View Full Version : Real IRI Rules Changes?
Now that 90+ teams have applied to attend IRI it seems like a good time to discuss possible rule changes to this year's game. It would be helpful to hear from Chris and company what changes might take place so teams could plan/modify their robots if needed...especially if there are any significant changes in climbing values, etc...
cmrnpizzo14
12-05-2013, 19:15
Increase the value of pyramid goal disks to 10 points each? It wouldn't change the value of most climbers that much but it would be nice to see those goals used a little bit more by objects other than paper airplanes.
Mark Sheridan
12-05-2013, 19:19
Since I figure no one at IRI will use the 1 point goal. Just turn it into another column of feeding slots.
It would be great if they brought the blizzard back. Let's put up higher nets and watch Ultimate Ascent the way it was meant to be played.
cmrnpizzo14
12-05-2013, 19:22
It would be great if they brought the blizzard back. Let's put up higher nets and watch Ultimate Ascent the way it was meant to be played.
How many disks will there be for the blizzard in most matches though? It would be really interesting if they let HP's throw them the entire match. It would probably give ground loaders a HUGE advantage but it would make things real interesting!
It also might help fix the "blizzard" since teams could spread the throwing out over the course of 2 minutes as opposed to 30 disks in 30 seconds.
Increase the value of pyramid goal disks to 10 points each? It wouldn't change the value of most climbers that much but it would be nice to see those goals used a little bit more by objects other than paper airplanes.
That and if someone's climbing is effected by contact from a robot on the other alliance (or a robot from the other alliance shoving a robot from the alliance of the climbing robot) the point value of all the colored discs in the robot at the time of impact should be given to the alliance of the climber, along with a 30 point climb.
That way shoving a climber+dumper off the pyramid is actually a net loss, rather than a wash on points.
How many disks will there be for the blizzard in most matches though? It would be really interesting if they let HP's throw them the entire match. It would probably give ground loaders a HUGE advantage but it would make things real interesting!
I don't think that the rule change should be that excessive. I like the idea of the blizzard even if there won't be that many left over discs. The rule change shouldn't drastically change the way the game is played.
Last year's rule change was perfect. It incorporated an aspect of Rebound Rumble that wasn't usually there until eliminations. This year’s rule change should be similar. Every team designed their robot thinking that Human Players could through discs in the last 30 seconds. They should get the opportunity to play the game that their robot was designed for.
Mark Sheridan
12-05-2013, 19:45
That and if someone's climbing is effected by contact from a robot on the other alliance (or a robot from the other alliance shoving a robot from the alliance of the climbing robot) the point value of all the colored discs in the robot at the time of impact should be given to the alliance of the climber, along with a 30 point climb.
That way shoving a climber+dumper off the pyramid is actually a net loss, rather than a wash on points.
+1
Also considering the damaged sustain by fallen climbers, maybe revert back to the 10 minute time out for elims?
+1
Also considering the damaged sustain by fallen climbers, maybe revert back to the 10 minute time out for elims?
Maybe a rule that reads
"If an ALLIANCE needs to take a TIMEOUT due to their ROBOT being damaged as the direct result of a FOUL or TECHNICAL FOUL by the opposing ALLIANCE, the opposing ALLIANCE will be charged their TIMEOUT which due to the circumstances will last 10 minutes."
Billfred
12-05-2013, 19:56
I'll throw one out: more frisbees. The way frisbees were barely fitting in the center goal Saturday at Championship, I think it would be a legitimate challenge!
z_beeblebrox
12-05-2013, 20:04
I'll throw one out: more frisbees. The way frisbees were barely fitting in the center goal Saturday at Championship, I think it would be a legitimate challenge!
Or larger goals...
Mark Sheridan
12-05-2013, 20:28
Maybe a rule that reads
"If an ALLIANCE needs to take a TIMEOUT due to their ROBOT being damaged as the direct result of a FOUL or TECHNICAL FOUL by the opposing ALLIANCE, the opposing ALLIANCE will be charged their TIMEOUT which due to the circumstances will last 10 minutes."
I like that. or at the very least generate a free time out for climbers that fell/damaged due to a foul.
How about the 2pt goals become 3pt goals in the last 15 seconds?
Steven Donow
12-05-2013, 20:31
Maybe a rule that reads
"If an ALLIANCE needs to take a TIMEOUT due to their ROBOT being damaged as the direct result of a FOUL or TECHNICAL FOUL by the opposing ALLIANCE, the opposing ALLIANCE will be charged their TIMEOUT which due to the circumstances will last 10 minutes."
