attempt the challenge only 3 times during the day, and the team who scored the most points within that 30 seconds earns a special award. Basically, the 3-point shooting contest the NBA does, in FIRST terms.

[ratdude747]

I think FIRST would beg to differ.
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/gracious-professionalism

Under the header of "Core Values"...



As do I.
Just because this year's game involves Coopertition does not mean it's just a game element.
FIRST kind of says it for me, but that's how I see it too. Kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition.

EDIT: Also, Coopertition was coined in the late 90s (as far as its use in the FIRST world), and the 2000 game was called Coopertition:FIRST. Coopertition has been a value long before its use this year.

Well, let me rephrase. Coopertition shouldn't be a core value of FIRST.

Kindness and respect already exist off the field. Its called gracious professionalism.

Kindness and respect already exist on the field... It's called sportsmanship, the field version of gracious professionalism.

I do not see coopertition as either of the two. I see it as a concept that basically says that if you play on the field to win, even in a fair and just manner, and you happen to achive a much higher score than the opponent, you deserve be penalized since you didn't choose to intentionally lower your performance to make the opposition look better.

In addition, coopertition makes things hard for teams that do good "cooperative" things for the sake of truly caring... As soon as you put a price tag on something, yes, there will be more of it, but for the wrong reasons. Such acts should be done out of true kindness, not out of desire for an award or a higher ranking.

Don't get me wrong; I still think GP is a valuable things... But It isn't coopertition.

IMHO, It should be like this:

1. Off the field, everybody is friends and when somebody needs help, somebody else will unconditionally be there to give help. GP is de-facto, not de-jure. Similar to how it is is off the field.
2. On the field, play field, act responsible, exhibit good sportsmanship, and let the best playing alliance win.



I understand coopertition existed long ago but not to the degree it is now... It wasn't as heavily weighted as it is now. It was at a more manageable level where it had little effect on rankings. Back then, you EARNED your rank by playing well and having a good robot, not by intentionally cutting points or by repeatedly performing a basic task that any drivable robot could perform...

Bottom line; the Path to success on the field should solely be through a good robot and well played matches.

[Chris Hibner]

Larry,

In many ways, I really agree with you. I grew up playing a lot of sports and good sportsmanship was ingrained in me from the start. Unlike a lot of people, I know that being extremely competitive and being a good sport are not mutually exclusive.

However, coopertition is a life lesson that FIRST is trying to teach that isn't well understood in a lot of American life. The fact is, in real life you can be very competitive yet still benefit by working with your competitors in certain areas.

This is a very foreign concept in the US, but a lot of examples are out there. The best example is the "Group of 5" - the alliance of German auto companies. I was introduced to this when I worked for an automotive supplier that had a decent presence in Europe - I even attended a Group of 5 meeting at Porsche's headquarters one summer.

The Group of 5 was highly competitive with each other in their market, but they realized that they could gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world by cooperating on certain advancements that helped reduce costs among them, but didn't really make for a competitive performance advantage. Basically, they collaborated on things that made life easier for all of them.

Many of the things that started out as Group of 5 collaboration efforts have become world-wide standards since then, such as CAN and CCP. Virtually every control system in the world now uses CCP as the standard method of calibration and data collection.

The point is, FIRST wants to point out that you can be competitive, yet still find ways to improve your standing AND someone else's standing at the same time. Personally, I think the coopertition bridge this year has been by far the best example of showing this concept.

Yes, it's just a robot competition, but FIRST's greater mission is to get people thinking of bigger picture things along the way.

On a final point, I don't really think the seeding has been out of whack this year. If you look at the standings from the vast majority of competitions, you see the usual suspects.

And by the way, it was nice meeting you at dinner in St. Louis last year.

[ratdude747]

Larry,

In many ways, I really agree with you. I grew up playing a lot of sports and good sportsmanship was ingrained in me from the start. Unlike a lot of people, I know that being extremely competitive and being a good sport are not mutually exclusive.

However, coopertition is a life lesson that FIRST is trying to teach that isn't well understood in a lot of American life. The fact is, in real life you can be very competitive yet still benefit by working with your competitors in certain areas.

This is a very foreign concept in the US, but a lot of examples are out there. The best example is the "Group of 5" - the alliance of German auto companies. I was introduced to this when I worked for an automotive supplier that had a decent presence in Europe - I even attended a Group of 5 meeting at Porsche's headquarters one summer.

The Group of 5 was highly competitive with each other in their market, but they realized that they could gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world by cooperating on certain advancements that helped reduce costs among them, but didn't really make for a competitive performance advantage. Basically, they collaborated on things that made life easier for all of them.

Many of the things that started out as Group of 5 collaboration efforts have become world-wide standards since then, such as CAN and CCP. Virtually every control system in the world now uses CCP as the standard method of calibration and data collection.

The point is, FIRST wants to point out that you can be competitive, yet still find ways to improve your standing AND someone else's standing at the same time. Personally, I think the coopertition bridge this year has been by far the best example of showing this concept.

Yes, it's just a robot competition, but FIRST's greater mission is to get people thinking of bigger picture things along the way.

On a final point, I don't really think the seeding has been out of whack this year. If you look at the standings from the vast majority of competitions, you see the usual suspects.

And by the way, it was nice meeting you at dinner in St. Louis last year.

