IRI - 2015 Rule Modification Ideas?

[Chris Fultz]

As the Regional and District competitions come to a close, we turn our thoughts to the 2015 IRI. We always have the benefit of a season of play, so we can make small changes to the rules to enhance the game (if / when we need to).

We are open to suggestions - but remember the goal is not to create a new game, or negate the hard work done by teams to design and build robots and strategies to play Recycle Rush.

[dodar]

No noodle throwing till the final 30 seconds

[Abhishek R]

Make autonomous less of an all or nothing kind of thing, like points per piece rather than points per set?

And something that reverses the timing of when noodles can be thrown (i.e last 20 seconds).

[Andrew Lawrence]

Remove the chute door, and make the upside down totes in the landfill right side up.

[Bluman56]

6 coop tote stack worth 60 points.

[avanboekel]

Maybe flip the last row of totes in the landfill to be right-side-up, like the rest of them. This will result in extra usable game pieces on the field, and wont detract from anyone's existing strategies.

EDIT: Andrew beat me to it

[Gregor]

End game of having your robot fully supported by the scoring platform.

Multiple container sets in autonomous.

No yellow card associated with G6-1.

Allow getting out of transport configuration in queue (which some events are allowing already).

Allow yellow totes to be scored as grey totes in teleop.

[smistthegreat]

No throwing noodles, period.

Change entire playoff structure back to traditional tournament with best of 3 scoring.

[notmattlythgoe]

As the Regional and District competitions come to a close, we turn our thoughts to the 2015 IRI. We always have the benefit of a season of play, so we can make small changes to the rules to enhance the game (if / when we need to).

We are open to suggestions - but remember the goal is not to create a new game, or negate the hard work done by teams to design and build robots and strategies to play Recycle Rush.

A couple of changes I've had on my mind for Rumble in the Roads this season:
-Drop the set requirements in auto. 2 points per robot, 2 points per tote, 3 points per can (allow more than 3 cans to be scored), and 20 for the stack (overwrites tote points).
-Only allow noodles to cross the step in the last 30 seconds and remove the 20 second restriction for noodles over the alliance wall.
-Exempt the yellow totes from being penalized for transferring over the step, except in playoffs.

Edit: Looks like I'm not very creative, everyone already posted my ideas :(

[Taylor]

Get rid of G23; put a caveat in G24 for yellow totes from teams attempting a coop set/stack.

[Hallry]

No noodle throwing till the final 30 seconds

No noodle throwing.

[SM987]

Remove the totes from the bump, and fill it with RC's. Keep the noodle throwing, IMO. Agree with others about flipping the upside down totes.

[Caleb Sykes]

Make the staging area go the entire width of the field, and allow alliances to place unlimited yellow totes, RCs, and robots in this area in any configuration they desire.

[IndySam]

I would love to see what great teams could do with a few more RC's to play with.

I also agree on the no noodle throwing and eliminate the over the wall in the last 20 seconds.

[Conor Ryan]

Allow robots to manipulate noodles, and place noodles on the other side of the bridge
Remove the upside down totes
Allow 4 Robots Per Alliance

[Thad House]

Change tote scoring.

Make a stack of 1 tote worth 1 point. A stack of 2 totes worth 4 points. A stack of 3 totes 9 points. A stack of 4 12 points, A stack of 5 15 points, and a stack of 6 18 points. That way teams have some incentive to make stacks without caps. Because with totes only worth 2 points there are diminishing returns in adding more totes to the field.

Oh yeah and no yellow card on G6-1. You can keep the foul though, thats fine. And red card if egregious or repeated.

[Poseidon5817]

Go back to the best of 3 tournament setup for playoffs, and remove fouls for transferring yellow totes across the step. Stacks greater than 6 should count, in the spirit of 1671's practice day 10-stacks at the Sacramento Regional. Autonomous should be worth more, maybe double the current point values.

IRI announced their rule changes already?

[marshall]

Bring back the noodle agreement.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Bring Aerial Assault robots, play that.

Bring FLL robots, play that.

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

[BrendanB]

Flip the upside down totes, remove the step, and place the RCs on top of the totes while making it illegal to cross over the tape line marking the opposing team's landfill.

[Thad House]

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

This game is truly bad when that is would honestly better then this years game would be...

[mklinker]

During eliminations first alliance with three golden totes on the step earns a 30 point bonus.

[marshall]

Bring Aerial Assault robots, play that.

Bring FLL robots, play that.

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

More like Recycle Revolt. ;)

[Ben Martin]

More RCs in play somehow--either on the step or gifted to the alliances beforehand.

Some verbiage so incidental objects supporting totes and RCs such as tethers, driver's buttons, noodles, etc still make the stack count as scored.

Keep noodle throwing IMO.

[BrendanB]

Bring Aerial Assault robots, play that.

Bring FLL robots, play that.

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

Allow each alliance to field one Aerial Assist robot and ball per match to shoot across the field.

I choose 195.

[Ginger Power]

Bring Aerial Assault robots, play that.

Bring FLL robots, play that.

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

^This :D

[Michael Corsetto]

Allow each alliance to field one Aerial Assist robot and ball per match to shoot across the field.

Bingo.

[BL0X3R]

Allow teams to end their half of the match early to receive a score multiplier.

*starts running away from the immanent torches and pitchforks*

[Andrew Schreiber]

Allow each alliance to field one Aerial Assist robot and ball per match to shoot across the field.

I choose 195.

Can I revert my launcher to how it was at Wk 0? Cuz I'm pretty sure we could get that thing to pinball around the field a few times.

[Thad House]

So in another honest one, remove the extra 5 lbs you usually allow teams to use. This year that 5 pounds could turn every single match at IRI into a can war, which would be awful.

[Nyxyxylyth]

Add one more RC to the center of the step in playoffs.

Allow each alliance to field one Aerial Assist robot and ball per match to shoot across the field.
Just give the current robots one ball - our arm could give that a good hurl :yikes:

[Bluman56]

Allow each alliance to field one Aerial Assist robot and ball per match to shoot across the field.

I choose 195.

I'm calling dibs on 1126's cannon.

[Dan Petrovic]

Bring back the noodle agreement.

Oh please, no. There was much rejoicing when FIRST took away the possibility of the "Noodle Agreement".

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of removing the noodles all together. It's just an extraneous element that adds almost nothing strategic to the game.

[BrendanB]

Can I revert my launcher to how it was at Wk 0? Cuz I'm pretty sure we could get that thing to pinball around the field a few times.

We'd have to completely redesign ours. #softshot

[Ginger Power]

So in another honest one, remove the extra 5 lbs you usually allow teams to use. This year that 5 pounds could turn every single match at IRI into a can war, which would be awful.

It would be much more entertaining from an audience perspective. Teams would have to make sure to have esome spare parts though...

[efoote868]

Keep current playoff structure, include co-op as means of scoring.

Edit - And let the Game Theory Commence. :)

[Anthony Galea]

Bring FLL robots, play that.

So, Recycle Rush?

[SM987]

So in another honest one, remove the extra 5 lbs you usually allow teams to use. This year that 5 pounds could turn every single match at IRI into a can war, which would be awful.

Or awesome...

[Jay O'Donnell]

So, Recycle Rush?

But without noodle throwing.

[Dan Petrovic]

Keep current playoff structure, include co-op as means of scoring.

If they did this, then it would mean that alliances could try to work together to eliminate the top seeded alliances and I think that goes a little beyond the spirit of FIRST.

[Hallry]

As crazy as it sounds, I'm gonna spit it out there: Remove the Step.

(Though, that's not really a 'small change')

[Ozuru]

As crazy as it sounds, I'm gonna spit it out there: Remove the Step.

(Though, that's not really a 'small change')

This. I would love to see that.

[Ginger Power]

As crazy as it sounds, I'm gonna spit it out there: Remove the Step.

(Though, that's not really a 'small change')

2003 repeat. Still better...

[CalTran]

As crazy as it sounds, I'm gonna spit it out there: Remove the Step.

(Though, that's not really a 'small change')

It'd be even more interesting to leave everything else in the middle, so you still have to push your way past the landfill.

At the very least, is there any event that we could see this as an exhibition match?

[Mike Bortfeldt]

In the semifinals, average the scores of the best 2 out of 3 for each alliance to determine who goes on to the finals.

[Dan Petrovic]

It'd be even more interesting to leave everything else in the middle, so you still have to push your way past the landfill.

At the very least, is there any event that we could see this as an exhibition match?

I think it would be cool to put 4 robots on the field and see who can score highest stack in 30 seconds or something. A lot of the robots we've seen are capable of building stacks of indefinite height. It would be a fun test of driver skill, risk/reward balancing, and mechanical prowess.

[sergioCorral842]

Remove the step and create safe zones for robots to be able to stack. Bring back the defense bots.

[Woolly]

Bring Aerial Assault robots, play that.

Bring FLL robots, play that.

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

Play Aerial Assist with 6 high stacks of totes and RCs on top.

[ice.berg]

During eliminations first alliance with three golden totes on the step earns a 30 point bonus.

I dig this idea. I bet you would see some really close races to the middle to place the totes.