I like this idea, but then what happens if the other alliance has no timeout left?
How about the 2pt goals become 3pt goals in the last 15 seconds?
Pff, too easy. What about making the 1pt goal into a 3pt goal in the last 15 seconds? :yikes:
I like this idea, but then what happens if the other alliance has no timeout left?
Minus 1 robot for the next match...:ahh:
I'd like to see the pyramid discs be more used also.
Something like:
Each disk scored in the pyramid goal adds one point to the climb score of each of the robots on the pyramid for which the colored disk was scored.
I like this idea, but then what happens if the other alliance has no timeout left?
Then their robots are expected to be sitting on the field with no team members near them at the time the next match would have started before the timeout was taken.
Chris Fultz
12-05-2013, 21:16
"Real IRI Rule Changes?" - do you mean in addition to the co-opertition pyramid?
Any changes will be announced before teams have to commit to attend and then they can decide if they want to play under the rule changes - if any.
Please note that any changes would be tweaks to rules, not significant changes to how the game was played during the season.
cmrnpizzo14
12-05-2013, 21:22
If IRI wanted to be really tricky..... 2v2 matches with no safe zone near the feeder station! It changes strategies entirely but I think that it would be a lot of fun.
PayneTrain
12-05-2013, 21:23
Bring disc count up to 150 total by:
Adding 8 colored discs to each alliance
Putting 4 white discs at minimum on the center line
Why? Gives teams more discs to throw, pyramid score, or cycle through. Also makes center-line autonomous routines more valuable and possibly highly contentious. Most importantly, all robots at IRI will be able to really hammer away at discs throughout the matches, and elims with 130 discs will likely see almost every disc out of play before the clock runs out.
All climbing point values are doubled in elimination rounds.
Why? Not only are climbers at 2nd and 3rd levels getting twice as many points as their hanging brethren, all climbing is more important to win the matches in eliminations, and bot-on-bot defense to keep others away from the climb could get interesting.
No loading safe zones!
Why? DOWN WITH FULL COURT SHOOTERS.
Holtzman
12-05-2013, 22:18
I personally thought this year’s game is perfect the way it is. I don't think they should change anything.
One thing that I'd personally like to see come back to IRI is the Mentor Match. And I'm not talking about the hokey lunch time tournament.
Up until 2007, teams used to play 1 qualifying match where mentors drove, and students coached. The match counted like any other qualifying match, and was a lot of fun to watch. There were some rules about eligibility to drive and many teams recruited mentors from other teams if they were shorthanded. Where it got messy was if the number of teams in attendance wasn't divisible by 6. Then you had some teams playing with mentors, and others playing with student drivers. It wasn’t perfect, but it sure was a lot of fun.
Who wouldn’t want to see Zondag, Freeman, or the Copioli’s at the sticks?
mr.roboto2826
12-05-2013, 22:33
I personally thought this year’s game is perfect the way it is. I don't think they should change anything.
One thing that I'd personally like to see come back to IRI is the Mentor Match. And I'm not talking about the hokey lunch time tournament.
Up until 2007, teams used to play 1 qualifying match where mentors drove, and students coached. The match counted like any other qualifying match, and was a lot of fun to watch. There were some rules about eligibility to drive and many teams recruited mentors from other teams if they were shorthanded. Where it got messy was if the number of teams in attendance wasn't divisible by 6. Then you had some teams playing with mentors, and others playing with student drivers. It wasn’t perfect, but it sure was a lot of fun.
Who wouldn’t want to see Zondag, Freeman, or the Copioli’s at the sticks?
I as well would have to agree with Tyler. This game is pretty magnificent as is. The mentor matches would be an almost perfect touch to a perfect game.
I like the rules they way they are but I do like the idea of additional disks in play.
KrazyCarl92
12-05-2013, 23:05
I think sometimes people get carried away and think that just because there's an opportunity to make changes, it should be taken advantage of.
Why fix something if it isn't broken? The game is incredibly balanced as is and allows for a crazy variety of good strategies with no one clearly dominant method of play.
Jim Zondag
12-05-2013, 23:28
Who wouldn’t want to see Zondag, Freeman, or the Copioli’s at the sticks?
