IRI Rule Changes

[Chris Hibner]

Sorry to the IRI organizers for jumping the gun here, but there are a few rule changes for this game that I'd like to get out in the open before I forget about them.

1) If the ball leaves the field of play on the drivers' side of the truss, the ball must be returned to the driver station human player. This includes truss-passes that do not count because they were wide of the pole. (I felt this should have been the rule all year.)

Rationale: there needs to be more risk in the truss passing. As of now, if you're under any defensive pressure you can just shoot the ball wildly out of bounds and the down-field HP will get the ball in about the same amount of time as if you made a perfect truss pass. The game should require some accuracy in the truss game. The current game is like if you were given a 15 yard gain in football for throwing the ball out of bounds under pressure - that's crazy.

2) Allow up to 6 balls for autonomous.

Rationale: There are going to be so many good teams at IRI that I would love to see a lot of teams run multi-ball routines in the same match. It would also add a bit of risk/reward - can you imagine having to chase down 3-4 albatross balls. Yikes.

[cmrnpizzo14]

*snip*
2) Allow up to 6 balls for autonomous.
*snip*
I like that this will be a good incentive for a goalie bot during auton too. Imagine if people actually figure out how to block a 3 ball auton.

[Yipyapper]

2) Allow up to 6 balls for autonomous.

Love it.

[MrTechCenter]

I like that this will be a good incentive for a goalie bot during auton too. Imagine if people actually figure out how to block a 3 ball auton.

*cough cough* 1114 *cough cough*

[AllenGregoryIV]

Allow a ball to be taken off a pedestal at any time but penalize an alliance for inbounding the ball early before the assist lights go off.

[Max Boord]

Asists durring auto! Mabye 2nd posession adds 30 3rd adds 60. With that format 1 auto ball could be worth 110pts. Obviously zone requirements would be ignored. Also, golies can leave there zone durring auto assuming they don't exceed 60 inches

[Tungrus]

Good rules!

The truss shot rule mentioned by Chris should be extended little more, 20pt foul if the truss shot goes outside the field but not caught by HP or HP does not even touch the ball without leaving HP zone.

Rationale: So many teams have been randomly shooting over the truss, sometimes putting volunteers/refs/judges in awkward dodging game.

Also the volunteer getting such balls should walk and bring the ball to HP, not run or throw the ball. Shooting randomly should have some consequence.

[pandamonium]

Both Goals and truss + 10pts during last 30 seconds.

[mott]

1) If the ball leaves the field of play on the drivers' side of the truss, the ball must be returned to the driver station human player. This includes truss-passes that do not count because they were wide of the pole. (I felt this should have been the rule all year.)

Rationale: there needs to be more risk in the truss passing. As of now, if you're under any defensive pressure you can just shoot the ball wildly out of bounds and the down-field HP will get the ball in about the same amount of time as if you made a perfect truss pass. The game should require some accuracy in the truss game. The current game is like if you were given a 15 yard gain in football for throwing the ball out of bounds under pressure - that's crazy.

While I don't think the above suggestion is a bad idea, there is already "somewhat" of a penalty associated with delivering an out-of-bounds ball to the downfield human players... It does make earning the 10 Truss Points a little more disruptive to your cycle as you'd have to backtrack to the defensive half of the field before re-attempting your Truss Shot. I've always just considered this an adequate penalty for missing your first attempt, especially in heavily defensive matches.

[Paul Copioli]

Make autonomous actually autonomous.

I mean, the Kinect and webcam driving made for cool interaction during "auton", but they were both just different ways to drive the robot in auton.

Even the hybrid auton of 2008 didn't allow for that much driving in auton.

Don't get me wrong, I love how teams took the Q&A ruling and used it to their advantage, but I feel this will probably be changed in future years (unless it will no longer be a true autonomous period).

[rich2202]

Allow a ball to be taken off a pedestal at any time but penalize an alliance for inbounding the ball early before the assist lights go off.

I think the penalty for taking the ball off the pedestal should stay.

I think the penalty for inbounding should only be applied if it is inbounded before the last ball is physically scored (not when scored by the ref).

Rationale: The team has already been penalized for taking a ball off the pedestal. If the ball is inbounded after the last ball has scored, then there really is no harm. It also eliminates the requirement that a team remove the "dead ball" before the next cycle can start.

One other possible change is: When the live ball is scored, the dead ball then becomes a live ball, and the cycle starts from there. Again, the team has already been penalized 100 points (50 for removing from the pedestal, and 50 for inbounding before the last ball is scored) so no team would intentionally do it to save a few seconds.

[KrazyCarl92]

Inflate balls to a nominal diameter. This can be easily tested by having a square rig that you shove a ball through. If it goes through without getting snagged but still touches all 4 sides, it would be in spec. It just seems like such an easy thing to do that can make the experience better for teams that it baffled me as to why this was not implemented at some point during the season.

Also, change G12:
"The intent of G12 is to prevent an ALLIANCE from inhibiting an opponent’s ability to interact with their BALL, but accommodate accidental and inconsequential actions by way of fewer FOUL points. Actions which are perceived as consequential and extended are distinct violations, as there are scenarios where POSSESSION of an opponent’s BALL could be consequential or extended but not necessarily both."

In QF4-1 on Archimedes, we were assessed a 20 point foul when the red ball inbounded by the red alliance human player landed directly in our robot. I have no doubt this was unintentional, they were clearly trying to inbound to the Killer Bees. We immediately launched the ball directly back to the red human player who caught it, then re-entered it into play at the next possible opportunity (if anything we saved them time and they were better off than if they had just missed and the ball been on the floor). If the intent of G12 is as stated, no action by our team could have changed the fact that we had possessed the ball and the rule is ineffective at preventing an alliance from inhibiting an opponent's ability to interact with their ball in cases where it is the direct result of the opponent's actions. Why should we be penalized for their human player missing an inbound?

I understand why the foul was assessed, but my problem is with the rule as written. I suggest it changes such that actions by the opposing alliance which directly cause your possession of the opponent's ball result in 0 foul points as long as the ball leaves the robot in a timely manner. I would like to see it changed to define an exact amount of time when it goes from being "inconsequential" to "consequential" for cases of accidental possession. Somewhere in the 3-5 seconds range sounds reasonable and it gives the refs a concrete standard to go by.