[*Rachelle*]

I personally like how the playoff tournament structure is set up this year. A couple of reasons for this:

In the old structure when the alliances had to play head to head, the 4th and 5th seed would play against each other with only one of them moving on. The problem would be, what if both of these were better than the 3rd seed and they both deserved to move on, but couldn't specifically because of the head to head format making it much easier for the higher seeded alliances to move on even if they weren't the best of the 8

The same kind of thing goes for the 8th seed alliance. In the old structure 8th seed was basically a death sentence because the alliance had to play against 1st seed for a spot in semi's, and therefore they almost never moved on even though they may be better than the alliance that took the 4th semi's spot. (I do realize that this year's structure would be harder to implement in a game involving more defense)

Now, you can have 1, 8, 4, and 5 move on if they have all proven themselves to be among the highest average scoring alliances regardless of who they played against. (And you get to play against more than one of the other alliances in quarters and semis)

[AlexanderTheOK]

I would have to agree with others on the noodle throwing issue. Noodle throwing is simply extraneous. It adds nothing to the game but randomness in scoring and the field.

[Anthony Galea]

In the semifinals, average the scores of the best 2 out of 3 for each alliance to determine who goes on to the finals.

Heck, if it still goes by QA and not 2/3, do this in the quarters too. It doesn't punish alliances who lose a stack in an unlucky match.

[Spoam]

I think it would be cool to put 4 robots on the field and see who can score highest stack in 30 seconds or something. A lot of the robots we've seen are capable of building stacks of indefinite height. It would be a fun test of driver skill, risk/reward balancing, and mechanical prowess.

How would field reset get the totes down? What if the stack fell over (15 totes is more than double the height of the alliance wall)? Sounds really dangerous.

[sergioCorral842]

I think it would be cool to put 4 robots on the field and see who can score highest stack in 30 seconds or something. A lot of the robots we've seen are capable of building stacks of indefinite height. It would be a fun test of driver skill, risk/reward balancing, and mechanical prowess.

4 robots are already in one alliance as it is in some cases :rolleyes:

[Juan Martinez]

1)Remove the step and in the last 20 seconds robots can cross the field and take down opposing stacks like 2003
2)Flip the upside down totes in the land fill
3)Change the angle of the chute door to allow totes to land flat
4)Get rid of the yellow totes and add RCs in their place for higher scores

A bit drastic I know but they would make the game alot funner to watch

[Dan Petrovic]

How would field reset get the totes down? What if the stack fell over (15 totes is more than double the height of the alliance wall)? Sounds really dangerous.

Okay, make it 20 seconds.

Give teams enough times to build a stack of consequence but not so much time that they could make something potentially dangerous.

Or just have a ladder handy. :rolleyes:

[MrTechCenter]

Modify the tote chute and allow RC's to be entered into the field through the chute :rolleyes:

[Jim Zondag]

These are my suggestions to make this a better game overall:

1. Disallow Noodle Throwing.
2. Place 2 additional RCs on each side of the field, at the end of each scoring platform.
3. Eliminate the Co-op feature.
4. Retain the Autonomous bonuses, but allow yellow totes to be used as regular totes in stacks.
5. change orientation of inverted totes in landfill back to right side up.
6. change tote count for human players to at least 40 per alliance.
7. Eliminate some of the totes on center step and place 2 additional RCs on step.

These changes would remove nearly all of the capacity, debris, distraction, and chokehold constraints currently in the game, and this would change Recycle Rush into a more pure high level execution game. The alliance who can build the most and tallest stacks would win. It would be awesome to see how far we could go if the limitations were removed.

my $0.02

[Isaac Ash]

6 coop tote stack worth 60 points.

Agreed. When 254 and 1678 made this happen at Silicon Valley it seemed to make coop much more exciting and nail biting.

During eliminations first alliance with three golden totes on the step earns a 30 point bonus.

This could certainly bring an exciting competition aspect to the game. A second race to the step - but this time having to navigate around or over scoring platforms. I know my team got a little cocky in one of our qual matches and ended up toppling our coop stack after trying to maneuver over a platform. This might also allow matches to be decided in the first 20 seconds instead of the first half a second. Will teams forego putting their stacks in the auto zone in order to be ready to quickly get the 30 points?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

For Chezy Champs, we have discussed only scoring noodles that are inside of cans. No processed or unprocessed noodle points.

[notmattlythgoe]

For Chezy Champs, we have discussed only scoring noodles that are inside of cans. No processed or unprocessed noodle points.

Changes like this are good because it does not require extra work if an event is using the FMS to run the event.

Would you allow the noodles to still be thrown or would this be a penalty? At a higher level I can imagine the incentive to throw noodles isn't coming from the points, but the disruption to the other alliance.

[Jared Russell]

These are my suggestions to make this a better game overall:

1. Disallow Noodle Throwing.
2. Place 2 additional RCs on each side of the field, at the end of each scoring platform.
3. Eliminate the Co-op feature.
4. Retain the Autonomous bonuses, but allow yellow totes to be used as regular totes in stacks.
5. change orientation of inverted totes in landfill back to right side up.
6. change tote count for human players to at least 40 per alliance.
7. Eliminate some of the totes on center step and place 2 additional RCs on step.

These changes would remove nearly all of the capacity, debris, distraction, and chokehold constraints currently in the game, and this would change Recycle Rush into a more pure high level execution game. The alliance who can build the most and tallest stacks would win. It would be awesome to see how far we could go if the limitations were removed.

my $0.02

Good suggestions. Refs and field reset will love not having to care about counting noodles.

[Poseidon5817]

What if playoff teams were ranked by max score at each level rather than average score? Then an alliance that puts up a 250 and an unlucky 150 would move on before another that puts up two 170s, but is capped at that score.

[KPSch]

Please don't modify the tote chutes. A lot of teams have designs that depend on the current chute geometry and/or using the chute door to control tote speed as it enters the field.

Get rid of noodle throwing.

Do away with the yellow totes causing penalties when they fall. It discourages co-op stacking.

[JamesCH95]

Allow can-on-can stacking to count for points.

Allow more than one piece of litter per can.

Make litter in the landfill worth 5pts and litter on the floor worth 1pt. This would strongly discourage noodle throwing in addition to being representative of recycling - bad idea to litter, good idea to put litter in a landfill.

I like the idea of a-la-carte auto, with extra bonuses for getting multiple sets. Totes and cans? +5! Stack and cans? +10!

End-game bonus of touching the barrier, forcing teams to decide if they want to score more totes/RCs or get a few bonus points.

Expand eliminations to 3 matches per round, averaging the highest two. Permits some freedom in experimenting with different strategies without great fear of screwing up one match.

[LoweIQ]

I like the idea of giving extra cans to each alliance. I don't like changing the RC configuration on the step. This change would be pretty lame for teams who spent weeks of the season designing and optimizing can-burglar mechanisms.

+1 for yellow totes acting as grey totes in teleop, and restricting noodle-throwing shenanigans until the end game.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Changes like this are good because it does not require extra work if an event is using the FMS to run the event.

Would you allow the noodles to still be thrown or would this be a penalty? At a higher level I can imagine the incentive to throw noodles isn't coming from the points, but the disruption to the other alliance.

Red/Blue colored alliance noodles on the opposite side of the field should count as a penalty. Otherwise I'm not sure how to make the distinction between throwing and placing over the wall without a ref watching.

[T^2]

Allow teams to throw recycling containers over the step. That way, they can potentially knock down the other alliance's stacks, but if they miss, the other alliance benefits by having another RC with which to score.

I hate this game.

[tindleroot]

With the introduction of Totebots (i've seen one from 868 and 3940), maybe each alliance can use one camouflaged totebot that they can place in the opponent's landfill secretly so that they can defend their opponents during the match.

[rick.oliver]

I am happy with the rules as they exist. The change I suggest that you consider concerns entering litter onto the field and the value of the litter.

Litter entered onto the field must remain in contact with the human player until it comes into contact with an RC, except during the final 20 seconds. Litter scored in RC as per current rules. Litter on the field worth 1 coop point for each alliance for litter contained within the two landfill zones.

[Kevin Leonard]

These are my suggestions to make this a better game overall:

1. Disallow Noodle Throwing.
2. Place 2 additional RCs on each side of the field, at the end of each scoring platform.
3. Eliminate the Co-op feature.
4. Retain the Autonomous bonuses, but allow yellow totes to be used as regular totes in stacks.
5. change orientation of inverted totes in landfill back to right side up.
6. change tote count for human players to at least 40 per alliance.
7. Eliminate some of the totes on center step and place 2 additional RCs on step.

These changes would remove nearly all of the capacity, debris, distraction, and chokehold constraints currently in the game, and this would change Recycle Rush into a more pure high level execution game. The alliance who can build the most and tallest stacks would win. It would be awesome to see how far we could go if the limitations were removed.

my $0.02

I agree with all of these except removing co-op. Some teams specifically designed features of their robot such that they were able to do co-op.

However, if co-op still exists, the penalty for accidentally pushing yellow totes over the step should be removed.

Otherwise this is the perfect set of Recycle Rush game rules in my opinion.

The other things to consider changing are tournament rules.

Personally, I'd love to see rankings done by median score to eliminate outliers and make rankings more representative.
I also think returning to a 2 out of 3 traditional style tournament would be better, or at least taking only the two highest scores from your semifinals to average.

[Nick Mercadante]

Allow robots such as our tee-shirt canon Shockwave to play and shoot hacky sacks to knock over cans.

Or just allow robots to shoot actual totes at opposing stacks. Would be much more interesting.

[JohnSchneider]

Allow noodles to be introduced into play during the entire match, but remove throwing them.

Like 2012 - just remove Co-Op altogether. Allow the yellow totes to function as grey totes.