Not sure about Adam, Paul, or Mike, but I kind of suck :) . This is one of my baseline skills criteria for my drivers...if they are better than me, they are starting to get good.
I personally thought this year’s game is perfect the way it is. I don't think they should change anything.
^this.
I do not get why everyone gets so excited about the blizzard?
What's so exciting about a manic desperate storm of hastily thrown disc that no one can actually see what's going on?
IRI is about witnessing quality play at it's best. Not manic desperation on display.
It would be great if they brought the blizzard back. Let's put up higher nets and watch Ultimate Ascent the way it was meant to be played.
Anyone who's job it was to catch those errant frisbees and return them to play will tell you no. With just the coloured disks I was hit twice. Field reset will also take forever, because there is always that one frisbee that lands perfectly on its side and rolls away.
How about giving each alliance some more discs (55 whites per alliance instead of 45, for example), and allowing each robot to carry 5 discs instead of 4? This will allow higher scores and more interesting shootouts. You could have 30 discs in the air at the same time! I think allowing an extra disc per robot would be more interesting to watch. It will also make defence more valueble.
Also, most teams have room for five discs or need very little work to allow five discs in their robot, so it barely gives any design an unfair advantage, except for favoring faster shooters, which is not different than the original.
BrendanB
13-05-2013, 08:47
While I don't think bringing the blizzard back will be a huge game changer. At IRI, how many frisbees do you expect to be left over to be thrown?
Don Wright
13-05-2013, 09:00
No game rule changes
Kill the Serpentine
No Mentor Match
More than 8 qualification rounds
Adam Freeman
13-05-2013, 09:04
Who wouldn’t want to see Zondag, Freeman, or the Copioli’s at the sticks?
Not all of us are former drivers. I don't want to put my perfect 2-0 record on the line anymore.
I better work on getting my proposal, for bringing alumni back as mentors, approved before IRI.
KrazyCarl92
13-05-2013, 09:21
Also, most teams have room for five discs or need very little work to allow five discs in their robot, so it barely gives any design an unfair advantage, except for favoring faster shooters, which is not different than the original.
So you're telling me that after we spent 4 months working our hearts out to play Ultimate Ascent to the best of our ability, one of the external constraints that led to our particular design should be altered in a way that makes us less competitive? This happened after 6 weeks with the elimination of the blizzard, so I guess it wouldn't be anything new.
However, the blizzard was taken away due to safety...I fail to see how 5 discs instead of 4 improves the game. The limit of 4 makes it a more difficult engineering challenge to achieve many extra disc autos, which I think is the way it's supposed to be.
So you're telling me that after we spent 4 months working our hearts out to play Ultimate Ascent to the best of our ability, one of the external constraints that led to our particular design should be altered in a way that makes us less competitive? This happened after 6 weeks with the elimination of the blizzard, so I guess it wouldn't be anything new.
However, the blizzard was taken away due to safety...I fail to see how 5 discs instead of 4 improves the game. The limit of 4 makes it a more difficult engineering challenge to achieve many extra disc autos, which I think is the way it's supposed to be.
If it makes you less competitive, then you're probably an exception. Of all the designs I saw for hoppers only a few can't hold 5 discs, and most of those can be altered to hold 5 in 30 minutes. And I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you're going to change a rule, SOMEONE will be hurt by it. That's just the way it goes, since almost every rule leads to opposite designs. I think last year's change was much more significant in that aspect.
I think having more discs in the air will simply make the game more fun to watch. Also, I can't see how the 4 disc limit makes multi-disk auto any harder, since there's no position where you can pick up more than four discs except for the centerline, and that only in some cases. I find it hard to believe that in IRI there will be a match with three robots shooting only two discs in auton.
Another proposal: if you don't like the idea of making the limit higher, how about allowing 4 discs in auton? Just adding a disc per robot (4 for robots that used to hold 3, 3 for those that used to hold 2). This will give us more action in he begining of the match, higher scores, more discs in the air (read more fun to watch), without hurting teams that can't make their robot hold 5 discs.
Justin Montois
13-05-2013, 09:54
Might be cool to see the winner of auto mode get 10 bonus discs for use in that match.
KrazyCarl92
13-05-2013, 09:56
The difference is that last year's rule change was made in an effort to get rid of a "flaw" in the game design. If you don't agree that it was a flaw, feel free to read about what happened at GTR East last year.