[JesseK]

For our offseason we've thrown around ideas about extra truss points for getting a ball between two poles in the center of the field, increasing the value of a quick truss to the field.

We've also thrown around the idea of a "safe catching zone" on the white lines where a robot cannot be touched if their partner is trussing. Still working on the details for that one. The rationale is that several teams in our area spent many hours on a catcher, so we want to find a way for the catch to be valuable at our event.

[XaulZan11]

Similar to Paul's autonomous should be autonomous, adjusting the definition of launching for possession. I'm not sure the intent of the rule was to allow a human player to bounce a ball off a robot, causing a mechanism to move in relation to the robot, and count for a possession. Perhaps put a condition that the ball cannot cause the mechanism to move? Props to the teams who recognized the rules allow it, but I think it shouldn't be allowed.

[Tom Line]

1. Remove the penalties for humans entering the field, unless the referee determines that their action was dangerous.
2. Remove intrusion into a robot unless damage was caused or it is blatent and repeated.
3. If a ball enters an opposing robot and is immediately ejected, no penalty shoudl be assessed.
4. Double the score for catches.
5. No 'driving' the robot in auto with hybrid systems.
6. Do NOT penalize robots for missing a shot to the human truss player. We need fewer penalties, not more.

These three come as a group:
7. Remove the requirement for a 'lit' pedestal. The human player waits until a ball comes through the top or side goal.
8. Allow 'bounce-in' scores over the truss.
9. Allow 'bounce-in' scores off opposing robots.

That means that in teleop if your ball comes in through a goal, it's been legally scored and you start another cycle.

6 auton balls is a neat idea, but that would change the score to significantly weight it in autonomous's favor. For the couple teams that have a consistent 3 ball (3539, 254) it would be a big benefit. After all, how many matches are you going to have another 2 ball auto with you?

In fact, this would be highlighted in qualification matches. Many robots aren't capable of 2 ball by design, and allowing 6 balls to the teams that can do a consistent 3 ball would break qualifications, giving those teams a consistent and large lead at the beginning of nearly every autonomous.

[Craig Roys]

Get rid of G21 (robot extending outside field) as long as there is no violation of G24 (extending up to 20" beyond frame perimeter).

Get rid of or modify G40 (human player extending into safety zone) provided G41 is not violated (human player may not contact robot or a ball in contact with a robot). I'm not sure if there would be too much liability here.

Have the pedestal light controlled by a person with a switch rather than FMS - that way it will light as soon as a ball is scored.

[Boe]

Increase catch points to 20 points and change fouls to 10 and 30.

[Jared Russell]

Make autonomous actually autonomous.

I mean, the Kinect and webcam driving made for cool interaction during "auton", but they were both just different ways to drive the robot in auton.

Even the hybrid auton of 2008 didn't allow for that much driving in auton.

Don't get me wrong, I love how teams took the Q&A ruling and used it to their advantage, but I feel this will probably be changed in future years (unless it will no longer be a true autonomous period).

I agree. Though if this is done, I would also get rid of hot goals - just make all auto balls hot (or not), since you still can't count on deterministic timing of the goals as of Champs.

[Lil' Lavery]

Increase catch points to 20 points and change fouls to 10 and 30.

If you decrease tech fouls to 30 points, I'm going to pin the crap out of the opposing ball carrier near the end of a match. No way am I letting them score 40 points with that ball.

[wesbass23]

If you decrease tech fouls to 30 points, I'm going to pin the crap out of the opposing ball carrier near the end of a match. No way am I letting them score 40 points with that ball.

Is there not an additional penalty for repeatedly breaking a rule as part of a strategy? I don't remember them having to make a call like that at IRI in the past but I would hate for them to have to.

[Chris Hibner]

While I don't think the above suggestion is a bad idea, there is already "somewhat" of a penalty associated with delivering an out-of-bounds ball to the downfield human players... It does make earning the 10 Truss Points a little more disruptive to your cycle as you'd have to backtrack to the defensive half of the field before re-attempting your Truss Shot. I've always just considered this an adequate penalty for missing your first attempt, especially in heavily defensive matches.

I should explain the reason behind why I proposed this change in a little more detail.

During the eliminations at MSC, it seemed there was a lot of taking advantage of the "closest HP" rule + the lightning fast ability of the field crew to get the ball to the down-field HP. Many teams were getting the ball in the middle zone and then if any defense whatsoever was encountered, they would fling the ball wildly toward the sideline. The field crew would then throw the ball to the down-field HP, quick inbound, bang-score.

The fling out-of-bounds didn't add any time to the cycle because the ball was always caught by the field crew and given to the down-field HP in less than a second. In fact, I would say it SAVED time because they didn't have to bother lining up and fighting defense (and it was definitely faster than sending the ball over the truss to the field and forcing your partner to track the ball down). Many of the sideline flings crossed the field boundary as far back as the zone division line, but the ball was still given to the down-field HP. The issue I have with it is it seems like teams saw a loophole to avoid defense and speed up the cycle, and decided to take advantage of it. I'd like to close that loophole.

[Koko Ed]

For starters:
Take G40.
Give it cements shoes.
Dump it in a lake.
Cut tech foul points in half.
Game improves exponentially!

[cgmv123]

If you decrease tech fouls to 30 points, I'm going to pin the crap out of the opposing ball carrier near the end of a match. No way am I letting them score 40 points with that ball.

This is why the GDC assigns foul points the way they do. They don't want teams intentionally taking fouls as part of their strategy.

[Travis Hoffman]

In fact, this would be highlighted in qualification matches. Many robots aren't capable of 2 ball by design, and allowing 6 balls to the teams that can do a consistent 3 ball would break qualifications, giving those teams a consistent and large lead at the beginning of nearly every autonomous.

Yeah and no triple balancing in qualifying either, u lucky widebots! Oh, wait, nevermind...sorry - flashbacks :cool:

I felt there were many "phantom" assists credited in the Newton division. Balls bouncing off of robots (often rookies) with no hint of actual possession. Sometimes I swear they never even touched the thing. I'd like to avoid that.

I'd like possession to be achieved by either.....