[Travis Hoffman]

No Co-op.
Add ramps to the exposed center step.
40 points for single king of the hill bot on top at match end.
Add a 8' high hanging bar there just for fun. Automatic king of the hill win for first to hang.
Still no bumpers.
No height limit while on field.
Acquire lots of popcorn and prepare it.

[PayneTrain]

Bring Aerial Assault robots, play that.

Bring FLL robots, play that.

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

The SrFLL robots we built this winter or the regular FLL ones? :rolleyes:

This game is going to have capacity issues at championships, so you know it will be an issue at IRI. Allowing teams x amount more totes behind the wall (I would say 12) and y more cans for the alliance to place anywhere on their side of the field (maybe 2?). Killing litter would help this game a lot. I would say you disallow litter entirely (not even in cans) but it's the second worst game mechanic I have ever seen in FRC so drowning it in the bathtub feels like the right thing to do. Keep Co-Op but allow for 60 point co-ops and have them count as regular totes in elims. Pull out the landfill size and put those totes right side up like they should be.

[carpedav000]

My $0.02

Make some form of endgame
Remove the step and allow de-scoring of containers

[Isaac Ash]

Allow more than one piece of litter per can.

While this would certainly create some amazing looking stacks, I think we would mostly see teams putting down a capped 5 or 6 stack next to the backstop on the near scoring platform, and having their human player toss the majority of their litter onto the container from behind the alliance wall. You can see The Cheesy Poofs doing this in most of their matches.

[Koko Ed]

For elims the yellow totes should be allowed to be stacked on top of six high stacks to make 50 point stacks (with a can and a noodle)
Also because we know it's gonna happen, any team that clears and stacks all of their available totes should have the match stop then and there and whatever amount of time is left that alliance should receive 5 points per every second saved.

[George Nishimura]

1) 4 points per tote, 2 points per level.

2) At least two more containers.

3) Yellow totes count in stacks (even in qualifications)

4) One of: no noodle-throwing; only noodle-throwing last twenty seconds; only noodle-throwing in auto (might be terrible).

5) Right all upside-down totes.

[Mark Sheridan]

These are my suggestions to make this a better game overall:

1. Disallow Noodle Throwing.
2. Place 2 additional RCs on each side of the field, at the end of each scoring platform.
3. Eliminate the Co-op feature.
4. Retain the Autonomous bonuses, but allow yellow totes to be used as regular totes in stacks.
5. change orientation of inverted totes in landfill back to right side up.
6. change tote count for human players to at least 40 per alliance.
7. Eliminate some of the totes on center step and place 2 additional RCs on step.

These changes would remove nearly all of the capacity, debris, distraction, and chokehold constraints currently in the game, and this would change Recycle Rush into a more pure high level execution game. The alliance who can build the most and tallest stacks would win. It would be awesome to see how far we could go if the limitations were removed.

my $0.02
This is sums up all the fixes for this game.

For Chezy Champs, we have discussed only scoring noodles that are inside of cans. No processed or unprocessed noodle points.
I like this phrasing to ban or devalue noodle throwing. This would at least allow the toss onto RCs. There would still need to be a penalty to prevent noddles getting across the field.


Lastly, it would be nice to create more space for all 3 robots to play. Maybe the scoring platform near the land fill can be split into 2 smaller platforms on either side of the field?

[Citrus Dad]

Bring Aerial Assault robots, play that.

Bring FLL robots, play that.

Bring Lunacy robots, play that.

Ditto... :yikes:

[DohertyBilly]

I actually really like the idea of an endgame bonus if you are completely in the landfill at the end. Would completely change the dynamics of the game, but it would give an incentive for clearing it out quickly, and it's a trade off for any tether ramps. Litter is awful any way you look at it, it would be great if that could just be scratched and you keep that scoring area in the FMS for the secret endgame. 12 pts per robot, so all 3 on an alliance at the end is equal to a full stack (without litter, of course. Extra bonus for teams that build a second robot to play noodle fencing on the sidelines)

[Citrus Dad]

Use best 5 out of 10 matches to set qualifications that a disastrous match doesn't take team out of contention.

There's more radical changes, but some would require adding bumpers.

[IKE]

Remove the totes from the bump, and fill it with RC's. Keep the noodle throwing, IMO. Agree with others about flipping the upside down totes.

Please seriously consider this.

[orangemoore]

Allow for stacks higher than 6 to count up to a stack of 6 (for fun)

Yellow totes can be scored normally

Allow stacks to score as long as what ever it is supported by is supported by the scoring platform.

10 points per yellow tote in a stack for co-op and 5 points for every yellow tote not in a stack

[Siri]

Stop making refs babysit the Alliance Station. (I know, FIRST does this every year.) Let teams do what they want so long as they remain within it, are safe/don't damage anything, and coaches don't HP or drive.

In effect: Remove at least G5, G6, and G6-1. Replace with a simple rule that the chute door must fully close between each tote. As a ref, watching for HP fouls this year is the equivalent of babysitting the pedestal light.

[dtengineering]

The gameplay right now allows for an alliance of one or two freakishly high scoring robots to make the third robot redundant.

Change the scoring so that a stack's value is doubled if each robot in the alliance contributes one scoring element (tote, bin or noodle) to that stack.


Jason

[T^2]

The gameplay right now allows for an alliance of one or two freakishly high scoring robots to make the third robot redundant.

Change the scoring so that a stack's value is doubled if each robot in the alliance contributes one scoring element (tote, bin or noodle) to that stack.


Jason

And the refs are going to keep track of this how?

[ratdude747]

If it didn't require such massive changes to FMS, I'd say retweak elims to either be W-L-T or otherwise make eliminations less sensitive to a single-match catastrophe (such as having two 6 highs w/RC+litter dominoe into oblivion, or tipping over by accident while loading).

Otherwise:

-Allow auto totes to be scored as gray totes in teleop

-Axe co-op or give a bonus for more than 4 totes stacked/set

-Allow the throwing of litter throughout teleop (since nobody seems to be processing unprocessed litter anyway).

-Allow extra RCs to be introduced over the wall

-Flip the upside down totes right side up in the landfill

-remove the step totes, add more HP totes (like say 40 per side)

- add a bonus for a container set with more than three RCs (via canburglar)

- Allow non-tethered ramps/etc.

- allow robots to shoot litter across the field w/o penalty (nerf gun bot!)

- allow an RC (litter optional) to add to the co-op bonus if such is used to cap a co-op stack, scored the same way as normal RC's, only applying to both alliances. It is scored at the end of the match (if it falls after 3 seconds, the stack counts the but the RC/litter doesn't).

-stacks higher than 6 possible, no max level

[Sunshine]

Let the alliance captain pick where the teams are placed at driver station. Putting captain at position 2 is a dumb rule.

[saikiranra]

Allow for stacks higher than 6 to count up to a stack of 6 (for fun)

The 6 tote cap limit is most likely in-place for safety reasons.

Agreed with no flipped totes, no noodle throwing, and robot-on-step endgame.

[Munchskull]

Remove the middle step...

[Caleb Sykes]

Okay, I've been thinking of a way to massively overhaul the game to make a WLT system fun without forcing robot redesigns and without a 2003 repeat. Here's what I've got:

1. Remove all totes and RCs from the center step.
2. Remove the center step, replace with a scoring platform that spans the width of the field.
3. Put a 6" tall wall where the thick brown line is in the below image.
4. Designate the scoring platform nearest to the drivers as scoring platform 1. Designate the scoring platform between the auto and landfill zones as scoring platform 2. Designate the right (relative to the drivers) half of the center scoring platform as scoring platform 3.
5. At the end of each match, tally the points each alliance earned from each scoring platform individually. Compare the points from scoring platform 1 for red alliance with the points from scoring platform 1 on blue alliance. If red scored higher on this platform, attribute all of the points from red's scoring platform 1 to the red alliance, and give blue zero points for scoring platform 1. Repeat for scoring platforms 2 and 3. For example, here are the points that each alliance scored on each platform at the end of the match:
Red:
Platform 1: 42
Platform 2: 72
Platform 3: 10
Blue:
Platform 1: 48
Platform 2: 36
Platform 3: 30
Blue gets 48 points from platform 1, red gets 72 points from platform 2, and blue gets 30 points from platform 3. Blue wins the match 78-72.

Now you actually have to pay attention to what your opponent is doing.

These are all very high-level changes. I meant this to be just an outline. There are still many issues I did not directly address.

[KosmicKhaos]

Remove the middle step...
I would love to see this but not for the whole competition just for some fun matches. In my opinion this completely changes how the game plays.

[Chris is me]

I agree with all of these except removing co-op. Some teams specifically designed features of their robot such that they were able to do co-op.

However, if co-op still exists, the penalty for accidentally pushing yellow totes over the step should be removed.

As someone who designed their entire robot around being able to place totes on the step for co-op, I think IRI should just get rid of it. It's not worth it.

Maybe make the yellow totes worth points in some novel way. Autonomous is an advantage because it saves time on co-op as well as the 20 points. And those yellow totes just get in the way in elims. What if the yellow totes were worth 10 each, or something? It would encourage way more alliances to actually use them, it wouldn't nerf autonomous mode, and at a competition as high level as IRI, having 3 game pieces worth that much more won't be a big deal.