First, I think it's cool that you remember me from then... :)

(Long post ahead)

My beef with co-opertiton is that sometimes it gets manipulated too easily... like 6 vs 0 in 2010 or this year, where boxes on wheels are becoming alliance captains:


Where the co-op bridge bit falls short is this common scenario:

We have an alliance in Qualification XXX:

1 Shootbot
2 Boxbot
3 Shootbot

What usually happens is the alliance decides that they will send #2 to try to balance on the co-op bridge, since there is little else productive that they foresee #2 doing. The opposing alliance on the other hand doesn't care, since as long as they can push it or be pushed by it up the bridge, it's valid.

This is a shortcoming because of how the co-op rules work. just attempting to balance is a guaranteed point, and a balance is 2 guaranteed points.

In addition, the odds are in favor of the box-bots, since unlike non-box teams that will only have a box alliance member only some of the time, box teams will ALWAYS have a partner that is boxed, that being themselves. Therefore, the chances of getting at least the one point of attempt points are much, much greater and far more consistent for box bots than non-box bots.

With co-op points so valuable, this occurs:

(% of maximum possible)

1.

Wins: 0%
Balances: 0%
Failed Attempts: 100%
Seeding points: 25%

2.


Wins: 0%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 50%
Seeding points: 37.5%

3.


Wins: 25%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 50%
Seeding points: 50%

4.

Wins: 0%
Balances: 100%
Failed Attempts: 0%
Seeding points: 50%

5.

Wins: 50%
Balances: 50%
Failed Attempts: 0%
Seeding points: 50%

Cases 1-4 were common Boxbot occurrances. Case 5 was a common average bot occurance. As one can see, all a boxbot would need would be a few lucky pairing to get some win points tossed in and all of the sudden they are picking alliances.

IIRC there have been regionals where the #1 seed actually WAS a boxbot... they used the above effect to rack up massive amounts of seeding points.

The reason this is such a problem is that while co-op balancing is fruitful in Qualification, in eliminations it is useless. The only things boxbots can do in eliminations is either balance or play defense, which most non-box bots can also do. What that means is trhat if you get picked by a boxbot captain, you have in a way been given a large hurdle if not a kiss of death. IMHO this is not good game design and this needs to be fixed for IRI.

[CalTran]

I may be wrong here, but imo Larry, I think that by virtue of it being IRI then the competition might be a bit stiffer than box bots. As far as I can tell, the "elite" robots always seed higher because they consistently do both rack up points via baskets and bridge points by balancing. Which, at IRI, the best of the best robots are a dime a dozen.

[JohnSchneider]

[IRI 01] The hybrid mode does not end until all basketballs that have been launched by robots during the hybrid mode have either landed on the court or settled into the corral. (This will mean all basketballs that landed into the hoops during hybrid mode but after the buzzer will score the additional 3 points.)

[IRI 02] Any basketballs that are shot over the player station wall will be put into that player station's corral, rather than being put back into the field. Teams that intentionally shoot basketballs over the player station wall will receive a Technical Foul and possible Red Card for repeated violations.

The Moneyball

[IRI 03] In the last 30 seconds of each qualification and elimination match, a Moneyball may be entered into the corral of the alliance whom scored the most amount of points in the Hybrid Mode. The Moneyball will be entered by either IRI field crew or referee.

[IRI 04] The Moneyball will give a 1 point Coopertition bonus to the first alliance that scores it during qualification matches. In Elimination matches, the Moneyball will score a bonus 9 points to the first alliance that scores it in a hoop. After the Moneyball has been scored for the first time in either case, it no longer provides the additional Coopertition point nor bonus points but may still be scored as a normal basketball.

[IRI 05] During Qualification matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will not be entered into either alliance's corral and skipped for that match.

[IRI 06] During Elimination matches, if both alliances score the same amount of points in hybrid mode, the Moneyball will be entered into the corral of the alliance with the highest combined total of Coopertition points earned in the qualification matches. If this is also a tie, the moneyball will be entered into the corral of the lower seeded alliance's corral. (In this way, the Moneyball will be used in every Elimination match, either to the alliance whom scored the most hybrid points, or to the alliance that has the better tiebreaker. Scoring the Moneyball in Qualification matches will increase the odds of being given the Moneyball in elimination matches if a Hybrid Mode tie occurs.)


EDIT:

I was also thinking, it would be interesting to set up an additional field, or at least half of one. Set up a series of basketballs on one or two bridges and all over the court in certain places. You put one robot on the field on the key with a basketball and have it try to pick up and shoot as many of the basketballs as it can within, say, 30 seconds. Enforce a 1 Basketball hold limit, give additional points for ending the 30 seconds on the bridge and maybe something with a Moneyball. Teams can attempt the challenge only 3 times during the day, and the team who scored the most points within that 30 seconds earns a special award. Basically, the 3-point shooting contest the NBA does, in FIRST terms.


are we pausing matches to sit down and figure out who gets the money ball in each match? Because that's looking like a long process.

Why not just say "whoever's got the lower score at the moment gets the ball", then it serves to even the score instead of give the winning alliance (Because the ones with more auto is probably winning) more points

[Tetraman]

are we pausing matches to sit down and figure out who gets the money ball in each match? Because that's looking like a long process.

Why not just say "whoever's got the lower score at the moment gets the ball", then it serves to even the score instead of give the winning alliance (Because the ones with more auto is probably winning) more points

Not if you plan ahead. Spend a few minutes after alliance selection to add up the cooperititon points and write them down next to each alliance on a sheet of paper, and you'll have instant confirmation.