1. Active capture/release with a mechanism, even for a brief instant.
2. Trapping the ball against a field element or another robot.
3. Obvious herding of the ball in a direction (you travel in the same direction as the ball).

Basketball players are permitted touch passes, are they not? Soccer and hockey players can advance the ball/puck without holding it in their possession for an extended period, right? Why not robots? But all of them make some kind of intentional interaction with the game piece to direct it down an intended path. It's not like their teammates regularly bounce the thing off their skates or backs or domes as part of regular gameplay. The robot must be an active and knowing part of the transfer process.

[waialua359]

Allow a ball to be taken off a pedestal at any time but penalize an alliance for inbounding the ball early before the assist lights go off.

Absolutely this!! and making sure they only grab 1 at a time.

[waialua359]

Is there not an additional penalty for repeatedly breaking a rule as part of a strategy? I don't remember them having to make a call like that at IRI in the past but I would hate for them to have to.

Or also bang opposing robots during auto mode, the team that does 3 ball auto.:D

[Pat Fairbank]

I have two suggestions that would speed up the pace of the game, decrease the burden on referees and their subjective judgement, and eliminate the pain of being allied with a BLT, without fundamentally altering the spirit of the game:

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

2. Change the definition of POSSESSION (for an alliance's own ball) to any contact with the ball where a partnering robot isn't also contacting the ball. The definition of POSSESSION of an opponent's ball would remain the same.

[Jay O'Donnell]

The only thing I want changed is for refs to actually call G11.
BALLS may not be intentionally or repeatedly ejected from gameplay.

Violation: FOUL per instance.


Passing a BALL to a HUMAN PLAYER is within gameplay and not considered a violation of G11.

Teams shouldn't just be able to shoot it way over the HP's head and get away with it.

[Adam Freeman]

I have two suggestions that would speed up the pace of the game, decrease the burden on the referees and their subjective judgement, and eliminate the pain of being allied with a BLT, without fundamentally altering the spirit of the game:

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

2. Change the definition of POSSESSION (for an alliance's own ball) to any contact with the ball where a partnering robot isn't also contacting the ball. The definition of POSSESSION of an opponent's ball would remain the same.

I agree with both of these. It makes the game easier to ref, yet doesn't completely change the way tlut is played. It also makes it easier to get partners more involved.

[Jim Zondag]

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!

[XaulZan11]

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!

Did you forget to mention to 10 point bonus for any two-digit team from Michigan that wears yellow, and only has omni wheels on their drive? :p

[AdamHeard]

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:


We all haven't. Many events didn't allow this :confused:

[Chris is me]

I have two suggestions that would speed up the pace of the game, decrease the burden on referees and their subjective judgement, and eliminate the pain of being allied with a BLT, without fundamentally altering the spirit of the game:

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

2. Change the definition of POSSESSION (for an alliance's own ball) to any contact with the ball where a partnering robot isn't also contacting the ball. The definition of POSSESSION of an opponent's ball would remain the same.

These are two great ideas I fully support. I always thought the zone requirement just made refereeing and playing harder. The game is so much less confusing if assists are "number of robots who interacted with the ball". And honestly, three assists in one zone is almost as much work as three assists in three zones anyway.

This actually opens up a lot more strategy options. Do you do a double inbound conga line and let one partner truss to hp and score? Do you do the "standard" inbound / truss / score 3 robot cycle? Do you do a "death cycle" where a downfield inbounder and scorer with rear pickup park permanently in front of a goal, ready to feed the ball into the goal from an HP? Lots more viable options this way.

I would also enjoy playing with Zondag's proposed rules. The "second" and "third" ball would need to be marked in some way (think white dots like Overdrive) to ensure no repeat trusses, but I'd have a ball playing that game.

[Ben Martin]

This actually opens up a lot more strategy options. Do you do a double inbound conga line and let one partner truss to hp and score? Do you do the "standard" inbound / truss / score 3 robot cycle? Do you do a "death cycle" where a downfield inbounder and scorer with rear pickup park permanently in front of a goal, ready to feed the ball into the goal from an HP? Lots more viable options this way.


You could do a lot with human players ricocheting the ball off robots to get assists as well. From the proposed possession rules, it may even be possible to ricochet a ball to get a truss? Or get catch points when a ball is thrown over the truss and ricochets off a partner before hitting the ground?

[Gregor]

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

This, please this.

Fun fact about tracking possessions, if a robot gets a ball inbounded a ball in the red zone, drives fully through the white zone and into the blue zone, and deposits the ball into the blue low goal, the referee needs to press FIVE buttons on their tablet.

[Chris Hibner]

If Jim wants to go crazy and change the game completely, I have my own proposal in the complete opposite direction.

There is only one ball on the field ever, and there is a 20 second shot clock. All assist rules remain. If you put the ball on the floor and the other team steals it - it's now their possession. In other words, basically basketball with robots.

[Travis Hoffman]

These are two great ideas I fully support. I always thought the zone requirement just made refereeing and playing harder. The game is so much less confusing if assists are "number of robots who interacted with the ball". And honestly, three assists in one zone is almost as much work as three assists in three zones anyway.



I'm not sure - I could see back-to-back-to-back Rube Goldberg (or robot centipede, if you will....) type things where three bots mush together, feed the ball through all three cozied up together, and the last one trusses to HP and/or scores the ball. Kinda hokey. Kinda boring.

Perhaps up to two assists can occur in any zone in a cycle, instead of just one?

Or split the field in half, eliminating the white zone. You'd still mark off neutral colored lines to maintain an autonomous lineup reference. To get three assists, you need at least one assist to take place on each side of the truss per cycle.

[Chris Fultz]

these are pretty funny.

:D

[Lil' Lavery]

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.
Probably my favorite suggestion so far.

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!

Speaking as a team with a low goal/assist bot, it would be awful for us.

[Yipyapper]

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!
Maybe adding more ideas and thinking it out would make it even better, but I like this as a starting point.

[Travis Hoffman]

4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.


Would infinite trussing/catching be permitted? Cuz keeping track of which of the three balls on the field were trussed already in their cycle would be....problematic.

[Jared Russell]

Speaking as a team with a low goal/assist bot, it would be awful for us.