[TDav540]

1. Add two RCs to the step by replacing totes and add an RC to the center of the step (3 total additional)
2. Make co-op possible at any level, but both alliance must place a tote. For example, if one alliance placed two totes and the other placed one, the alliance would get a 30 point co-op stack.
3. Flip one tote upright in an alternating pattern, with the first tote closest to the center upside down.
4. Multiple opportunities to score CONTAINER SET in autonomous
5. Gray totes can contribute to a TOTE SET, but not a STACKED TOTE SET
6. Double the value of all autonomous actions except STACKED TOTE SET
7. Unprocessed Litter Bonus doesn't apply, but noodle throwing is still allowed
8. Two pieces of litter per RC

Just some ideas. They shouldn't help balance the game more.

[Travis Hoffman]

Let the alliance captain pick where the teams are placed at driver station. Putting captain at position 2 is a dumb rule.

This too.

[EricH]

- allow an RC (litter optional) to add to the co-op bonus if such is used to cap a co-op stack, scored the same way as normal RC's, only applying to both alliances. It is scored at the end of the match (if it falls after 3 seconds, the stack counts the but the RC/litter doesn't)
I like this one. I also think the bonus for a 6-stack is a good idea. Here's my idea in full:
--Coop Set and Stack (up to 4 totes) as per current rules.
--5/10 points per extra tote (depending on set/stack)
--Can on top of stack, 5 points/level. Robots attempting this have no height limit.

Let the alliance captain pick where the teams are placed at driver station. Putting captain at position 2 is a dumb rule.AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!! Let's go with a limit of once/lineup change for that (e.g., you only get to change if the robots on the field change), just for the extra strategy aspect.

[cnepo]

Instead of just removing the Step in the middle, I would like to see the Step replaced with a Scoring Platform that spans across the entire field. Half of it colored Blue and the other half colored Red. Any stacks on this platform are worth x2 score of original stack, but the opposing alliance is allowed to steal a stack in the last 30 seconds of the match and try to score it on their own side of the field or their half of the Center Scoring Platform.

That and get rid of noodle throwing like everyone else is saying.

[ThePancakeMan]

Seeing an increase in the points auto is worth would be interesting. Maybe a decrease in the amount of points co-op is worth or maybe change co-op a little bit. I would find it funny people would be allowed to cap the co-op stack for more points. (not really a point to it but I would enjoy seeing it) :)

[ratdude747]

Another idea that would be a pain in the ___ to implement but would be nice (a refinement on one of my prior ideas)

Make playoffs "best score" based, per level of playoff (minus finals). So only one's best score plays in. Like in track/field events. Also add a rule to prevent sandbagging after cinching an advance (to prevent a crowd displeasing 3v0 match). Or perhaps make the final score the average, but the best score counting as 3 matches (so for three matches in semis, it would be (3rd+2nd+3x1st)/5 ).

But yeah, a pain to implement w/o manually tweaking scores in match review or modding FMS (being a scorekeeper at 5 events this year, I can tell you neither option is feasible)... so this is more philosophy than practicals.

[Michael Hill]

Remove the middle step...

I was going to suggest this.

[wesbass23]

Set up last years game and tell people to bring last years robots.

[Dog-n-Pony Show]

Get rid of tethered ramps, or anything else tethered.

Add 12 more totes in the feeder station for each alliance.

[Gregor]

Get rid of tethered ramps, or anything else tethered.

Add 12 more totes in the feeder station for each alliance.

Not a fan of 148?

[Chris is me]

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

[wesbass23]

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

I completely agree, it happened to my team and it is happened to many others.

[gracieboo]

Allow stacks to be able to rest on tethers or noodles, and count them as fully supported by the scoring platform so they can score.

[Citrus Dad]

How about if one robot starts a stack with a yellow tote and another robot stacks grey totes, the tote stack value is doubled. Of course this is less useful for IRI (see the quality at PNWDC and INDC), but it gives a role to the 3rd robot.

[BBray_T1296]

I know it has been said several times, but I'm just quoting this one


-stacks higher than 6 possible, no max level

This isn't fair to the robots that are designed to cap six stacks rather than put totes beneath a stack.
Im pretty sure 1114, 254, 148 at least are incapable of capping stacks higher than 6 and I'm pretty sure most people's stabilizing systems break down if a 7th tote is introduced

The changes should be about benefiting the field as a whole, not just 3 or 4 robots.

[Aren Siekmeier]

The clearest change is to eliminate litter points aside from scoring in RCs, and perhaps penalize them crossing the step. Maybe even eliminate litter altogether, but I think removing these incentives to throw them across the field is sufficient. As mentioned, banning entry over the wall eliminates some of the best ways to score them in/on RCs. Another possibility is to allow over-the-wall entry in all of teleop (one less thing for refs to watch).

I also get the suggestion to skip rules concerning the alliance station, since this is another thing keeping refs needlessly busy. Removing the chute door is intriguing as well, but seems a bit extreme, and perhaps unsafe.

I like the limits imposed by the upside down totes and the small number of RCs, in fact I find these to be integral components of the challenge. Making sure the rules don't discourage going for the extra RCs (within the bounds of safety) will make the high level matches that require these RCs very exciting - at the very least for the first few seconds, and then also to see if the alliance can really pull off that many stacks.

Auto totes however, are kind of a pain after auto. I'd also say eliminate coopertition for the IRI and allow these as part of stacks.

Obviously removing the step entirely is never going to happen.

[Calvin Hartley]

I too will advocate keeping the upside-down totes as they are. There are teams out there who use these to their advantage. (Yes, my team is one of them. I am being bias.) Regardless of my team's use of them, I would hate to see any teams who designed with the upside-down totes in mind not be able to use them.

I think higher levels of play could use more RCs. I am thinking two, added to the step.

Some bonus for the auto totes in stacks could be good too.

[Jordans16117]

Two people in the Human player zone

[notmattlythgoe]

Two people in the Human player zone

I worry about changes like this because it increases the value of HP loading but leaves the landfill value the same.

[rick.oliver]

Let the alliance captain pick where the teams are placed at driver station. Putting captain at position 2 is a dumb rule.

Oh yes please, this is an excellent suggestion.

[JesseK]

Add a HP zone where a single HP has 3 noodles to throw onto the other side of the field. Put it at midfield to keep the HP's safe from errant robots, but also give the teams an opportunity to tactically noodle their opponents rather than fling spaghetti. Noodles on the field no point value. Noodles that have landed on an opponent's capped stack get 8 points (2 noodles-worth) and a single noodle's maximum worth is 8 points (in case it lands on multiple stacks). HP's are placed opposite each other and opposite their opponent's far scoring platform. Remove noodle throwing time restrictions.

First alliance to stack 6 + a RC/noodle gets an off-colored bonus tote through the chute door. Point value TBD, but it can't be game-breaking. Maybe it counts as the value of a capped RC if set on a 5-stack? It may incentivize these high-caliber teams to try to start stacking in autonomous rather than Canburglar.

Add a permanent "3rd robot" which sits on that "reference point" that was in the animation but I haven't seen anyone use. If an alliance doesn't have a 3rd bot on the field due to Cheesecake, they now have to contend with an obstacle of ... sandbags? Plowie with bumpers and steel spikes? ... something. Tradeoffs, you know?

These may open up Elims strategies a little, depending on what other changes are made:
QF's use an alliances best score.
SF's drop the alliance's lowest score.

[Sam Slade]

Eliminate the tether requirement for stationary / non powered ramps. Allows teams to have their ramp on the field and start near the landfill to steal cans in autonomous.

[Justin Montois]

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.

Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.

[Taylor]

In the semifinals, average the scores of the best 2 out of 3 for each alliance to determine who goes on to the finals.

By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.

Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.

Because historically alliances can overcome a bad mistake. That's why it's been best 2 of 3, not single elimination brackets.

[BrendanB]

By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.

Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.

Its a tough nuance of the game that has come back to bite several alliances this year. In both of our events we took an early bow out in the elimination rounds to some truly stronger alliances on the field. Our moving on the semi finals was determined by a few circumstances that we could and could not control between making one mistake in a match and our gamepad going unresponsive for 30 seconds. I know there are many, many teams in similar positions where little items that pushed elimination matchups to a third match in previous seasons didn't get the opportunity to make it up.

I wholeheartedly agree that the alliance with the best strategy should & will win an event and it all comes down to execution. The problem is this year's game leaves no room for error and even if you try your hardest in your next matches to execute perfectly its nearly impossible to overcome a bad match when the scores are averaged unless Murphy's Law conveniently strikes the other alliances on the field.

[Scott Kozutsky]

The things I would do that wouldn't drastically change the game are:
-let roots shoot noodles over the step and back. It's the only real defense equivalent and preventing robots from playing that aspect of the game was just a bad decision.
-Add a 5th recycling bin to the middle step for elims matches. Where the Co-op stacks usually go.
-Yellow totes can be used as gray totes during the rest of the match.
-Gray totes can be used as yellow totes for auto (must be obtained from the field, I wana see autonomous landfill stackers, multiple stacked sets can all generate points)
-bonus points for ending supported by the scoring steps.

[Jared Russell]

By the time we get to IRI, I'd rather see alliances stretch themselves to set high scores than prove that they can consistently do the same thing three times in a row. I'm in favor of dropping the worst match.

[Chris is me]

By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.

Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.

If FIRST robots were perfect, the control system was perfect, the field was perfect, I'd be inclined to agree. The most consistent alliance should be rewarded. However, that really isn't the case. Unexplained disconnects, while uncommon, still do happen. Control system glitches, particularly since this is a brand new control system, aren't uncommon. And while not all of these hiccups are unpreventable hiccups, there's really no worse feeling in this game than being doomed for the entire rest of your elimination bracket by making one mistake.