Points change rapidly. If you see one alliance down 6 points and you head over to their side, ready to put the moneyball in, and then they nail 9 points, you'd have to run over to the other side to get the moneyball in. And even if you had one person on both sides with a moneyball in hand to drop it in, what happens if one of them sees the 6 less score and gives it to them prematurely and the other sees the 9 points scored and gives it to the other team? The easier it is to determine the point which something is to be given, the better.

[Dave Scheck]

Why not just make it simple and have a jump ball? Have the referee toss the moneyball down the middle of the field with a best effort of having it bounce on the coop bridge? Then it becomes a mad dash to pick up a single ball that could bounce either way. You could even make a stipulation about robots having to not being in the area between the bridges before the ref tosses the ball to give it a fair chance of going either way.

[Jared Russell]

Why not just make it simple and have a jump ball? Have the referee toss the moneyball down the middle of the field with a best effort of having it bounce on the coop bridge? Then it becomes a mad dash to pick up a single ball that could bounce either way. You could even make a stipulation about robots having to not being in the area between the bridges before the ref tosses the ball to give it a fair chance of going either way.

I imagine it would be pretty easy to make a "fair" catapult/slingshot at the side of the field to enter the moneyball consistently.

[ratdude747]

I may be wrong here, but imo Larry, I think that by virtue of it being IRI then the competition might be a bit stiffer than box bots. As far as I can tell, the "elite" robots always seed higher because they consistently do both rack up points via baskets and bridge points by balancing. Which, at IRI, the best of the best robots are a dime a dozen.

True, but the issue could come into play... if one bot is consistently down on shooting ability and other teams who shoot better consistently put them on bridge duty, they are essentially a boxbot.

IMHO a bad rule is a bad rule.

[Chi Meson]

Respectfully submitted; re : Moneyball

I'm in favor of one ball for each side, to be deployed only during endgame.

There is already too much "luck" floating around to have the "jump ball"; even with best effort, everybody tends to throw right or left.

And this game does not need to reward "more points" with "more points," nor does it need to provide a chance for "catchup points" for the alliance that's behind. The money ball should (I think) be another way for each team to score, fairly and equipotentially.

[Nawaid Ladak]

EDIT:

I was also thinking, it would be interesting to set up an additional field, or at least half of one. Set up a series of basketballs on one or two bridges and all over the court in certain places. You put one robot on the field on the key with a basketball and have it try to pick up and shoot as many of the basketballs as it can within, say, 30 seconds. Enforce a 1 Basketball hold limit, give additional points for ending the 30 seconds on the bridge and maybe something with a Moneyball. Teams can attempt the challenge only 3 times during the day, and the team who scored the most points within that 30 seconds earns a special award. Basically, the 3-point shooting contest the NBA does, in FIRST terms.

...Or Like the VRC Skills Challenge

On that note, there should be an autonomous variant to this as well. Same thing, but either totally atonomous or kinect aided... Sort of like the VRC Programming Skills Challenge

[Arefin Bari]

I just booked our flights, hotel and car for IRI. I sure hope dates don't change. I am so excited to be able to go back after 3 long years! :)

[Michael Hill]

Just a request: don't introduce brand new balls in the elimination round. Rotate the balls throughout the competition so they all have equal wear. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, but we have a feeling new balls being put in play during eliminations causes some pretty wild shooting because they're more stiff and less consistent than worn balls.

[IndySam]

Just a request: don't introduce brand new balls in the elimination round. Rotate the balls throughout the competition so they all have equal wear. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, but we have a feeling new balls being put in play during eliminations causes some pretty wild shooting because they're more stiff and less consistent than worn balls.

But that's part of the challenge and cheats teams who have figured out how to deal with the inconsistencies.

No reason to make IRI easier.

[Duke461]

Just a request: don't introduce brand new balls in the elimination round. Rotate the balls throughout the competition so they all have equal wear. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, but we have a feeling new balls being put in play during eliminations causes some pretty wild shooting because they're more stiff and less consistent than worn balls.

But that's part of the challenge and cheats teams who have figured out how to deal with the inconsistencies.

No reason to make IRI easier.

There's an easy fix to this. I saw the driver on 836 at washington, D.C. do this before every match. He would take the two basketballs, that were to be pre-loaded, set it on the ground while holding it with both hands, and used his knee as a "pogo stick", jumping around, squishing and compressing the basketball with his knee. It seemed to work pretty well, they made nearly every auton shot and were finalists. Now for the rest of the basketballs in teleop? Well, either convince the other five alliances to do the same, or add some pneumatic "drum" to your robot to squish them down a bit.

-Duke

[CalTran]

There's an easy fix to this. I saw the driver on 836 at washington, D.C. do this before every match. He would take the two basketballs, that were to be pre-loaded, set it on the ground while holding it with both hands, and used his knee as a "pogo stick", jumping around, squishing and compressing the basketball with his knee. It seemed to work pretty well, they made nearly every auton shot and were finalists. Now for the rest of the basketballs in teleop? Well, either convince the other five alliances to do the same, or add some pneumatic "drum" to your robot to squish them down a bit.

-Duke

I tried that in Oklahoma and simply received a stern talking to by one of the refs and almost kicked off the field... I recall seeing a video on CD of a student doing that and the ref standing in close proximity not caring. Is there a specific rule that frowns upon this action?

[P.J.]