Then let's make the low goal worth 10 points as well. Seriously.

[CTbiker105]

If Jim wants to go crazy and change the game completely, I have my own proposal in the complete opposite direction.

There is only one ball on the field ever, and there is a 20 second shot clock. All assist rules remain. If you put the ball on the floor and the other team steals it - it's now their possession. In other words, basically basketball with robots.

I would have loved it if this was the game for the 2014 season, although it probably would have proven to be a lot more difficult for teams that got stuck with less-than-functional robots during quals.

[Travis Hoffman]

Then let's make the low goal worth 10 points as well. Seriously.


I think it's also time for the truss-hanging endgame we all know FIRST was planning.

[BrendanB]

Then let's make the low goal worth 10 points as well. Seriously.

I'd do low goal 10 and high goal 15. You need to give some incentive for high goal scoring or it won't be worth the potential miss and loss of time. If its 10 & 10 the high goal would see little use unless its by teams like 33 who have a great running shot down field.

[CTbiker105]

Would infinite trussing/catching be permitted? Cuz keeping track of which of the three balls on the field were trussed already in their cycle would be....problematic.

What if, instead of just three red balls and three blue balls, there was 1 red ball with a square on it, 1 red ball with a circle on it, and 1 red ball with a triangle on it (and same for blue)? That might make it easier for a ref to say, "Okay, I'm tracking the red ball with the triangle," rather than trying to follow a ball identical to two others.

[Kevin Leonard]

I think some of these are absolutely insane.

Without the zone possession requirement, teams that purposely built their robots so they are able to easily truss from the white zone or the colored zone are penalized.

My suggestions would be:
1) Double the points for a catch- as of right now catching has no place in eliminations matches.
2) Make accidental possession of an opponent's ball not a foul if it's only for a few seconds.
3) Allow inbounders to take the balls whenever they please, but only to inbound a ball when a goal has already been scored.
4) Referee fouls regarding frame perimeter contact more conservatively. No team going to IRI (I think) is going to purposely damage another team's robot. Unless there is an obvious infraction, let the game continue.

Now if we're going to go with some more radical ideas, I have some of those as well:
Option A: During qualification matches, play the game like Jim Zondag suggested- a big shootout with three (or two) balls in play that are marked differently that doesn't take assists into account. This will help guarantee that the best robots take the top seeds. Then, in eliminations, play with all the real rules. All the teams there know how to form alliances that play Aerial Assist- they don't need qualification rounds to get them to know the game.

Option B: During qualification matches, play the game with two balls per alliance that are marked differently, bring in more referees, and play the game with assists. Then, in eliminations, play the game the original way.

I like Option A because it lets the best ball-scoring robots seed up top more easily, then it lets the strategy come out in how alliances are composed in eliminations. It also doesn't crush a team with a bad schedule and bad luck as much.

Anyone think this is a good idea? Or am I just crazy and frustrated by fouls and broken partners?

[Bryce Paputa]

I would like no zones first off, and then crazy 12 ball play as an endgame. At the last 30 seconds, each hp would get an extra 2 balls to do whatever with, then no assists, 15 point high goals, 5 point low goals, 0 point trusses, and 30 point catches. Catching your own truss should also be worth a catch during anytime.

[P.J.]

At the last 30 seconds, each hp would get an extra 2 balls to do whatever with

I think this might be my favorite suggestion so far. It wouldn't be that much more work for refs, especially if these extra balls aren't worth assists or anything, and it could lead to some crazy fun last few seconds to watch.

[Matt17]

I agree with both those rules. The 6 ball autonomous rule reminds me of this post:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129148&highlight=6+ball+auto

Also, I think it would be nice to see the game played with multiple balls per alliance and no assists.

[artK]

How about a coopertition catch?
A white ball is put on the field during the last thirty seconds. If one alliance trusses it, and the other one catches it, it would be 2 qualifying points.

(Please don't, I still have nightmares about this from 2012)

[IndySam]

Some of these suggestions would require a we-write of the game software, multiple balls in play, more than three ball auto, ext....

It barely functions as is!

[JVN]

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

This game gets a LOT faster, and in my opinion a lot more fun. :)

No. Seriously. Someone needs to do this.

[nuclearnerd]

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

That might have been a fine rule on kickoff day, but at this point many teams have optimized their robots to accurately lob the ball into the high goal from precise scoring positions. By getting rid of the top bar, you would be eliminating an entire class of "finishers", and putting lots of successful designs with lower-powered shooters at a sudden disadvantage. Worth it? Maybe, but it's pretty drastic.

[JVN]

That might have been a fine rule on kickoff day, but at this point many teams have optimized their robots to accurately lob the ball into the high goal from precise scoring positions. By getting rid of the top bar, you would be eliminating an entire class of "finishers", and putting lots of successful designs with lower-powered shooters at a sudden disadvantage. Worth it? Maybe, but it's pretty drastic.

Plenty of time to add a few springs to your shooter before July.
;)

[AllenGregoryIV]

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

This game gets a LOT faster, and in my opinion a lot more fun. :)

No. Seriously. Someone needs to do this.

This is the best rule change I have seen, I love this. (goalies become useless though)

Also lets move the sticks to the ends of the truss, those things are annoying.

[AdamHeard]

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

This game gets a LOT faster, and in my opinion a lot more fun. :)

No. Seriously. Someone needs to do this.

I don't disagree with the idea of this rule, but for conversation sake I'll point out this just WRECKS goalie bots.

[Abhishek R]

Also lets move the sticks to the ends of the truss, those things are annoying.

Definitely this.

[Woolly]

Here's a quick and dirty endgame idea: At the end of the game, an Alliance may receive 30 endgame points by having a robot place the ball on the safety barrier on the side of the truss closest to that alliance's goals, as long as the ball was not contacted by a human player during the action of placing the ball.

[Duncan Macdonald]

How about a coopertition catch?
A white ball is put on the field during the last thirty seconds. If one alliance trusses it, and the other one catches it, it would be 2 qualifying points.

(Please don't, I still have nightmares about this from 2012)

I love it! Now where should we put the minibot towers?

[artK]

I love it! Now where should we put the minibot towers?

The two poles on the truss would be perfect!