It's also worth noting that this emphasis on absolute consistency is a new thing this year. In the past, you could lose a match (the equivalent to making a mistake this year) and still move on. The 2013 World Champions did this in every single matchup, yet I don't think anyone would say that alliance was inconsistent. They had some hiccups, made some strategy adjustments, and persevered. I really don't think this was ever a bad thing.

You're not punishing the "best" alliances by doing this - you're changing what "best" means. "Best" now has a little less emphasis on consistency and a little more emphasis on raising the score as high as possible. This encourages alliances to take risks, to "go big or go home" so to speak, and it makes the eliminations more exciting. Perhaps most importantly, in the quarterfinals at IRI, you won't automatically lose the tournament in the quarters if one of your matches happens to be against a faster can grabbing alliance.

We've all been to regionals where by the last matches, the final alliances are all but a foregone conclusion, and the best alliances can play conservatively to advance. These matches are boring. We've all been to regionals where one of the best alliances gets an unexplained comms issue for 30 seconds, knocking them out of the tournament. We've all been to regionals where the only thing several alliances could do is watch other matches and hope more than anything else that the other alliances mess up. I think we've all experienced the loud cheers when an alliance messes up, as it has drastic consequences. Among the other benefits, this proposal would drastically reduce the impact of a single mistake, make every match more exciting, and hopefully cut back on that incentive to cheer for mistakes.

[notmattlythgoe]

If FIRST robots were perfect, the control system was perfect, the field was perfect, I'd be inclined to agree. The most consistent alliance should be rewarded. However, that really isn't the case. Unexplained disconnects, while uncommon, still do happen. Control system glitches, particularly since this is a brand new control system, aren't uncommon. And while not all of these hiccups are unpreventable hiccups, there's really no worse feeling in this game than being doomed for the entire rest of your elimination bracket by making one mistake.

It's also worth noting that this emphasis on absolute consistency is a new thing this year. In the past, you could lose a match (the equivalent to making a mistake this year) and still move on. The 2013 World Champions did this in every single matchup, yet I don't think anyone would say that alliance was inconsistent. They had some hiccups, made some strategy adjustments, and persevered. I really don't think this was ever a bad thing.

You're not punishing the "best" alliances by doing this - you're changing what "best" means. "Best" now has a little less emphasis on consistency and a little more emphasis on raising the score as high as possible. This encourages alliances to take risks, to "go big or go home" so to speak, and it makes the eliminations more exciting. Perhaps most importantly, in the quarterfinals at IRI, you won't automatically lose the tournament in the quarters if one of your matches happens to be against a faster can grabbing alliance.

We've all been to regionals where by the last matches, the final alliances are all but a foregone conclusion, and the best alliances can play conservatively to advance. These matches are boring. We've all been to regionals where one of the best alliances gets an unexplained comms issue for 30 seconds, knocking them out of the tournament. We've all been to regionals where the only thing several alliances could do is watch other matches and hope more than anything else that the other alliances mess up. I think we've all experienced the loud cheers when an alliance messes up, as it has drastic consequences. Among the other benefits, this proposal would drastically reduce the impact of a single mistake, make every match more exciting, and hopefully cut back on that incentive to cheer for mistakes.

The only downside that I could see to dropping the lowest is if an alliance has 2 great matches and decides to sit there for the last match because it reduces the risk of something happening and one of the robots breaking down. Nobody wants to see an alliance sit there for an entire match.

[Chris is me]

The only downside that I could see to dropping the lowest is if an alliance has 2 great matches and decides to sit there for the last match because it reduces the risk of something happening and one of the robots breaking down. Nobody wants to see an alliance sit there for an entire match.

With a relatively low risk of damage this year, I think teams would more likely use that time to prototype a higher risk, higher reward strategy to try out later on.

[notmattlythgoe]

With a relatively low risk of damage this year, I think teams would more likely use that time to prototype a higher risk, higher reward strategy to try out later on.

I don't know, a stack of totes with a can falling on top of a robot doesn't seem very low risk to me. I doubt we would see robots sitting still at a place like IRI though, teams are going to have to push it to their limits to move on.

[Siri]

I don't know, a stack of totes with a can falling on top of a robot doesn't seem very low risk to me. I doubt we would see robots sitting still at a place like IRI though, teams are going to have to push it to their limits to move on.The risk of getting hit with totes--for robots designed by the best teams in the World who've known the risk all season--is pretty low relative to forgoing the opportunity to basically experiment freely in the middle of the hardest elim run of the year. No alliance is going to sit still during Einstein practice matches either. (Yes, I remember that the field is brand new in that case, but we tried some sorta goofy things regardless.)

[AllenGregoryIV]

Off-season rule changes should make the game more enjoyable without punishing any robot designs.

Changing the field configuration

Upside down totes - we haven't seen any robots work the upside down totes but it's possible we will it at champs. They are an interesting element to the game. Flipping them moves the landfill dimensions for pulling RCs from the step. So I vote leave the upside down totes.
RCs on the step - any reconfiguration of the RCs will change how teams pull them from the step. I'm not in favor of changing or adding RCs to the step. If you add a center RC, the teams built to pull from the center (examples 610, 2848) would have to redesign. Plus a lot of work is being put into the can burgler race, that should be rewarded somewhat in the off-season.
Allowing RCs to be entered on to the field from driver station - some teams are naturally built for this, others are not. Also what happens the first time an RC falls on a driver? Leave them on the field.
Additional RCs on the field - I like this idea, give every team one more RC to setup during autonomous wherever they would like not in the auto zone. This pushes the score ceiling a little bit with out dramatically affecting game play.


I have more comments I'll post later about other rule change ideas.

[Travis Hoffman]

Off-season rule changes should make the game more enjoyable without punishing any robot designs.

Changing the field configuration


Allowing RCs to be entered on to the field from driver station - some teams are naturally built for this, others are not.




We're built for it. :p We'd be due some karma after the Longbot Massacre of 2012.

But in general, I do not like offseason rule changes that GREATLY favor a particular robot design over another.

[PayneTrain]

The only downside that I could see to dropping the lowest is if an alliance has 2 great matches and decides to sit there for the last match because it reduces the risk of something happening and one of the robots breaking down. Nobody wants to see an alliance sit there for an entire match.

With a relatively low risk of damage this year, I think teams would more likely use that time to prototype a higher risk, higher reward strategy to try out later on.

I don't know, a stack of totes with a can falling on top of a robot doesn't seem very low risk to me. I doubt we would see robots sitting still at a place like IRI though, teams are going to have to push it to their limits to move on.


Then change the round robin to W-L-T. I don't think there are any overt reasons this is a bad move? I could be overlooking something, but you won't get a lot of variables in a round robin WLT. 3-0/2-1/1-2/0-3 and 2-1/2-1/1-2/1-2 are the only non-tie results you could get from that, right?

[Lil' Lavery]

Remove all totes from the center step. Divide center step into a number (~10) of equal sized zones. Recycling containers will be placed in these zones on the step randomly (using a random number generator) after robots are placed on the field.

During eliminations first alliance with three golden totes on the step earns a 30 point bonus.

This is a cool idea.

[Lil' Lavery]

Then change the round robin to W-L-T. I don't think there are any overt reasons this is a bad move? I could be overlooking something, but you won't get a lot of variables in a round robin WLT. 3-0/2-1/1-2/0-3 and 2-1/2-1/1-2/1-2 are the only non-tie results you could get from that, right?

You can also get 3-0/1-2/1-2/1-2 and 2-1/2-1/2-1/0-3

[Spoam]

During eliminations first alliance with three golden totes on the step earns a 30 point bonus.

I feel like this devolves into making 3-tote auto de facto worth 50 points. Getting 3 totes on the step is essentially only feasible quickly by teams who have 3 tote, and it's possible that not every elimination alliance will have such a robot, nor will every 3-tote capable robot effectively, quickly or at all be able to transport 3 totes to the step. Changing this to become a 50 point deficit affects the strategic analysis of a lot of teams, unfairly disadvantaging teams that chose to forsake coop/3 tote capability in the main season by making up those points elsewhere. I wouldn't consider it a minor change.

[Gary Dillard]

How about replace noodle throwing with RC throwing? 4 points plus you can take out a couple of stacks and robots at the sametime. :ahh:

[Chris is me]

Then change the round robin to W-L-T. I don't think there are any overt reasons this is a bad move? I could be overlooking something, but you won't get a lot of variables in a round robin WLT. 3-0/2-1/1-2/0-3 and 2-1/2-1/1-2/1-2 are the only non-tie results you could get from that, right?

It just becomes a completely different game at that point. I still think in a nearly zero interaction game, who happens to be playing a match at the same time as you shouldn't matter. You have very little way to influence their score. What is gained by going to WLT? Then the best scoring teams won't always advance...

[BobbyVanNess]

Upside down totes - we haven't seen any robots work the upside down totes but it's possible we will it at champs. They are an interesting element to the game. Flipping them moves the landfill dimensions for pulling RCs from the step. So I vote leave the upside down totes.


Completely agree. Having looked into the geometry of a "can burglar" system, the geometry is pretty tight for the common dual arm mechanism, and losing the 2 or 3 inches from flipping the upside down totes would throw off many teams.

[SoccerTaco]

Remove the chute door....

The Q&A would need updated...

Chute door?
No chute door.

[BrennanB]

Let the alliance captain pick where the teams are placed at driver station. Putting captain at position 2 is a dumb rule.