And the limit at 4 makes extra disc autonomous routines more challenging because a robot must release at least one of its 3 discs before it goes to pick up a pair of discs. If the limit is 5 discs, a 9 disc auto becomes a real possibility. I'm honestly surprised nobody ever tried starting with 2 discs from the back of the pyramid and doing an 8 disc auto.
Tyler Olds
13-05-2013, 10:04
Might be cool to see the winner of auto mode get 10 bonus discs for use in that match.
.......and they get to go on defense for the first period! Wait.......
The difference is that last year's rule change was made in an effort to get rid of a "flaw" in the game design. If you don't agree that it was a flaw, feel free to read about what happened at GTR East last year.
The rule change gave wide drive trains an edge over long ones. I'm not saying it was a bad change, I think it made the game more interesting, but my point was the change I proposed hurts teams with certain designs less than the change made last year.
BrendanB
13-05-2013, 10:17
If it makes you less competitive, then you're probably an exception. Of all the designs I saw for hoppers only a few can't hold 5 discs, and most of those can be altered to hold 5 in 30 minutes. And I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you're going to change a rule, SOMEONE will be hurt by it. That's just the way it goes, since almost every rule leads to opposite designs. I think last year's change was much more significant in that aspect.
I think having more discs in the air will simply make the game more fun to watch. Also, I can't see how the 4 disc limit makes multi-disk auto any harder, since there's no position where you can pick up more than four discs except for the centerline, and that only in some cases. I find it hard to believe that in IRI there will be a match with three robots shooting only two discs in auton.
Another proposal: if you don't like the idea of making the limit higher, how about allowing 4 discs in auton? Just adding a disc per robot (4 for robots that used to hold 3, 3 for those that used to hold 2). This will give us more action in he begining of the match, higher scores, more discs in the air (read more fun to watch), without hurting teams that can't make their robot hold 5 discs.
I can tell you right now that it is absolutely impossible to load 5 discs into our robot and that cannot be altered. Not in 5 minutes, not in 5 hours, probably not at all due to the tight fit between our hopper and climber.
While yes I agree it would be cool to see more discs flying and higher scores, the 4 disc limit is a pretty big design constraint this season for teams to work with. Last year pretty much every team could hold more than the legal limit so saying teams could hold 4 balls wouldn't have been a problem but this season most teams are maxed out at 4 discs.
Starting with 4 in autonomous would be cool! I also like putting 4 on the center line. Makes the mad dash to the middle even more important! Or spin off of that put 6 on the center line but don't put them all next to each other. Put two in the middle and the other four xx feet away from the center line so two-three teams can grab from the center line in auto. Now that would be interesting!
One thing to think about is that even if the Frisbee blizzard was brought back, many of the teams at IRI would not have Frisbees left for the HP's to throw. Between super accurate FCS and very efficient cyclers, I'd be surprised if there were more than 15 Frisbees left in the feeder station at the end of a match with a good alliance.
I'll be watching IRI. It's gonna be good...
"Real IRI Rule Changes?" - do you mean in addition to the co-opertition pyramid?
Any changes will be announced before teams have to commit to attend and then they can decide if they want to play under the rule changes - if any.
Please note that any changes would be tweaks to rules, not significant changes to how the game was played during the season.
By "real" rule changes I mean ones that were not generated on April Fools Day:D
HumblePie
13-05-2013, 11:30
Here's a suggestion:
Obtain enough yellow frisbees to load all robots for autonomous and populate the floor. All yellow disks scored will be worth the autonomous value, during autonomous, or after. This has the added benefit of making the manual scoring audit easier once the match is complete.
Might make for some interesting battles between floor pickup robots.
pathew100
13-05-2013, 11:59
No game rule changes
Kill the Serpentine
No Mentor Match
More than 8 qualification rounds
+1. Sounds good to me.
Travis Hoffman
13-05-2013, 14:01
I personally thought this year’s game is perfect the way it is. I don't think they should change anything.
One thing that I'd personally like to see come back to IRI is the Mentor Match. And I'm not talking about the hokey lunch time tournament.
Up until 2007, teams used to play 1 qualifying match where mentors drove, and students coached. The match counted like any other qualifying match, and was a lot of fun to watch. There were some rules about eligibility to drive and many teams recruited mentors from other teams if they were shorthanded. Where it got messy was if the number of teams in attendance wasn't divisible by 6. Then you had some teams playing with mentors, and others playing with student drivers. It wasn’t perfect, but it sure was a lot of fun.