I tried that in Oklahoma and simply received a stern talking to by one of the refs and almost kicked off the field... I recall seeing a video on CD of a student doing that and the ref standing in close proximity not caring. Is there a specific rule that frowns upon this action?

As far as I know, no there is not. However, I am a little fuzzier on the rules that were never an issue at competitions I reffed, and no one ever tried anything like this at those competitions. But I could see how this would be frowned upon, something like modifying the field elements before a match.

[Billfred]

I tried that in Oklahoma and simply received a stern talking to by one of the refs and almost kicked off the field... I recall seeing a video on CD of a student doing that and the ref standing in close proximity not caring. Is there a specific rule that frowns upon this action?

As far as I know, no there is not. However, I am a little fuzzier on the rules that were never an issue at competitions I reffed, and no one ever tried anything like this at those competitions. But I could see how this would be frowned upon, something like modifying the field elements before a match.

I could see someone construing that as damaging the field, especially if you were really going at it.

[Travis Hoffman]

I could see someone construing that as damaging the field, especially if you were really going at it.

Then most all robots damage the field and should be penalized every match, because they put far more abuse on the balls during the course of a match than a human knee does before it. All the kneading does is help break open the pores of a brand-new ball to allow better breathability and more "squishiness".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxsalSrmCto

We call it "breaking the seal". It isn't a cure-all, but it helps.

Back to IRI rule change ideas?

[George Nishimura]

I skimmed through this thread, here are some ideas I second and bring to the table.

1) No driving on alliance bridges before last 30 seconds.

2) Co-opertition worth 1 qualifying point/tie-breaker

3) Allow triple balancing in qualifications, maybe bring points down to 30.

4) Double [or +3] basket points in the last 30 seconds [for both robot and player]

5) No maximum ball penalty in hybrid

[efoote868]

The three rules I'd like to see that wouldn't modify the scoring:

1. The other alliance's bridges are only protected during the last 30 seconds of the match.
No 9 point penalties, allows you to go after their balls for more offense. Also makes a 3 robot balance more difficult because it needs to be done in 30 seconds.

2. The other alliance's alley is not off limits in the last 30 seconds of the match.
This would effectively allow a team to shoot their way out of a triple balance. It would also allow some defense before the bridge, making harassing the other team and defending a triple balance easier.

3. The other alliance's key is not protected during the first 30 seconds nor the last 30 seconds of the match.
Another shift in strategy. Would allow a robot to drive to the other side of the field and harass the opposing alliance in autonomous mode, and would be a difficult programming challenge.
Would also allow defense virtually anywhere during the last 30 seconds.

[Michael Hill]

But that's part of the challenge and cheats teams who have figured out how to deal with the inconsistencies.

No reason to make IRI easier.

IRI isn't supposed to make the game harder (that's why we relax rules in the first place there). A lot of it is about seeing great robots getting high scores, especially in elims.

[Michael Hill]

As a separate request, to have a little nostalgia...

BUMPERS. OPTIONAL.

:D

[JohnFogarty]

I'm bringing in the FTC "Get Over It" idea from the game where the balance bridges came from.

1. Extend the autonomous period 10 - 15 seconds, and give teams bonus points for autonomously balancing their robot.

Talk about a challenge, as one of the teams that did it successfully last year in FTC it's not easy..at all, did I mention potentially disastrous if approached the wrong way. :D

[Travis Hoffman]

If you want to make scores higher, try to minimize ball inconsistency by pre-conditioning balls before the event.

Get some volunteers to be official ball kneaders, kinda like the umpires rubbing up baseballs with mud before a game.

Take them to a local laundromat and toss game balls into dryers on tumble dry low or something. :)

[jason_zielke]

1. Extend the autonomous period 10 - 15 seconds, and give teams bonus points for autonomously balancing their robot.


This would be an interesting addition...I think we would see a lot more teams use the Kinect.

[Chi Meson]

If you want to make scores higher, try to minimize ball inconsistency by pre-conditioning balls before the event.

Get some volunteers to be official ball kneaders, kinda like the umpires rubbing up baseballs with mud before a game.

Take them to a local laundromat and toss game balls into dryers on tumble dry low or something. :)

Poke a bunch of holes into the surfaces of brand new balls. What a surprise in our first quarterfinal when they completely changed-over the entire ball supply!

[Travis Hoffman]

Poke a bunch of holes into the surfaces of brand new balls. What a surprise in our first quarterfinal when they completely changed-over the entire ball supply!

Acupuncture mellows out the balls, makes balls happy. More willing to enter baskets.

[Ekcrbe]

Even rule changes that initially seem to help all teams equally are likely to favor some teams over others. For instance, increased match length will favor robots optimized for shooting rather than balancing, as increased match time gives more opportunities for teleop baskets, but doesn't give more opportunities for balance points. Longer matches would also favor teams which use less of their battery during a match -- however, those teams might have intentionally designed their robot to use most of their battery in a regulation-length match.

(emphasis mine)

This post gave me an idea: What about lengthening Teleop by 45 seconds, taking the match to an even 3 minutes. Also add a "mid-game" segment that takes the end-game rules, but applies them before the final whistle. My best idea is to give a "balance whistle" with 60 seconds left, at which points any bridge points currently earned are applied (possibly at a reduced rate like 7, 15, or 30 points for 1, 2, or 3 robots), and then the robots can get off the bridges to continue scoring until the endgame, when they can come back and score bridge points again.