[Samwaldo]

Give everybody, 10+ pounds to add stuff (maybe more) and hanging is worth 20pts

On a not so serious note. The company that sells these balls also sells a 12ft one. 12 FEET! The alliance that ballances it on the truss wins.

Note: a 12ft ball is over 1000$ IIRC

[Koko Ed]

I love it! Now where should we put the minibot towers?

If your gonna use minibots why not use the tethered ones from 2002 to go back and forth to the zones for bonus points?

[TheMadCADer]

Technical fouls should not be free points until the last ~45 seconds.

Instead, when a technical foul is called, re-light the pedestal, so that the affected alliance is allowed to enter a second ball into play. As far as the referees are concerned, the two balls are just one ball that is capable of being in two places at once (only one set of assists to track). Also, the assists don't reset until both balls have been scored, effectively letting you double-score a cycle. Assists are also easier to get because there's a second ball.

The benefit of this is that the amount of penalty points you get is directly tied to how capable your alliance is.

[Pat Fairbank]

I have two suggestions that would speed up the pace of the game, decrease the burden on referees and their subjective judgement, and eliminate the pain of being allied with a BLT, without fundamentally altering the spirit of the game:

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

2. Change the definition of POSSESSION (for an alliance's own ball) to any contact with the ball where a partnering robot isn't also contacting the ball. The definition of POSSESSION of an opponent's ball would remain the same.
For what it's worth, these suggestions wouldn't require any FMS software changes. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the referee interface for tracking assists is just a 3x3 grid of buttons, with teams along one axis and zones along the other. To do #1, referees just need to use the buttons along one of the diagonals and ignore the rest.

[Foster]

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

This game gets a LOT faster, and in my opinion a lot more fun. :)

No. Seriously. Someone needs to do this.

As I recall the roof at IRI is pretty tall so you should be able to in-bound via a partner bot, then throw a high arc across the truss, single bounce and through the uprights.

Or maybe just a direct shot up over the truss and into the second level :rolleyes:

[AllenGregoryIV]

Lets make the game a little harder. Let's put the blue goals above the blue driver station. 2011 style, now you have to stare down your own robot when you are launching balls.

[BBray_T1296]

Add an upright (extra large) hula-hoop to the center of the truss on top, with the open ends facing down the court. While trussing, if the ball passes through the hoop you get 20 points

reason: scoring through the hoop is an incentive to not throw to the human player. point value is high because you would likely ignore a simple 10pt bonus *cough* catching *cough*

Or just make [robot] catching worth 20 or 30 points instead of 10

[GaryVoshol]

I think it's also time for the truss-hanging endgame we all know FIRST was planning.

A two-parter end game:

40 points for hanging - but because the 60" rule is still in effect, it comes with a 20-point penalty. :ahh:
But if you jump without going over 60", it becomes a double hang for 80 points. :eek: :yikes:

[Jeremy.Howe]

I like the idea of having multiple balls on the field at a time, it adds another layer of strategic depth. So what if IRI did something like this:

Each alliance has access to up to 5 autonomous balls (these balls are just simple red or blue balls), but they MUST have a red or blue ball marked with a triangle. None of the autonomous balls re-enter the field after autonomous, but the one marked with the triangle enters like a normal game piece.

At the start of the match 2 red balls and 2 blue balls are balanced on the truss. Teams can shoot balls at the balls on the truss to knock them down. They are now accessible as a regular game-piece. These balls are marked with a circle or a square, to identify they are not an autonomous ball. When they are scored, they re-enter the field like any other ball.

[Travis Hoffman]

A two-parter end game:

40 points for hanging - but because the 60" rule is still in effect, it comes with a 20-point penalty. :ahh:
But if you jump without going over 60", it becomes a double hang for 80 points. :eek: :yikes:

Enter the 2007 rampbot.

[IndySam]

Enter the 2007 rampbot.

Our is hanging on the wall.

[Mitchell1714]

I can't belive no one has said this yet but Full Court Shooting into the high goal.

[BBray_T1296]

I can't belive no one has said this yet but Full Court Shooting into the high goal.

That is no fun... the strategy is 95% of the fun in this game!

[Jeremy.Howe]

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

This game gets a LOT faster, and in my opinion a lot more fun. :)

Full Court Shooters incoming... not that I wouldn't absolutely love that...

[jagen31]

Make autonomous actually autonomous.

I mean, the Kinect and webcam driving made for cool interaction during "auton", but they were both just different ways to drive the robot in auton.

Even the hybrid auton of 2008 didn't allow for that much driving in auton.

Don't get me wrong, I love how teams took the Q&A ruling and used it to their advantage, but I feel this will probably be changed in future years (unless it will no longer be a true autonomous period).

I agree. I spent the majority of build season writing and testing vision code in opencv (first time using it, great library.) We got to the competition and had an issue with exposure and an issue with communication. So, I spent the entire rest of the competition writing a calibration routine to reduce the effects of lighting, adjusted the camera's exposure, and wrote a hysteresis threshold to add precision to the image analyzer. (I actually ported the whole thing to JavaCV because I'm more adept at java and so is the rest of my team)

Well, all that work (done with the help of a mentor who works in image analysis) was scrapped for 254's driver side CheesyVision. Because of a communication error.

I mean, its fine that its within the rules but just frustrating when you spent time trying to make a truly autonomous robot using technology that applies to an increasingly popular real world field, and such a simple yet entirely legal solution comes along.

[Nemo]

Dreaming about significant game changes is fun. I think it would be best, however, to take an opportunity to pore through all of the rules that made the refereeing so difficult and find places to simplify life a bit. Maybe IRI can create a model for FRC penalty rules that could influence future official game rules.

[kylelanman]

Not really a rule change as much as just pointing out a loop hole that I haven't seen posted about anywhere.

G5
For ROBOTS starting in the white ZONE, the TEAM may preload one (1) of their ALLIANCE’s BALLS such that the BALL is touching their ROBOT.

For ROBOTS starting in their GOALIE ZONE the TEAM may decide if the BALL is: staged between the TRUSS and the ZONE LINE and not contacting an ALLIANCE partner, or removed from the FIELD for the MATCH.