Who wouldn’t want to see Zondag, Freeman, or the Copioli’s at the sticks?
+2
If we all expect IRI to be the pinnacle of FRC competition, how can we accurately measure its greatness against MSC, Einstein, Divisional Finals, etc. if the rules are drastically modified in any way relative to how the game was played during the regular season?
Even the addition of more ammo would make it much harder to compare the events' relative greatness.
In a year when it is generally agreed that not much was wrong with the game design, let's leave well enough alone.
Nick Lawrence
13-05-2013, 14:18
+4
A mentor match would be fun.
-Nick
David Brinza
13-05-2013, 14:35
+5
Ultimate Ascent was well-designed and fun to play/watch. It was even easy for spectators to understand scoring (even though real-time scoring wasn't always reliable).
Most importantly the game avoided "nuances" which typically need to be "fixed" for IRI! :D
Andrew Schreiber
13-05-2013, 14:51
+4
A mentor match would be fun.
-Nick
No squares for you to drop, what would you do? ;)
No squares for you to drop, what would you do? ;)
Just like the square, pick up a disk.
sprocketman92
13-05-2013, 14:58
I think the only possible rule change should be added discs.
PayneTrain
13-05-2013, 16:00
+2
Even the addition of more ammo would make it much harder to compare the events' relative greatness.
How do you figure?
Travis Hoffman
13-05-2013, 16:11
How do you figure?
You just raised the score ceiling. Scores at IRI could be skewed upward by a relaxation of a key game constraint. To me, that is an artificial performance inflation, and makes it hard to truly compare IRI to other events that have already taken place.
You also allow teams to be more inefficient in their shooting and still get the same results as ultra-efficient alliances (such as that which won Einstein) were able to achieve with fewer discs available.
I think to win IRI with no ammo tweaks will require the most teamwork and efficiency in both scoring everything you have available to you and cleaning up what the opponent misses. I like that notion.
Kevin Leonard
13-05-2013, 18:05
Perhaps not a rule change so much as a field change- develop a more accurate real-time scorer.
How to do this? I'm not sure. Potentially better weight sensors or something similar- but a more accurate real time score would be nice to have.
While I think the return of the blizzard would be cool, and some other potential rule changes would be cool, they're not part of the game as it was played.
2012's change involved changing Qual matches to be more like elimination matches- that's it. There's no discernible difference between Quals and Elims as Ultimate Ascent stands right now- so leave it be.
PayneTrain
13-05-2013, 18:26
You just raised the score ceiling. Scores at IRI could be skewed upward by a relaxation of a key game constraint. To me, that is an artificial performance inflation, and makes it hard to truly compare IRI to other events that have already taken place.
I'll give you the relaxation of requiring accurate scoring, but can anyone really have a serious debate about whether or not IRI is the best competition? Look at the applicant list and realize not even all of these really good-to-perennial powerhouse teams will make it in. The conversation starts and ends with known team quality measured against other events. Adding discs will inflate scores, but it won't make the best competition worse.
waialua359
13-05-2013, 18:50
As pointed out by others, the game and current rules were awesome.
Lets not change anything about the game itself.....other than meaningless tech fouls called instead of 3 point infractions where warranted.:mad:
ThunderousPrime
13-05-2013, 19:42
Ultimate Ascent is a very balanced is deeper than most FRC games. This year distinct robot archetypes (cycler, FCS, Ground Pickup/7 Disk Autonomous, 30-50 climbers) could be designed and honed to success at multiple levels of competition. As noted before there was no "unbeatable strategy"; driver skill contributed to the outcome of most high level matches, and should also contribute to the outcome of IRI matches. Therefore the only rule changes I would consider are changing are the point values for either the level 3 climb or pyramid goals in favor of an increase. There are already threads which have discussed this but it is worth mentioning again. Beyond that changing the "blizzard" would just create more chaos and confusion as Ed has said.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115708
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114945
Also do we know if the "coopertition Pyramid" has been confirmed for IRI? Also last year teams were allowed an extra 5lbs at IRI? Will that policy continue as well? Also in IRI eliminations there are 4 alliance members with 3 on the field on a given match so how does the process of "locking in" the three teams an alliance wants? What If you want to switch a robot to audible a strategy before a match? In other words does robot selection pass back and forth until both teams are satisfied?