[Colin P]

I'd love to see a change in the penalty for contacting an opposing alliance's bridge; it would be nice to see no penalty for this unless you contact the bridge while the opposing alliance is. This would get rid of the 9 pt fouls and also introduce the possibility of snatching 2 extra balls if you are careful.

Inadvertent contact for less than a second should be legal as long as no other robots on it. upvote :P

[hammerhead_399]

We should run 5v5 on a regulation size NBA court with 2 sets of hoops on each side... and a tip-off!!

In all seriousness, besides the change in coop point values, I'd like the rest of the scoring to stay the same. If a team LEGITIMATELY breaks the world record, you'd want to know, right? A record being broken because of points being altered is not a record broken, unless someone counts baskets :]

[EricH]

I had a totally crazy idea. (And picked up another one...)

First, the simple one. The first match at IRI is FiM champs vs. MAR champs.

OK, now for the other one...

All bridges are treated as the coopertition bridge, and all bridges earn balancing points based not on color but on who is on them. 10 points/robot balanced on a bridge, to that robot's alliance. For balances with more than one alliance represented, add 10 points and 2 CP for each alliance. (This involves removing all penalties associated with the bridges, save for interfering with balancing.)

[thefro526]

First, the simple one. The first match at IRI is FiM champs vs. MAR champs.



Beat me to it.

Though, I think a best of 3 series during lunch would be better. See who the 'real' Champions are...

[gyroscopeRaptor]

Beat me to it.

Though, I think a best of 3 series during lunch would be better. See who the 'real' Champions are...

This would be better because both sides would have calibrated already and fine tuned their camera/sensors.

[Duke461]

Beat me to it.

Though, I think a best of 3 series during lunch would be better. See who the 'real' Champions are...

Which means we should also have a rematch of Einstein Finals (and replace whoever's not there with a team of relatively equal skill level)

-Duke

[Tetraman]

I agree with the FiM vs. MAR match, not so much about an Einstein rematch.

Which makes me think of a "auto alliance" option. If you are the alliance captain, and were an alliance captain at a district/regional/championship/division, you can choose to invite both original robots (in the case of backups) that your alliance selected as your first selection. Both teams must still accept, but it gives you the option of automatically setting your alliance to an alliance you had at a previous event that year.

[P.J.]

Which makes me think of a "auto alliance" option. If you are the alliance captain, and were an alliance captain at a district/regional/championship/division, you can choose to invite both original robots (in the case of backups) that your alliance selected as your first selection. Both teams must still accept, but it gives you the option of automatically setting your alliance to an alliance you had at a previous event that year.

Now that I don't like. That takes away the whole point of selecting alliances, in my opinion.

[Richard Wallace]

All bridges are treated as the coopertition bridge, and all bridges earn balancing points based not on color but on who is on them. 10 points/robot balanced on a bridge, to that robot's alliance. For balances with more than one alliance represented, add 10 points and 2 CP for each alliance. (This involves removing all penalties associated with the bridges, save for interfering with balancing.)So each alliance still owns its alley, but not the bridge that leads to it? The words "Key, Alley, or Bridge" replace by "Key or Alley" in [G29]? And [G25] replaced by a rule (wording TBD) that protects the act of balancing a bridge? Is this what you mean?

My initial impressions: (1) qualifying strategy would be VERY different from elimination play -- many teams would shoot less during qualification. (2) would a concept of transient bridge ownership (e.g., based on being fully supported by the bridge) be needed, to establish which robot is "interfering" with bridge balancing?

[Duke461]

I agree with the FiM vs. MAR match, not so much about an Einstein rematch.

Reason being? (Not offended or anything, I'd just like to know)

[Chris Hibner]

I agree with the FiM vs. MAR match, not so much about an Einstein rematch.

What about FiM vs MAR vs World Champs? Of course, there could be the issue if one team is on more than one of the above alliances, but I think it would be fun to see if the depth at the district system championships is better than the divisions at the championship.

I suppose you would go FiM vs MAR and let the world champs have the bye in the first round.

Another option would be to pit FiM vs MAR vs Einstein, vs IRI champs in a 2-out-of-3 tournament (or round robin). That could be cool as well, except for the situation where a team like 67 is in 3 of the 4 alliances above.

[Tetraman]

Reason being? (Not offended or anything, I'd just like to know)

I think that having the two alliances compete again isn't fair for either alliance. If the previous winner wins again, it could make the losing alliance look really bad to be defeated, or even blown out twice. If the previous loser wins, it makes both alliances look neutral or possibly like the winning alliance might not have deserved their win. And while none of that could matter at all, the time spent could be better served with something else that we haven't seen before.

I think a simple best 2 out of 3 exhibition match between the MAR and MSC champions would be all IRI needs.

[Chi Meson]

'Scuze me for interrupting, could someone quickly point me to a thread, or explain briefly about the IRI method of alliance picks? I noticed in past events there are *four* teams per alliance in eliminations. Obviously only 3 play per game, but what are the rules behind the "multiple 3rd-pick"? Thanks in advance.

[mwmac]

No serpentine, each alliance has to pick one backup alliance member to play with in event of damage etc.

[dodar]

No serpentine, each alliance has to pick one backup alliance member to play with in event of damage etc.

The 4th alliance member isnt limited to replacement by damage. You could play with any set of 3/4 on your alliance through any elimination match.

[mwmac]

The 4th alliance member isnt limited to replacement by damage. You could play with any set of 3/4 on your alliance through any elimination match.