If a ROBOT does not report to a MATCH, its ALLIANCE may decide if the BALL is: staged between the TRUSS and the ZONE LINE and not contacting an ALLIANCE partner, or removed from the FIELD for the MATCH.

Violation: If the situation is not corrected before the start of the MATCH, TECHNICAL FOUL per BALL improperly staged.

Any robot that is not currently playing in the match is a ROBOT.
A MATCH is indicative of any match regardless of if the robot is suppose to be in it.

Given the 4 team alliances in elims each alliance should be allowed to place up to 4 auto balls on the field at the very minimum with the rule as it is now. I'm envisioning a particular blue robot being able to pull a 4 ball auto off with the help of some "corny vision" or was it "cheesy vision"??? :rolleyes:

That would make for some exciting autonomous periods.

[neshera]

More referees.
Or current number of referees, and additional people with a new/distinct role: scorekeeper

[JTEarley]

If an alliance tries to throw the ball over the truss to the human player, truss points are only given if the ball stays inbounds or is caught by the human player.

This would keep teams from blindly launching over the truss out of bounds for a quick 10 points and move the ball forward.

[Lil' Lavery]

Partial credit for missed catches. Give out 5 points if a trussed ball contact an alliance partner before hitting the ground, regardless of whether or not that robot gains possession.

[Chris is me]

I really don't think lots of teams were intending to blindly throw the ball out of bounds and hoping for truss points and the volunteers placing the ball in their favor. I think almost every team intended for the HP to receive the ball but had to play around relentless defense. Adding yet *another* rule punishing teams for the actions of defenders is not how I would want to improve the game.

[Jean Tenca]

I've seen multiple comments about allowing more balls during auto. I think it would be fun if more matches looked like this: http://youtu.be/ZJhH6ZNl5mA

This video was taken during a practice field match at CMP with our friends 1318 (Issaquah Robotics Society) and 494 (Martians) :D

[bigbeezy]

Just gotta say based on all of the ideas shown here by people who've seen and played the game I give props to the GDC for being able to come up with a game from scratch year after year with never fully seeing the game played.

I would agree with the rule of sending out of bounds balls to return to 1st HP if not past the truss. It made no sense to me that you would get the ball advanced for missing.

Also G11 should be called if the ball doesn't hit the truss, pole, or HP. Shooting the ball way over the head of the HP only to have a field person quickly hand the ball (or sometimes a different ball) to the HP anyway made no incentive for teams to actually be accurate with their truss shot.

[AdamHeard]

I've seen multiple comments about allowing more balls during auto. I think it would be fun if more matches looked like this: http://youtu.be/ZJhH6ZNl5mA

This video was taken during a practice field match at CMP with our friends 1318 (Issaquah Robotics Society) and 494 (Martians) :D

As a capable Goalie Bot. I say yes please!

[Jean Tenca]

As a capable Goalie Bot. I say yes please!

You already were a nightmare against 3 balls in auto. With this rule change playing against you would be catastrophic haha

[Tungrus]

I really don't think lots of teams were intending to blindly throw the ball out of bounds and hoping for truss points and the volunteers placing the ball in their favor. I think almost every team intended for the HP to receive the ball but had to play around relentless defense. Adding yet *another* rule punishing teams for the actions of defenders is not how I would want to improve the game.

Many a times the ball was going everywhere but to HP. If a robot is defended, the team can decide whether to risk a penalty, its no different than shooting into a goal. When shooting into a goal, if opponent robot defends and the ball does not make it into the goal, it will land either into field or outside (in few instances back into robot). When it lands outside alliance is auto-penalized in terms of time. So if you are not confident that you can shoot to HP and he/she can reach out or catch the ball expect some penalty. Got to pay the price for scaring refs and field setup crew.

[cgmv123]

More referees.
Or current number of referees, and additional people with a new/distinct role: scorekeeper

Are you saying the 9 referees used at each field at Championship weren't enough?

[Citrus Dad]

We've also thrown around the idea of a "safe catching zone" on the white lines where a robot cannot be touched if their partner is trussing. Still working on the details for that one. The rationale is that several teams in our area spent many hours on a catcher, so we want to find a way for the catch to be valuable at our event.

Easier rule change:

Truss catch = 20 to 25 points
Catching on one bounce = 5 points

[PayneTrain]

I really don't know why you don't make autonomous "smoke 'em if ya got em", especially at a place like IRI. How much of a risk are you willing to take in autonomous? 6? 9? 12?

I do also like the idea of changing the high goals to endzone field goal posts like JVN suggested. The ability for anyone to become a "finisher" can make this game a very fun kind of chaotic.

[Bob Steele]

I like a change where if the ball leaves the field it enters back into the field at that point. Dropped in by field personnel if it did not go out over a human player. Balls shot over the goals are re-entered at ends (sides). If the area the ball is being re-entered has a matching color human player ... they get the ball to re-enter. If not... a drop ball by the field personnel.

[lynca]

2) Allow up to 6 balls for autonomous.


I like this change. This will make autonomous more interesting at IRI ! Autonomous got boring this year after almost all top alliances put up 60-70 pts.

Here are a couple simple suggestions without drastically changing the game.
1. 25 point catch
2. remove G40
3. in the last 30 seconds: 20 point truss shot

[neshera]

Are you saying the 9 referees used at each field at Championship weren't enough?

I think there is a broad opinion that the number of referees and the tasks they were given at the Regionals resulted in many problems.

I'm pretty certain there were less than 9 referees on the field at a time at the Regionals. From video I watched, 7 referees (including the Chief Ref) on the Archimedes field. Refereeing was good (but not perfect, of course) on that field.

[LightWaves1636]

I think there is a broad opinion that the number of referees and the tasks they were given at the Regionals resulted in many problems.

I'm pretty certain there were less than 9 referees on the field at a time at the Regionals. From video I watched, 7 referees (including the Chief Ref) on the Archimedes field. Refereeing was good (but not perfect, of course) on that field.

Each field had 4 referees in charge of scoring, 2 referees on the far side looking for infractions and the Head Referee. (Although if the possession refs saw something, ie G12, then they can make a call and let the HR know.) There would be two spare referees to help provide breaks to everyone. For elims and Einstein there was 4 referees strictly scoring, 4 referees strictly for infractions, and then the Head Referee.