I'm really not sure why alliance station placement is a big deal all of a sudden. It's not like it's any worse really than previous years. I would think that consistency isn't a bad thing. I quite honestly see nothing remotely wrong here.

- Don't remove co-op, add bonus points for extra stacking.
- Allow co-op totes to be used as grey totes in any match (Elims and Quals)
- Don't put RC's over the wall (please)
- Remove noodle throwing (Penalty for each noodle over the step)
- Autonomous is very broken, too much of an all or nothing situation. Shouldn't fix it as it severely degrades the 3 tote autos significantly
- Keep the step
- Remove totes from step
- Put 2 more RC's on the step.
- Flip upside down totes in landfill.
- Keep stack limit

[JohnSchneider]

I'm really not sure why alliance station placement is a big deal all of a sudden. It's not like it's any worse really than previous years. I would think that consistency isn't a bad thing. I quite honestly see nothing remotely wrong here.


Because some robots work at particular stations and it's sort of dumb their drivers are forced to operate from the other side of the field (wide ways).

It's a step backwards from last year where alliances could select. And it had arguably less impact last year than this year....

[EricH]

I'm really not sure why alliance station placement is a big deal all of a sudden. It's not like it's any worse really than previous years. I would think that consistency isn't a bad thing. I quite honestly see nothing remotely wrong here.

I do.

This year, being able to be close to your HP is critical if you're a chute-loading robot. Imagine loading from the right HP station, while you're in driver's station #1. 973 used a workaround--20' long cables--but that workaround is specifically ruled illegal by T6-1's blue box (they're way out of range).

It USED to be that you'd be rearranged every match in elims. Now you're locked into the same station every. single. match. that. you. play. If you prefer loading from one side or the other, and you're on the "wrong" side, you're toast.

But if you allow the AC to say "We want to be X order", and they can't change it unless they're swapping a robot out, you allow all the alliances to perform at full capability.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

if you allow the AC to say "We want to be X order", and they can't change it unless they're swapping a robot out, you allow all the alliances to perform at full capability.

I agree. Especially at IRI, where the idea is to get the best teams in the world performing at an insanely high level, alliance station placement shouldn't be limiting teams. This wouldn't change anyone's strategy (no one, to my knowledge, designed around the assumption that they'd be at the right-hand driver station in every match), it would just make high scores a little more accessible and matches a little more exciting.

[Pat Fairbank]

Remove all totes from the center step. Divide center step into a number (~10) of equal sized zones. Recycling containers will be placed in these zones on the step randomly (using a random number generator) after robots are placed on the field.
I'd say put the recycling containers in all the possible zones, but have the pitch such that existing two-can grabbers will still work. That way you can still use existing mechanisms from the arms race without the resource contention aspect.

[Caleb Sykes]

It's a step backwards from last year where alliances could select. And it had arguably less impact last year than this year....

What could alliances select last year that they can't select this year?

[gafftron]

What could alliances select last year that they can't select this year?

At championships last year the alliance captain would submit a piece of paper to the Head Ref/FTA saying which robots would be playing in the match and which driver station they would be playing from.

This year it is always locked in that the captain is in the middle, first pick to the left, and 2nd pick to the right. And any robot that you are swapping in at champs will go into the driver station of the robot they are replacing.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Autonomous

A la carte - could work but possibly harder to implement with the FMS, and changes the game a lot.
Inclusive Auton Zone - my favorite solution, remove the completely contained in portion of the rule from robot, tote, and container sets. As long as any part of the tote, robot, or container is in the zone then it counts. Tote stacks still need to be fully in the zone. This would allow tether bots to get robot sets, and more container sets from containers off the step. Simple solution that makes auton a whole lot easier and slightly more worth while.

* On a related subject we should remove the landmark from the field. Field crews shouldn't have to tape it down. I haven't seen anybody use it for anything.

COOP/Gold Totes

Remove COOP - It's interesting, but teams are built for it and we shouldn't punish them. Get rid of the penalty for knocking over stacks because that thing is just silly.
Add Point Values for Higher Stacks - To many teams are built specifically for the 4 stack (see 118, etc), don't encourage redesigns
Make Gold Totes worth points in stacks - this is simple and not too big of an advantage for the tote stack teams. It basically rewards the tote stack in auto by giving the team a 3 tote head start in telop, if they can use it. A lot of teams would have to just score it and move on since they need to pickup a container first. That's only a 6 point advantage if they can't put a container on them.
Gold Totes worth more in stacks - This isn't so bad either, yes the tote stack robots would have some advantage but the other teams could just feed in the gold totes for the same advantage. I'm not sure how much this effects the game since basically they would be scored in most matches if the points were enough. Doesn't really help game play much and actually punishes in consistent tote stacks since the totes might end up sideways etc.
Gold Totes as containers - I don't like this. If I have 3 "containers" I can keep in my feeder station and I only have to make stacks of 7 totes, I 'm going to do that every match and never worry about going and grabbing containers. A robot that is normally good for 2 stacks of 6 + RC, is easily able to do 3 full stacks if the gold totes count as containers. Plus some teams can't do 7 and that isn't their fault.

[tStano]

Allow multiple pieces of litter per recycling container. Ignore unprocessed and landfilled litter.

[RonAyyyyyyyy]

I really like the idea of a rule where you could not touch the RCs on a step until the three RCs on your side are in stacks. This would stop each match at IRI being determined in the first few seconds, and actually make it a true "race" to see who can stack three first.

[Kevin Leonard]

I really like the idea of a rule where you could not touch the RCs on a step until the three RCs on your side are in stacks. This would stop each match at IRI being determined in the first few seconds, and actually make it a true "race" to see who can stack three first.

This is a cool idea, and I kind of wish the game was structured this way to begin with.
It would make some cool strategies, like making three capped stacks of 1 quickly so you can grab the center RC's, or taking your time to use your three cans wisely.
It would also encourage more gray tote-stacking autonomous modes.

However, so many teams have invested so many resources into grabbing RC's during auto that this would change so much about the game.

[StAxis]

One simple change to throw the entire dynamic of the game.

Game pieces may cross over the step in the final 30 seconds with no penalty.

[Brandon_L]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet in this thread, I'm not going to read all 15some pages but from what I have read I have seen "Bring back best of three eliminations" mentioned a bunch of times.

I'm as opposed to this average business as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but a best of three elimination bracket does not work for this game. If it were a different game, sure, I would agree. However the isolation of each alliance doesn't make it a clear cut "Team A vs Team B - Team A won so team A is better". While team A may be better then team B, team B may be better then team C and D.

Sure, that can be the case in any other game too, but the key difference is alliance interaction, of which this game has none. To truly send the better teams forward in the 'playoffs' I believe the averages are necessary until only two teams remain.

[asid61]

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

I agree with this. We had a 0 point match at SVR that dropped us 10 places in quals. Our elevator carriage had literally popped out of the rails after our elevator arms tried to go down with a tote beneath it. If that happened in elims that would be really bad.

[Sunshine]

Ok, I know I'll get beat up for this one but at least I'll get it off my chest. A tether must be a real tether and not a piece of string. In my world, a tether in a robotics competition is a device that connects one device to another for data communication between the two. It is not a rope or chain used purely to restrict movement. There, I feel better now.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Ok, I know I'll get beat up for this one but at least I'll get it off my chest. A tether must be a real tether and not a piece of string. In my world, a tether in a robotics competition is a device that connects one device to another for data communication between the two. It is not a rope or chain used purely to restrict movement. There, I feel better now.

Great, luckily for you the rules don't require a "tether" (however people might interpret the word), merely that no parts of a ROBOT are detached.

[ThePancakeMan]

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

This is a really good idea. It isn't unfair and will mainly benefit those who really need it.

[rick.oliver]

Much discussion on playoff structure.

I disagree with the assertion that W-L-T only works for Finals in this game; that said, I agree that the playoff structure tends to advance the better alliance. Therefore, I prefer the this year's structure; very much, in fact.

If the lowest score were to be dropped (and I am not in favor of that), then a third match needs to be added in the Quarter Final round. And that would add 25ish minutes to the playoffs. Not my first choice, but something I could support.

[notmattlythgoe]

a third match needs to be added in the Quarter Final round


This is something we are thinking about for the Rumble in the Roads. We're also thinking about adding additional alliances to the playoffs instead of adding 4th teams to alliances. Only 4 teams would still move on to SF, but this gives all teams a chance to play in the playoffs without forcing alliances to use different robots in different matches.

[Nemo]

We're also thinking about adding additional alliances to the playoffs instead of adding 4th teams to alliances. Only 4 teams would still move on to SF, but this gives all teams a chance to play in the playoffs without forcing alliances to use different robots in different matches.

Great point. This year's playoff structure allows any number of teams you want in the playoffs, so time is the only constraint one needs to care about. If you liked prime numbers, you could do 11 playoff alliances, then let 5 into the second playoff round. No new playoff structures required to accommodate that in this year's game.

[Alyssa]

I agree, get rid of the playoff structure!

[ratdude747]

What about a compromise that I've seen work (I know bowling in 8th grade Gym worked like this) where it is WLT played in a round robin format. In that it's round robin in terms of who plays who, but it's WLT in terms of initial ranking calculations. With such a small pool of alliances there will be ties, but those could be resolved using highest score (or average of best scores or the like).

Again, any changes would probably be a PITA to implement (unless FMS is given some sort of an option to change the structure), but in terms of "aspects that have a lot of hate" the playoff format is certainly up there.