Correct, I hit enter prematurely...:)

[qzrrbz]

No serpentine, each alliance has to pick one backup alliance member to play with in event of damage etc.

Actually the 4th robot is picked serpentine style, with 8th alliance getting 16th robot, 24th robot and 25th robot, and 1st alliance getting 9th robot (counting the captains as the first 8 robots), 17th robot, and 32nd robot. Make sense? :)

[qzrrbz]

Actually the 4th robot is picked serpentine style, with 8th alliance getting 16th robot, 24th robot and 25th robot, and 1st alliance getting 9th robot (counting the captains as the first 8 robots), 17th robot, and 32nd robot. Make sense? :)

I might add, the 32nd robot has usually won a regional or two at IRI!

[OZ_341]

First, the simple one. The first match at IRI is FiM champs vs. MAR champs.

ummmm....... We are still just hoping to just make it into the IRI elimination rounds someday. We have not achieved that monumental feat yet. As I have mentioned before, going to IRI is a truly humbling experience.
Although we are looking forward to going to IRI this year, if we are invited.

Best of luck to everyone at Champs!

[EricH]

Actually the 4th robot is picked serpentine style, with 8th alliance getting 16th robot, 24th robot and 25th robot, and 1st alliance getting 9th robot (counting the captains as the first 8 robots), 17th robot, and 32nd robot. Make sense? :)
I think I can simplify it a bit.

Full IRI picking:
Alliance captains
First pick, 1-8 order.
Second pick, 1-8 order.
Backup pick, 8-1 order.

All teams not selected are out of the tournament but encouraged to watch and cheer.

They have a very deep field, so it isn't uncommon to see a very good team go in the backup round or not at all. Due to wear and tear from multiple events, it also isn't uncommon to see the backup called in, though it is never required to use the backup. During eliminations, any three robots from an alliance can be used in any match.

[artdutra04]

The rules and point values this year... are actually pretty well calibrated for the effort/reward. For the first time in quite a while, I don't think anything major needs to be "fixed" by rules changes at offseason events.

So onto rule modifications enhancements:


Extend autonomous to 20 seconds long.
Allow each robot to preload 3 balls, for a total of 24 balls on the field.
Pause the match between end of autonomous and beginning of teleop to allow any ball jams to be resolved.
A triple balance on the co-op bridge during qualification matches is worth 3 CP.
Make incidental contact with opposing bridge the same as key/lane fouls: only penalize it if an opposing robot is touching the bridge at the same time. (I'm only proposing this one because often balls that roll close to/under the opposing alliance bridge during a match are more or less dead balls for the rest of that match. It's too risky to try to get those balls under the current rules. Purposeful contact, such as tipping the opposing bridge to get the two balls on it, should still be penalized regardless of whether an opposing robot is touching the bridge).
Add G25 as a second exception to G44 to solve the controversy surrounding getting pushed onto an opposing alliance bridge during a balance attempt.


However, here are some things that I think should NOT be changed:


Do not give different point values for shots beyond a certain distance. Keeping track of what balls were shot from where will be a major pain if there are two, possibly three robots shooting at once. It opens up too much possibility for controversy.

[Billfred]

A triple balance on the co-op bridge during qualification matches is worth 3 CP.
I like this, even more than doing anything about the scoring with two. (Assuming, of course, that each alliance has a robot on there. Gotta keep the spirit. :))

Actually, about all of Art's post had me nodding my head.

[waialua359]

ummmm....... We are still just hoping to just make it into the IRI elimination rounds someday. We have not achieved that monumental feat yet. As I have mentioned before, going to IRI is a truly humbling experience.
Although we are looking forward to going to IRI this year, if we are invited.

Best of luck to everyone at Champs!

Not sure how many times you've been there, but I'm sure you'll get the invite and make eliminations also this time around.

We plan on making it a 3rd year in a row, being that we dont have to pay the entrance fee.:)

[Wetzel]

I'm excited and talking with 2914. I don't think a team from DC has been to IRI yet. There has been a push for support that I think might help this, and this might help that.

Wetzel

[lemiant]

Art seems to have some really good ideas. The only thing I would change is:
Allow each robot to preload 3 balls, for a total of 24 balls on the field.
Don't increase the number of pre-load balls. First this will decrease the reward for more innovative autonomous programs (coopertition and alliance bridge) while allowing less time per ball. Also the additional balls on the field will largely change the dynamics of ball control and invalidate ball-hoarding strategies that could turn out to be really interesting at IRI.

[BX MARK]

I think it would be interesting if you balanced the balls on the bridge instead of the robots. Maybe 4 points per ball on the bridge to make it more desirable than shooting hoops?

[CalTran]

I don't think there is any team, except for the catapults, who could possibly pull this feat off...I'm sure some teams could figure a way out with some modification over the summer, but that seems rather difficult in current configurations.

[biojae]

If you want minibots why not a mini-bridge with extra points if your minibot balances on the mini bridge :rolleyes:

Why not go nano-bot?
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/396283_322830614434303_101738439876856_961723_6727 88778_n.jpg
This is a FTC bot that releases a smaller bot to score the magnet ball.
Crazy.

[Chris Hibner]

I just had an idea that I think would be very interesting. It would allow a triple balance during qualification matches AND allow a co-op bridge balance.