During the regionals, significantly less. Originally it was 4 referees with a spare ref to provide breaks. Obviously not enough. Some events pulled off 5 referees on duty and 1 on break after an update from HQ came out. Whatever FIRST recommends, I try to push VCs to get 2 more than that.

[stuart2054]

Yeah and no triple balancing in qualifying either, u lucky widebots! Oh, wait, nevermind...sorry - flashbacks :cool:

I felt there were many "phantom" assists credited in the Newton division. Balls bouncing off of robots (often rookies) with no hint of actual possession. Sometimes I swear they never even touched the thing. I'd like to avoid that.

I'd like possession to be achieved by either.....

1. Active capture/release with a mechanism, even for a brief instant.
2. Trapping the ball against a field element or another robot.
3. Obvious herding of the ball in a direction (you travel in the same direction as the ball).

Basketball players are permitted touch passes, are they not? Soccer and hockey players can advance the ball/puck without holding it in their possession for an extended period, right? Why not robots? But all of them make some kind of intentional interaction with the game piece to direct it down an intended path. It's not like their teammates regularly bounce the thing off their skates or backs or domes as part of regular gameplay. The robot must be an active and knowing part of the transfer process.

I agree with this. There should be some actual interaction of the robot with the ball.

[TOTCoach]

... crazy 12 ball play as an endgame. At the last 30 seconds, each hp would get an extra 2 balls to do whatever with, then no assists... Catching your own truss should also be worth a catch during anytime.

I love the idea of 12 ball endgame, and catching your own truss should be worth something. We played many practice matches with just random balls and it was a hoot to watch!

Unlimited ball auton, nice idea. All those balls need to be cleared before assists can start though.

I also like the idea of some risk in shooting the ball outside of HP's reach, weather foul points, or inbounded back at the original inbound location. If HP needs to leave the box, the ball goes back to the start and assist points are removed.

Also, human inbounding to opponent's robot should not be a foul for the robot.

[IKE]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say, the game really does not need that many changes. By the end of the year, the game was very exciting to watch. There are a lot of different ways to play it, and a lot of interesting elements to it.
For IRI, the quality of players will be quite high. I suspect that a lot of the issues that this game has suffered with will not be there.

A couple of big items:
I would like a count for G12.D just like pinning. I would let others decide on the count amount, but I think a 3-5 second visual count (IE punching the air) would be beneficial for "isolation". Pinning needs the 5 count tomahawk so that drivers can tell when the count is starting, and when they need to let up. Isolating the ball should get the same. I like a 3 count for strategic reasons, but a 5 count would be consistent relative to pinning.

G40: Touch a robot, you get a technical....Reach into the field, you get a foul.

I would also request removal of G21. I don't like that robots could be designed to reach 20" past the frame perimeter and the the ability then for these to reach over safety zone. This seems like a mistake to me.

My change requests to G40 & G21 do add some safety concern though for human players as there is a definite interaction zone, and I would hate to give a technical to someone that got injured by a robot ramming into them. My choice of re-interpreting those fouls was mostly due to inconsistency of calls during the season.

[Koko Ed]

I want to see the game play as is with the penalties dialed down. If we add extra balls to the field them the strategy element will be lost and you'll see teams doing the same thing they do every year, doing their own thing and not working together. I really think this game can shine at IRI as is.

[Abhishek R]

I would like a count for G12.D just like pinning. I would let others decide on the count amount, but I think a 3-5 second visual count (IE punching the air) would be beneficial for "isolation". Pinning needs the 5 count tomahawk so that drivers can tell when the count is starting, and when they need to let up. Isolating the ball should get the same. I like a 3 count for strategic reasons, but a 5 count would be consistent relative to pinning.

I like this one. It takes a judgment call and makes it much more concrete.

[Chris is me]

A couple of big items:
I would like a count for G12.D just like pinning. I would let others decide on the count amount, but I think a 3-5 second visual count (IE punching the air) would be beneficial for "isolation". Pinning needs the 5 count tomahawk so that drivers can tell when the count is starting, and when they need to let up. Isolating the ball should get the same. I like a 3 count for strategic reasons, but a 5 count would be consistent relative to pinning.

This is the best suggestion I've seen yet. Too many times I've seen teams inadvertently get tech fouls when they're trying to block a robot and the ball is in just the wrong place. Giving teams a chance to see that it's about to get them a penalty, before it does, will result in less isolation AND less penalties, I think. It doesn't even need to be clear what the ref is counting down. See a ref counting? Better move soon!

[Gregor]

Add a G14A.

G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

Proposed G14A

Forcing the opposing alliance to violate a rule will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

[GaryVoshol]

Add a G14A.

For consistency, it would be G14-1 (cf. G26-1).

And I'd change it from "Forcing" to "Causing". But other than that, this is the rule we needed all season. We didn't have an effective "but he made me do it" rule.

Optional: Since you were supposed to design your robot so it couldn't deliberately or inadvertently possess an opponent's ball, G12 might be exempt from G14-1.

[AdamHeard]

Optional: Since you were supposed to design your robot so it couldn't deliberately or inadvertently possess an opponent's ball, G12 might be exempt from G14-1.

Literally impossible if you also wanted to posses your own ball.

[Meredith Novak]

Also, human inbounding to opponent's robot should not be a foul for the robot.

This. :(

[Siri]

This. :(Yes--this would fall under a 'no call' rule (the proposed G14-1). It's utterly ridiculous that this was omitted this year. I didn't expect it to change until IRI (at least not after stop build), but I really was pushing for it. I hated calling G12s and G21s like that, not to mention an almost-G12 in autonomous (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/500/is-it-possible-to-receive-g12-g27-g28-and-or-g29-penalties-in-autonomous-particularly-is-it-possible-to-incur-violations-without-without-violating-g15) on a missed opponent shot.

Also, I still don't understand offensive G12ds when I'm not 'attempting to shield my ball' (from whom?)...but IRI can easily ignore that the same way the GDC has.

[IKE]

but if you eject the ball out of the field, you get a foul.