Who wouldn’t want to see Zondag, Freeman, or the Copioli’s at the sticks?
Ah, their team's students? :p
I dunno about the students not wanting their mentors at the controls--after all, it gives the students comedy material for years to come!
@ThundrousPrime: I'm 99% certain that the Coopertition Pyramid was an April Fools' Day hoax. Tradition calls for an extra 5 lb or so, but it's checked mainly by "Oh, hey, that item looks new. Looks less then 5, have fun!" For the way the elims run, typically it's 3 primary and 1 backup--the backup will often only play if one of the others can't, or the strategy isn't working with the 3 primary for some reason. (For instance, in last year's IRI final matches, the two backups combined for one appearance in the entire elims, with 330 showing up in the final match the lone play.) Usually, once you say who's going out for the match, you can't change it just because the other alliance changes. I don't know all the fine details on that; just some recollection from 2003/2004 discussions/implementation, plus IRI happenings.
Nyxyxylyth
14-05-2013, 11:25
I'd like to see G30 softened so that if a defender gets shoved into making contact in the loading zone, the defender doesn't get penalized.
I saw too many FCS defenders fight their way past the blocker, only to get shoved from behind into a foul. Just didn't seem fair.
I'd like to see G30 softened so that if a defender gets shoved into making contact in the loading zone, the defender doesn't get penalized.
I saw too many FCS defenders fight their way past the blocker, only to get shoved from behind into a foul. Just didn't seem fair.
+1
I'd like to see G30 softened so that if a defender gets shoved into making contact in the loading zone, the defender doesn't get penalized.
I saw too many FCS defenders fight their way past the blocker, only to get shoved from behind into a foul. Just didn't seem fair.
+2. It makes defense that much harder...
As pointed out by others, the game and current rules were awesome.
Lets not change anything about the game itself.....other than meaningless tech fouls called instead of 3 point infractions where warranted.:mad:
How about making tech-fouls 9 points like they were last year? (Or 12, since I'm fairly sure it was 9 points because that was the worth of a robot full of game pieces, and this year a robot full of game pieces would make 12 points). That way you don't change the dinamics of the game but the chances of a game being decided by foul points lowers drastically (well, 45% of what it was...)
Chris Hibner
14-05-2013, 12:57
How about making tech-fouls 9 points like they were last year? (Or 12, since I'm fairly sure it was 9 points because that was the worth of a robot full of game pieces, and this year a robot full of game pieces would make 12 points). That way you don't change the dinamics of the game but the chances of a game being decided by foul points lowers drastically (well, 45% of what it was...)
I assumed it's worth 20 points because if you're shooting colored disks into the pyramid goal, one load of game pieces is worth 20 points. That makes it equivalent to last year's penalty.
I assumed it's worth 20 points because if you're shooting colored disks into the pyramid goal, one load of game pieces is worth 20 points. That makes it equivalent to last year's penalty.
Sounds right, haven't thought of that... But I think that if you want to follow last year's penalty it would be more right to make it 12 points, because the pyramid goal is much more a bonus than a part of the main game, and you can only have a full cache of colored disks once a game. The white disks are the main game piece. This comparison might not be as accurate but it can create a game decided more by skill than fouls than the original, while not veering too much from the original penalty.
KrazyCarl92
19-05-2013, 14:55
5.4.4 Elimination Scoring
In the Elimination MATCHES, Teams do not earn Qualification Points; they earn a Win, Loss or Tie. Within each series of the Elimination MATCH bracket, the first ALLIANCE to win two MATCHES will advance.
In the case where the MATCH score of each ALLIANCE is equal, the tie is broken by awarding an extra point to the ALLIANCE with (in the following order):
highest number of FOUL points awarded (i.e. the ALLIANCE that played the cleaner MATCH)
if FOUL points are equal, highest number of AUTO GOAL points
if AUTO GOAL points are equal, highest number of CLIMB points
If the criteria above are equal, the MATCH is a Tie and will be replayed if needed.
I hope we can all agree that it would be silly if an elimination match at IRI were decided by a tie breaker in this manner. I know that FIRST implemented this because of issues in past years with elimination rounds taking too long with replay after replay (2010 for example). However, nobody wants to come to IRI and lose or win an elimination match that was really a tie. If the match is THAT close, I'm sure we would all want another match to be played...teams, spectators, and volunteers included. Ties just are not that common this year and on the off chance that one does happen, I doubt it will repeatedly happen in a single series.