Here it is: allow alliance bridge balances at any time during the match. If you balance for 3 seconds, the balance is good. The referees would count the balance like a ref during a WWE match (big arm wave: one! two! three! give something like a touchdown signal, and then it's official - the balance is good). Then the teams can then unbalance themselves and continue the match. Balances score just as they would during an eliminations match - 10 for one robot, 20 for two robots, 40 for three robots. The co-op bridge only counts during the end of a match. If the alliance chooses to balance at the end of the match, regular rules apply (i.e. you don't have to balance three seconds before the end of the match).

The strategies could be interesting.

[P.J.]

Here it is: allow alliance bridge balances at any time during the match. If you balance for 3 seconds, the balance is good. The referees would count the balance like a ref during a WWE match (big arm wave: one! two! three! give something like a touchdown signal, and then it's official - the balance is good). Then the teams can then unbalance themselves and continue the match. Balances score just as they would during an eliminations match - 10 for one robot, 20 for two robots, 40 for three robots. The co-op bridge only counts during the end of a match. If the alliance chooses to balance at the end of the match, regular rules apply (i.e. you don't have to balance three seconds before the end of the match).

While I do think this would be interesting, speaking as a referee I'm a little wary of something like this. It inherently invites controversy. "Our bridge was balanced, the ref counted wrong." and stuff like that. Just a concern of mine with this idea.

[Chi Meson]

I've been looking around, but can't find where to begin the application process. Has it begun? Or do you need to be invited to apply? :D

[Wetzel]

I've been looking around, but can't find where to begin the application process. Has it begun? Or do you need to be invited to apply? :D

IRI 2012 is July 20 - 21. Same location as 2011.
Details on timing for applications, invitations, fees, etc. will be coming soon.

Not yet available.

Wetzel

[pathew100]

While I do think this would be interesting, speaking as a referee I'm a little wary of something like this. It inherently invites controversy. "Our bridge was balanced, the ref counted wrong." and stuff like that. Just a concern of mine with this idea.

There are sensors built into the bridge that provide feedback that it is balanced. (pretty neat!) It shows up on the scorekeepers display and the head ref panel (I believe)

A possible process to implement something like this:

Referee uses visual inspection of the robots/bridge coming to rest.
Once that happens they raise one arm to signal the "start" of the balance period.
In their other hand they are holding a countdown timer that that activate when they put their arm up.
If the balance is successful, at the end of the timer countdown, they then drop their arm down vertically and point to the bridge/robots to signal a "good' balance
If the balance is unsuccessful for some reason, they drop their arm down and sweep it "side to side" to indicate a "bad" balance

[nahstobor]

Triple Balance Co-op is worth 4 co-op points. One robot has to be from the other team.

[Taylor]

Triple Balance Co-op is worth 4 co-op points. One robot has to be from the other team.

In light of recent developments (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=105781):
Triple balance co-op is worth 3 co-op points. Quadruple balance co-op is worth 4 co-op points.
(co-op balancing must feature at least one robot from each alliance, of course)

[IKE]

IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.

[Ekcrbe]

IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.

Interesting, but I think the GDC finally came up with a good QS system that makes sense, with equal weight for winning and Coopertition, which is always stressed. I see the people in charge of IRI respecting that.

Plus, if FRC games are to appeal to the masses (which would be nice, right?), then both match scoring and QS have to be simple to explain to anybody--which they are right now.

I know that wasn't entirely related to IRI, but part of it sort of connected, and this was a chance to say it.

[Nawaid Ladak]

Here's a simple idea of how to work the co-op bridge. Instead of giving 2 Ranking points for each alliance, it would just double the Hybrid, Bridge, and Teleop points for that match to reflect in the standings

ie a final score of Red 61(18HP+10BP+33TP ), Blue 58(24HP+10BP+24TP) would really show Red 122(36HP+20BP+66TP), Blue 116(48HP+20BP+48TP) for the standings. This way, there is a premium to utilizing the co-op bridge but it doesn't offset the the amounts of Wins and Losses you have.

Now the question is what would you do if there would be a situation where a team would only earn 1 coopertition point.

[Gregor]

Now the question is what would you do if there would be a situation where a team would only earn 1 coopertition point.

Eliminate it.

[AlexD744]

IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.

This! Personally, I liked the 2010 seeding algorithm, if it had just a few adjustments, and I think this makes that work very well.

[pfreivald]

Eliminate it.

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

[IKE]

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

I finally saw one live on Galileo during quals. I had watched several hundred matches before seeing it occur.

Per the "simple" explanantion of my seeding algorithm:
With first games, it is often easier to stop teams from scoring than to score yourself. FIRST would be rewarding teams for doing the offensive objective. The algorithm rewards CoOp points at 2x the rate of winners points. Thus the algorithm rewards high scoring close matches where teams cooperate instead of driving scores down.

With an average alliance score around 15 points, the algorithm I described would be worth as much as the average win. What it successfully does is it reduces the penalty of an opponent intentionally hurting your rank by not cooperating.

[Wetzel]

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

Yes, but not often. Look for odd numbered RPs.

Wetzel

[Duke461]

Yes, but not often. Look for odd numbered RPs.

Wetzel

I believe it happened twice to our team in Washington D.C.

-Duke

[Joe Ross]

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

For events that had twitter data, there 33 1 point co-ops out 5744 qualifying matches.

[dodar]

Is FRC Top 25 doing the release show again this year?

[akoscielski3]

Is FRC Top 25 doing the release show again this year?

I was talking to Justin a little while ago. They are still undecided, but i sure hope they are

[JosephC]

IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.