[Kevin Leonard]

Another thing- this isn't really a rules change, but more of a logistics change:

Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

[Gregor]

Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

That was really annoying at championships. At all the Ontario events we would have the referee tablets right in front of the gate, and would move them into the HP zone during field reset to give access to the gates.

[Tartan47]

Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

I would also like to suggest this change. I could be wrong but I believe at the 2 regionals we attended the referee stand and referees were right next to, but outside of, the hp box.

On Galileo the referee stations and referees on the seating side were centered on the end line of the hp box. More than a few times refs got hit with truss balls that then careened further out of the field. That seems like a bad situation for both the teams playing and the referee who got hit.

[Richie_Richter]

Increase catch points to 20 or 30. The way it is now, it's almost always not worth it to attempt a catch. Even if you have a robot that's very good at it. (Ex. our robot.) The point bonus is not worth the risk of having to chase the ball around the field and retake possession. It's much safer to just go to the human player and re inbound.

Also please give some slack to G28. So many of these were called in Archimedes.

[Max Boord]

Another thing- this isn't really a rules change, but more of a logistics change:

Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

Good idea. I knew form watching the live streams that refs and cameramen had a tenancy to screw up human players and expected it to improve witch it did not. Also if I was bumped while lining up a shot to human player, I would occasionally bomb the ref or the tablet. (they are ball proof as far as I can tell) but moving them out of harms way might be a good idea.

[EricH]

I would also like to suggest this change. I could be wrong but I believe at the 2 regionals we attended the referee stand and referees were right next to, but outside of, the hp box.

On Galileo the referee stations and referees on the seating side were centered on the end line of the hp box. More than a few times refs got hit with truss balls that then careened further out of the field. That seems like a bad situation for both the teams playing and the referee who got hit.

At the first regional I reffed, the ref stands were inside the rails of the HP barrier and couldn't be moved. The refs were either in the box or in the gate area.

At the second one, the stands were much more mobile (AKA outside the HP barrier), so we took to putting 'em--and ourselves--in the gate area during matches.

[Thad House]

At 2 districts I went to, the ref stands were on the back corner of the HP safety barrier, and pointing at the gate openings. At the 3rd district I went to, the ref stands were inside the barrier in the safety zone. In the quarter finals, a G21 red card was called because a robot touched it, and the in the finals they were really close to calling another one. The ref stations at minimum need to be outside of the safety barrier.

[Peter Matteson]

Allow teams to play multiple balls at once with the caveat that they can't get assisits while running multiple balls. This would actually allow for interesting strategy choices on how to play the game.

[karomata]

Allow teams to play multiple balls at once with the caveat that they can't get assisits while running multiple balls. This would actually allow for interesting strategy choices on how to play the game.

That would be interesting to see which strategy is more effective.

[rees2001]

This. :(

Yup.

[evanperryg]

Allow a ball to be taken off a pedestal at any time but penalize an alliance for inbounding the ball early before the assist lights go off.

Really like this. It would take some of the stress off refs and field volunteers, and it would shorten the transition between cycles. The only issue I can think of would be if a human player inbounds a new ball, expecting a robot to score but it misses. I think the extra ball could basically be treated as an auto ball if this occurs.

[cgmv123]

The only issue I can think of would be if a human player inbounds a new ball, expecting a robot to score but it misses. I think the extra ball could basically be treated as an auto ball if this occurs.

This would be a foul, because the assist lights won't turn off until a ball is actually scored.

[MechEng83]

I think having 6 balls in auto might "break" the game and give a disproportionate advantage to multi-ball auto teams; but maybe 4 balls? This introduces an interesting element of making a decision which robot gets an extra ball (if any) without making everyone think they HAVE to have a multi-ball auto.

Also, as a hypothetical, could you imagine 6 balls on each side that all miss? 12 balls on the field would be absolute mayhem.

[Shifter]

Increase catch points to 20 or 30. The way it is now, it's almost always not worth it to attempt a catch.

Rather than increase the points for a stand-alone catch, perhaps add a bonus for the "perfect" cycle (three robot possessions + truss + catch + high goal, all with the same ball). Under the original scoring system such a cycle is worth 60 points. Applying a 40-point bonus for each perfect cycle would encourage the excitement of robot catches while providing trailing alliances the potential for a come-from-behind-last-second win.

[R2D2DOC]

Posted in another thread on the lack of an end game this year, but maybe Chris can get some yellow covers:

The end game should have been like the golden snitch in quidditch (sp?):
(1) Start with a yellow game piece sitting top center of the truss
(2) It may get knocked off during teleop, but cannot be "manipulated" by either team. Could be a penalty if "clearly" manipulated.
(3) At 20 seconds remaining in teleop, the snitch can be manipulated. Get points for passing if desired like regular game pieces. THEN 50 pts if scored high and 20 pts scored low.

OR
(1) Each alliance can introduce thier own snitch at 20 sec remaining.
(2) Passing points apply, scoring points apply
(3) Both snitches are available to both teams


The snitch option could have significantly changed the strategy as the end game approached. Seeing refs and human players occasionally getting whacked by the regular game pieces sure remind me of the bludgers (sp?).

One can dream. . . .

[cmrnpizzo14]

Rather than increase the points for a stand-alone catch, perhaps add a bonus for the "perfect" cycle (three robot possessions + truss + catch + high goal, all with the same ball). Under the original scoring system such a cycle is worth 60 points. Applying a 40-point bonus for each perfect cycle would encourage the excitement of robot catches while providing trailing alliances the potential for a come-from-behind-last-second win.

Love this one because this year in particular a team that was down coming out of auton. really did not have a huge chance of coming back during teleop. I would love to see teleop. have a larger impact since it is so large of a portion of the game.

[Kevin Leonard]

Rather than increase the points for a stand-alone catch, perhaps add a bonus for the "perfect" cycle (three robot possessions + truss + catch + high goal, all with the same ball). Under the original scoring system such a cycle is worth 60 points. Applying a 40-point bonus for each perfect cycle would encourage the excitement of robot catches while providing trailing alliances the potential for a come-from-behind-last-second win.

This is an interesting thought. It rewards teams for catching, but it does so in a way that creates a new way to play the game, rather than just a bonus on a normal cycle.

I don't know about a 40-point bonus though. Seems a little too much. Perhaps 20 points extra.