[who716]

i think this is impossible but allow for defence

[Rypsnort]

As crazy as it sounds, I'm gonna spit it out there: Remove the Step.

(Though, that's not really a 'small change')


Keep the step and put a 2012 bridge on each side. End game come back.

[ThePancakeMan]

Over all I would just like to see the opportunity for higher scoring matches. Maybe add more cans?

[Chinske4296]

Okay while we are on the topic of IRI, I have what may be a stupid question. So we are a younger team, going on 5 years, last year we talked about going to IRI, but didn't make it. So this year we are trying to make it happen. We had a few questions. Do the standard first rules apply usually? Such as robot dimensions and robot weight? From reading this thread it seems like the game is subject to change, we were wondering mostly about weight. Thanks!

[Kevin Leonard]

Okay while we are on the topic of IRI, I have what may be a stupid question. So we are a younger team, going on 5 years, last year we talked about going to IRI, but didn't make it. So this year we are trying to make it happen. We had a few questions. Do the standard first rules apply usually? Such as robot dimensions and robot weight? From reading this thread it seems like the game is subject to change, we were wondering mostly about weight. Thanks!

Usually the IRI Planning people make a few reasonable rules modifications- one of which is often an extra five pounds to use on your robot.
But I wouldn't plan on having those five pounds just yet. Wait until rule changes are official.

[Alan Anderson]

Do the standard first rules apply usually? Such as robot dimensions and robot weight?

All the robot rules apply.

As everyone is assumed to have passed inspection at an official FRC event, any inspections at IRI are very informal. Weight is not normally checked unless something seems obviously too heavy, and usually there's a bit of leeway given (typically an extra five pounds) to accommodate teams that have made modifications but don't have access to a good scale.

[MikLast]

maybe have one half go to NYC, the other Israel? seems like a good way to do things, plus, you can get more people too!

[Bob Steele]

Yellow totes, if used in a stack would double the score of the stack. (but only one per stack... ie no stacking of bonus) ......at least allow them to be used for scoring as a grey tote.

Load 3 of the pool noodles with a weight in the end..with sufficient padding.. (might be a safety concern) allow them to be thrown from one end to knock down a RC or stack.
Big penalty for these to leave the field.... loaded noodles can only be thrown in last 20 seconds.

Very exciting in the end if stacks fall and knock down other stacks...

:yikes:

[Dunngeon]

Big penalty for these to leave the field.... loaded noodles can only be thrown in last 20 seconds.


Going off this,

If noodle throwing isn't removed, add a penalty for a thrown noodle leaving the field (4pts)... It would add quite a risk/reward to throwing noodles.

[Derek Bessette]

Only 1 robot from each alliance is allowed to start in the zone between the landfill and autozone. Red gets to place their robot last in round 1 and 3 of every elimination level. For all other matches blue gets to place last.

[Lij2015]

While keeping the can and noodle as a "3x Multiplier" each tote should be worth: 2 + Number of totes below it, this is how I would have done it seeing as making a 5 or 6 stack is hard in this game but only worth 10 or 12 points for doing so.

Now a five stack is worth 19 with a six stack being worth 25, while not jacking up the value of the lower stack counts (1-3).

[DarkRune]

Serious:
Change the ranking back to a win/loss format
No upside down totes
Stacking on top of a single yellow tote in eliminations raises the score

Joking:
2 robots on the field for each alliance, the other team (the center teams swap sides, so blue is on red and vice versa) drives a totebot on the opposite color side of the field, and there are bonus points for stopping the totebot and stacking on top of it.

[KyleH]

Let people be able to stack yellow totes in play-offs. I really hate to see game pieces go to waste.

[Gweiss96]

Totes on step worth more than 2 points

[The other Gabe]

Maybe flip the last row of totes in the landfill to be right-side-up, like the rest of them. This will result in extra usable game pieces on the field, and wont detract from anyone's existing strategies.

EDIT: Andrew beat me to it

Well technically 4334 has a tote flipper, or at least did at one point

[aphelps231]

Some that I'm seeing that I agree with:

Remove the maximum stack height
Flip the back row of totes in the landfill
More RC's on the divider
The more totes on a stack, the more points the stack is worth (1 tote = 2 points, 2 totes = 4 ponits, 3 totes = 9 points, etc.)
6 high coop stacks worth 60 points

[mman1506]

Some that I'm seeing that I agree with:

Remove the maximum stack height


Pretty much any robot with a stabilizer won't be able to handle more than 6 properly (1114, 2056, 254, 118, 4488, 148...)

[Caleb Sykes]

Pretty much any robot with a stabilizer won't be able to handle more than 6 properly (1114, 2056, 254, 118, 4488, 148...)

Pretty much any robot without a stabilizer also won't be able to handle more than 6 properly.

[Pouncing Zebra]

Choosable driver stations would be cool- landfill bots that can see the landfill and hp loaders that can line up easier/faster may increase scoring potential.

[BL0X3R]

Pretty much any robot with a stabilizer won't be able to handle more than 6 properly (1114, 2056, 254, 118, 4488, 148...)

we have a stack stabilizer? I need to go to our meetings more often... [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

[Carolyn_Grace]

Every match, each alliance gets one hollow litter that's been stuffed with PVC.

Keep litter rules.

Watch dominoes happen.

[Scott Kozutsky]

I like the litter rule where you can put more than one per green bin. This effectively makes noodle throwing meaningless/suboptimal.

To add to this, robots should be allowed to return litter to their opponents. I'm frustrated that the GDC introduced a gamepiece, then removed any play/counterplay that could have gone with it.

I think that changing the field too drastically would result in basically just a new game. The game isn't designed for your robots, your robots are designed for the game.

[notmattlythgoe]

Every match, each alliance gets one hollow litter that's been stuffed with PVC.

Keep litter rules.

Watch dominoes happen.

This is similar to a rule idea that got brought up for the Rumble in the Roads. Since our theme is based on the Battle of Hampton Roads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hampton_Roads) and the battle of the Ironclads give each alliance a "cannonball" or 2 (something like a dodgeball) that they can throw at any point in the match. The only rule is they have to yell "BOOM" when throwing it.

[dubiousSwain]

give each alliance 10 cans to replace their noodles that can act as both cans and noodles

they can also be thrown in the last 20 seconds

[Alex2614]

I'm interested to see how many ramps come out of the usual 5 additional pounds.

[Lil' Lavery]

Every match, each alliance gets one hollow litter that's been stuffed with PVC.

Keep litter rules.

Watch dominoes happen.

I'm amused by the thought of a human player trying to bend this to feed into a stack over the wall. :rolleyes:

[Jack S.]

Personally I'd like to see a third match in the quarters if not a return to the traditional best of three format. I know that IRI is for the best of the best, but we saw potential Einstein alliances go down in the divisional quarters due to one bad match before they had really gotten their chemistry together.

[Ichlieberoboter]

This is similar to a rule idea that got brought up for the Rumble in the Roads. Since our theme is based on the Battle of Hampton Roads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hampton_Roads) and the battle of the Ironclads give each alliance a "cannonball" or 2 (something like a dodgeball) that they can throw at any point in the match. The only rule is they have to yell "BOOM" when throwing it.

REALLY like this idea. I propose (and someone probably already suggested this) that you just take out the step entirely. Allow team to go to the other side of the field. You would of course have to enforce bumpers but you could allow teams to have that outside of the transport configuration. Alliances could go bowl over other stacks, yes, but they would also have to try to make/protect their own stacks, which would make for quite a challenge.

[asid61]

REALLY like this idea. I propose (and someone probably already suggested this) that you just take out the step entirely. Allow team to go to the other side of the field. You would of course have to enforce bumpers but you could allow teams to have that outside of the transport configuration. Alliances could go bowl over other stacks, yes, but they would also have to try to make/protect their own stacks, which would make for quite a challenge.

You could ban touching the scoring platform of the opposing alliance. That would also allow a team with a stack to try and "run away" over the scoring platform, while ensuring that things don't get too out of hand.

[Chris is me]

You could ban touching the scoring platform of the opposing alliance. That would also allow a team with a stack to try and "run away" over the scoring platform, while ensuring that things don't get too out of hand.

At this point, every team in FRC designed their robots without the possibility of defensive interaction in mind. This changed how we built many, many mechanisms this year, and I'm sure it did for nearly every other team. You can't just put defense back into the game and expect everything to work out without teams needing to change designs.

[Ryan Barnhart]

IMO, the most entertaining bits to watch involved interaction between opposite alliances, namely the tug of war games between two can burglars. I think that by increasing robot operation range to the opponent's landfill or even auto zone would make for more entertaining matches. Alongside this, transfer of game pieces between sides of the field should be removed.

With this, other revisions would have to be made, limiting the amount of interference a team could to an opposing alliance stack. Maybe include a new foul for contacting a game piece on the opponent's scoring platform.

[Jpatterson1710]

Unlimited (or at least increased) availability of totes from alliance station. I could see two powerhouse teams pulling 70+ totes from behind the wall, while another team clears most of the landfill. While there wouldn't be enough cans to cap those, it would be interesting to see all those stacks and how they fit it all on the platforms.

[CalTran]

It'd be messy, and I imagine that the refs would hate it, but what about extending the Alliance Station, but not the HP station, around the corner of the field a bit so that when teams fill up the near Scoring Platform, they can run a coach around the corner to go direct from there? There was at least one match that 148 absolutely filled up the near platform and appeared to render 1114 landfill eating less effective than usual.