I like the idea, however I think it punishes defensive quite seriously. I saw multiple teams at the events that I went to with great defensive robots that shut down the competition.

The argument "If they have good defense then their ranking won't matter because any good scouting team would note their abilities." doesn't cut it either. This algorithm hurts any alliance that tries to play defense during qualifications. This may cause any potentially great defensive robots from showing their abilities off for fearing of losing valuable points.

It also brings up whether or not you want to play defense to win. For example, In a match against Team 548 Robostangs, we were forced to play defense against them to keep them off the fender, simply because we knew they could out score us. This algorithm would have me thinking twice about play defense for the win because It limits the amount of points you could obtain.

Purely Theoretical:

Option 1:: Play defense
Your score(red) - 60
Opponents score(blue) - 40
Reasoning: You play defense against the opposing alliance, starving balls and attempting to force penalties. Your score is lowered slightly due to losing a robot that could be scoring, while your opponents score is lowered severely.

Option 2:: No Defense
You score(red) - 65
Opponents score(blue) - 70
Reasoning: With no defense played against them your opponents outscore you, however you gain additional points due to having a 3rd scoring robot.

In option 1, the Winning alliance would recieve 60 + 40 + constant (let's use 25) Which totals to 125. The losing alliance receives 40 x 2 which equals 80.

In option 2 the winning alliance receives 70 + 65 + 25 which equals 160 points, with the losing alliance receiving 65 x 2 which equals 130.

As you can see, even though red lost in option 2, they obtained more points then if they had won. This is purely hypothetical and reflects no matches I've watched. I like the algorithm, I just figured that someone needed to play the devils advocate to get some discussion started.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

As a person that enjoys watching both offensive throw-downs and defensive struggles, I am adamantly against any system that instinctively punishes defensive play. A team should not be punished for figuring out a new way to defeat the opposing alliance.

That is the main flaw with any system that adheres to match points to assign ranking points; it inherently favors one style of gameplay over the other, which is an unfair bias. In reality, a 76-75 match is just as exciting as a 12-11 match, but one is favored over the other in a score-based ranking system.

This is my primary complaint with the mentioned system. The Coop bridge does not have this problem because it is independent of the score outcome i.e. independent of the gameplay style.

[Justin Montois]

I was talking to Justin a little while ago. They are still undecided, but i sure hope they are

We weren't asked to do it again so I don't believe we are. It's something that we enjoyed doing last year and would be interested in doing it again in the future.

[dodar]

Well the only reason I asked was because Chris did say something about a webcast and a discussion.

[Chris Fultz]

Well the only reason I asked was because Chris did say something about a webcast and a discussion.

we are trying to work out a webcast, but it will be after the team list is released and it will be more of a discussion on the teams instead of an announcement of the teams.

[Gregor]

When will the rule changes be posted?

[P.J.]

When will the rule changes be posted?

I assume after MARC (June 22nd and 23rd I believe). Last year many of the rule changes for the two competitions were the same, so the IRI people might be waiting to see how they work at MARC.

[Chris Fultz]

When will the rule changes be posted?

The IRI sules committee is still in deep discussion on options for the 2012 game. We are using mind-maps, poll results, simulations,analytical models and even rock-scissor-paper to help make these decisions.

We will target June 18-ish for an annoucement.

[Gregor]

The IRI sules committee is still in deep discussion on options for the 2012 game. We are using mind-maps, poll results, simulations,analytical models and even rock-scissor-paper to help make these decisions.

We will target June 18-ish for an annoucement.

I look forward to it, thanks.

[IndySam]

The IRI sules committee is still in deep discussion on options for the 2012 game. We are using mind-maps, poll results, simulations,analytical models and even rock-scissor-paper to help make these decisions.

We will target June 18-ish for an annoucement.

I would feel more comfortable if you used rock-paper-scissor-lizard-Spock.
Thanks

[Gregor]

I would feel more comfortable if you used rock-paper-scissor-lizard-Spock.
Thanks

And if that doesn't work have a 3D chess match to the death.

[Chi Meson]

I have to plug the BattleCry@WPI game modification. Not to say it's gotta be the same, but putting the coop bridge to good use during eliminations was a positive addition to the game.

[Gregor]

I have to plug the BattleCry@WPI game modification. Not to say it's gotta be the same, but putting the coop bridge to good use during eliminations was a positive addition to the game.

But that makes the triple balance much less important if there are alternative bridge points for the third robot. Did you find that it made a difference?

[Chi Meson]

But that makes the triple balance much less important if there are alternative bridge points for the third robot. Did you find that it made a difference?

The way BattleCry did it was to put 4 12-inch circles ("dots")on the center bridge. Each was worth 5 points if it was completely covered by a robot. The bridge didn't need to be balanced, and 2 opposing alliances could each cover one or 2 dots at the same time. It was possible for a robot to cover 2 dots for 10 points.

So in the case of there being a double-balance plus 2 dots on the center, that would be 30 points, which would be 10 less than a triple balance. Triples will be much more likely at IRI than BattleCry. In fact, I don't think there were any at BattleCry, though several attempted (one stinger went all bendy!)

I would think that making a center-balanced bridge worth 10 points is a bit too much (too close to negating the beautiful triple), but if it were worth 5 points, or if 10 points were available through precise control somehow (basket from center bridge perhaps?)...

Just somehow, really, making the center bridge worth something in eliminations, is all I'm suggesting.