The game itself I feel is great as is, but this is one flaw in the structure of the tournament that I noticed and was reminded of this weekend at Battlecry@WPI when there was a 33-33 tie in the Eighth finals.
David Brinza
19-05-2013, 18:04
I hope we can all agree that it would be silly if an elimination match at IRI were decided by a tie breaker in this manner. I know that FIRST implemented this because of issues in past years with elimination rounds taking too long with replay after replay (2010 for example). However, nobody wants to come to IRI and lose or win an elimination match that was really a tie. If the match is THAT close, I'm sure we would all want another match to be played...teams, spectators, and volunteers included. Ties just are not that common this year and on the off chance that one does happen, I doubt it will repeatedly happen in a single series.
The game itself I feel is great as is, but this is one flaw in the structure of the tournament that I noticed and was reminded of this weekend at Battlecry@WPI when there was a 33-33 tie in the Eighth finals.
I agree a tie-breaker is not a very desirable to decide elimination matches.
However, I recall the 2010 IRI competition where the eliminations ran very late (four matches ended in ties!). Team 330 missed their return flight to Los Angeles (perhaps other teams also missed flights). It was a costly venture for their team (though somewhat offset by the Championship trophy!). As a spectator for the eliminations, it was incredibly exciting and emotionally draining. Most of our team members (and other teams) left before the finals were decided to catch flights home.
Team travel plans might be a factor in whether or not to keep the tie-breaker in place.
BrendanB
19-05-2013, 18:07
I agree a tie-breaker is not a very desirable to decide elimination matches.
However, I recall the 2010 IRI competition where the eliminations ran very late (four matches ended in ties!). Team 330 missed their return flight to Los Angeles (perhaps other teams also missed flights). It was a costly venture for their team (though somewhat offset by the Championship trophy!). As a spectator for the eliminations, it was incredibly exciting and emotionally draining. Most of our team members (and other teams) left before the finals were decided to catch flights home.
Team travel plans might be a factor in whether or not to keep the tie-breaker in place.
What made ties so common in 2010 was the scoring system and the game itself. So many matches at the regional level ended in ties with tons of winning scores no greater than 2 points!
I personally would like the tie breaker to go back to forcing another match unless another 2010esq game comes around then a tie breaker clause needs to come into effect.
KrazyCarl92
19-05-2013, 18:27
What made ties so common in 2010 was the scoring system and the game itself. So many matches at the regional level ended in ties with tons of winning scores no greater than 2 points!
I personally would like the tie breaker to go back to forcing another match unless another 2010esq game comes around then a tie breaker clause needs to come into effect.
Having a single (or a few) discrete value of scoring (ONE and TWO as was the case in 2010) and a small number of objects results in a game where ties are very likely.
Having plenty of different valued scoring options (ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, TEN, TWENTY and THIRTY in 2013) makes it so that a sort of perfect storm of scoring combinations has to occur for a tie to happen. This makes ties very unlikely. In short, with a game design like this year where ties are super rare, I agree with Brendan. It should be fairly easy for the GDC to predict also because you can just look at the sheer number of game objects and the values of scoring and get a good idea of how likely ties are.
Odds are we will see a very small number of ties in elims at IRI, but it would be nice to see this addressed prior to the tournament, before someone is forced to decide whether to crown a winner or play another match on the spot when there is a lot of pressure.
MaxMax161
21-05-2013, 09:10
I don't think there's any small change to the game play this year that can improve on the game much; the GDC really knocked it out of the park.
I like the idea of the penalty for interrupting a climb being modified to reflect the colored disks in the robot climbing as well. (To those who say this is a small change to the game play I say, you're not supposed to get penalties anyway, strategy is the same, therefore how teams play the game is the same, game play is the same).
I don't mind the idea of longer timeouts for teams who fell from the pyramid, but understand how it could make matches drag on and as someone who's never fixed a robot after falling I wouldn't know how useful it would be.
Chris is me
21-05-2013, 09:55
I like the idea of the penalty for interrupting a climb being modified to reflect the colored disks in the robot climbing as well. (To those who say this is a small change to the game play I say, you're not supposed to get penalties anyway, strategy is the same, therefore how teams play the game is the same, game play is the same).
It already does. I think the idea of a technical foul = a full cycle of colored discs is somewhat intentional. The penalty is already 50 points.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.