[trwaight]

A win/lose system for playoff matches rather than an average system.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Teleop of 2 minutes, or 1 minute 30 seconds. As it is now, it'll be too easy for powerhouses to run out of game pieces.

[Jay O'Donnell]

It'd be messy, and I imagine that the refs would hate it, but what about extending the Alliance Station, but not the HP station, around the corner of the field a bit so that when teams fill up the near Scoring Platform, they can run a coach around the corner to go direct from there? There was at least one match that 148 absolutely filled up the near platform and appeared to render 1114 landfill eating less effective than usual.

I think that this is just part of the game. Placing your stacks in such a way that drivers can still see, or using vision on the robot, is a very important aspect of Recycle Rush.

[CalTran]

I think that this is just part of the game. Placing your stacks in such a way that drivers can still see, or using vision on the robot, is a very important aspect of Recycle Rush.

True, but I hope that at IRI, there's a few matches where teams just straight up fill up the scoring platforms end-to-end. 148 can easily fill up over half a platform by themselves, and I imagine with another amazing Feeder Station robot they could fill up the entire close platform.

[Adam Freeman]

Lets just trim each match down to the 15s auto period.

We can all work all summer long to create either the most awesome "Wave-like" tote stack / can grabbing machine... or the worlds fastest and baddest Recycling Container yanking device.

The rest of the match is just a pain in the butt to play anyways, lets trim the fat and do what is most exciting.

I was most excited about every Division Playoff and Einstein match at the beginning, usually just the first 0.5-1s.

We could probably play a lot more matches, or get done faster for more time for extracirricular activities. ;)

-Adam

[Paul Copioli]

Here are my serious suggestions:

1. Get rid of serpentine (a long staple of IRI)

2. Go back to wins and losses in both regular and playoff matches. There is precedence for this in 2003 and it was much better. Even if it is just for the playoffs, then that will still be better.

3. Go to 2 v 2!

4. As a result of #3 above, reduce the number of teams attending.


#3 is the most exciting for me because this reduces the need for all of the cans and makes that race less influential without significantly changing the game. It also makes an alliance really weigh the trade-offs between auton and cans.


and one not so serious suggestion:

All day Friday are mentor matches. Only Saturday are student drivers allowed to drive.

[BrendanB]

After watching matches this weekend I would suggest the following:

Remove the step. Flip the upside down totes while filling the now vacant step space with totes. Create a rule that you can not cross over the white tape line defining their side of the landfill zone. Small penalty for minor infractions yellow/red card for if strategic/knocks over a stack.

Consider placing a special tote(s) in a randomized position in the landfill in the center line of totes that is a bonus tote when scored.

Place 8 RCs on the scoring platforms.

Increase totes count to 42 (or more) totes behind the alliance station.

With more totes available consider placing a scoring platform on the sides of the landfill for more scoring space each for their own alliance.

With Co-op removed allow yellow totes to be used in stacks.

Litter can only be scored in Recycling Containers or remove litter altogether.

Just a few different ways to change up the game.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Half joking suggestion that hasn't been completely thought out.

Tote Scoring: 2^(level -1)

It would take some of the weight of the can race off. Though it's a major change and it definitely hurts can specialists.

[Richard Wallace]

... and one not so serious suggestion:

All day Friday are mentor matches. Only Saturday are student drivers allowed to drive.If there is a robot left to drive. Many mentors are not good drivers.

[notmattlythgoe]

Half joking suggestion that hasn't been completely thought out.

Tote Scoring: 2^(level -1)

It would take some of the weight of the can race off. Though it's a major change and it definitely hurts can specialists.

This is something that should have been done initially.

[Bennett548]

I'd prefer that each tote is worth [level of the bottom-most point of the tote] + 2
1 tote stack (level zero)=2
2 tote stack=2+3=5
3 tote stack=9
6 tote stack=27

Makes canburglars not as powerful, rewards taller stacks.
(and this is coming from a mentor on a team that specializes in canburgling, and can only do 5 stacks, for now)

[Thad House]

Make strategic violations of G7 a red card and make the landfill extend the entire width of the field.

[Bob Steele]

If we wanted to limit the "can grab/game over in 250 milliseconds" games... not saying we necessarily want to...

It would be simple to only allow a single can grabbing robot for each team with a maximum of 2 cans grabbed in auto.

We could still see the grabber races... but it would not determine the outcome of the game unless a team could move down and do the other 2 at the beginning of teleop.... (if the other team did not go for them)

Just a thought...

[nuclearnerd]

Make strategic violations of G7 a red card and make the landfill extend the entire width of the field.

Wait, what? I know you were talking in the Can Burgler thread about ways to place the robot on (or over) the step without being in the Landfill Zone, but as far as I can tell, the Glossary of the manual has the Landfill Zone extending the full width, from guard rail to guard rail. What am I missing?

[Thad House]

Wait, what? I know you were talking in the Can Burgler thread about ways to place the robot on (or over) the step without being in the Landfill Zone, but as far as I can tell, the Glossary of the manual has the Landfill Zone extending the full width, from guard rail to guard rail. What am I missing?

"Bounded by, but does not include, the STEP, GUARDRAILS, and a 2 in. line of White gaffers tape running between
the GUARDRAILS on either side of the FIELD. Each LANDFILL ZONE is an infinitely tall volume that extends 4 ft. 3 in. from the edge of
the STEP towards their ALLIANCE WALL." Game manual page 9. Also Q&A #52 says the game manual overrules the glossary.

And since the field definition includes the Guardrail, which includes the metal structure, that means the the outside of the field isnt the polycarb like we always thought, but its actually the outer edge of the guardrail. So when refs put the ref stations super close to the guardrail, or on the bottom part of the guardrail, they are actually putting the stations inside the field.

All of this means is that there is a 4 inch area on either side of the field where there is no landfill. So as the rules are right now its legal to go around.

[nuclearnerd]

All of this means is that there is a 4 inch area on either side of the field where there is no landfill. So as the rules are right now its legal to go around.

I figured you had something like that worked out (either that or you had a robot that balanced on the vertical sheet of the step :) ). I think that's an easy hole to mend - everyone expects the field boundary to be the polycarb.

[Kevin Leonard]

"Bounded by, but does not include, the STEP, GUARDRAILS, and a 2 in. line of White gaffers tape running between
the GUARDRAILS on either side of the FIELD. Each LANDFILL ZONE is an infinitely tall volume that extends 4 ft. 3 in. from the edge of
the STEP towards their ALLIANCE WALL." Game manual page 9. Also Q&A #52 says the game manual overrules the glossary.

And since the field definition includes the Guardrail, which includes the metal structure, that means the the outside of the field isnt the polycarb like we always thought, but its actually the outer edge of the guardrail. So when refs put the ref stations super close to the guardrail, or on the bottom part of the guardrail, they are actually putting the stations inside the field.

All of this means is that there is a 4 inch area on either side of the field where there is no landfill. So as the rules are right now its legal to go around.
That's actually genius.
I so wish you used those in division finals, it would have been an incredible sight to see, even if it meant my team wouldn't have made Einstein.

[Thad House]

Whats also funny is that the field definition has had the same wording for years. So technically the field hasn't ended at the guard rail since at least 2013, but probably earlier.

Even better is that the Auto zone DOES extend the width of the field, just not the landfill...

We wanted to pull it out in the finals, but we would have lost 225, who was really necessary. Its main purpose was to allow us to win the can wars in the semis if we needed to advance.

[Ekcrbe]

I've seen a lot of calls to change playoffs back to best-of-3 series, but I would propose a different solution that I think still corrects all the flaws of the current system.


Divide the 8 alliances into two pools of 4. This can be in a predetermined fashion (e.g. 1, 4, 5, 8 and 2, 3, 6, 7) or semi-random (e.g. the sum of the alliance numbers must be between 16 and 20 for both pools). I wouldn't say it should be totally random because that could be really rough if the top 4 alliances are put together.
Play a round-robin series in each pool. An alliance advances after 2 wins and is eliminated after 2 losses, so two of the four alliances will advance. If two alliances begin 2-0, they move on and the pool ends. If one alliance begins 2-0, it moves on, the 0-2 alliance is eliminated, and the two 1-1 alliances face off (possibly for the second time) to determine who advances. If all four begin 1-1, each plays its third match against the alliance it has not yet played.
This advances four alliances to the SF, where they repeat the procedure.
The final two alliances play a best-of-3 series


I like the aspect of Recycle Rush's playoffs that each alliance gets to play more than one opponent, but taking the average of just 2 matches in the QF is very fluky. I don't like using averages in eliminations much at all, so I would go back to wins and losses.

[Billfred]

A few thoughts (didn't read the thread):

1) Nuking the step would be bold, but IRI could pull it off. The entire landfill zone is fair game, no crossing the white line on the other side, crank out a little dummy platform for the recycling containers to sit on so we don't have to re-re-re-enginner them.
2) During qualification rounds (and only qualification rounds), step containers get a loop of red or blue tape on them. Make it the ones on the drivers' right. During the autonomous period, robots can only go after their alliance's containers. Come teleop, all step containers are fair game. (And come playoffs? Man the harpoons!)
3) I'm really okay with this year's format for playoffs. If you must do W/L before finals, I'd suggest double-elimination so there's at least a little mystery to the autonomous period.
4) Yellow totes score the same as gray totes on the platform. Goodness knows teams will need them all.
5) Alliances may request one or both lines of the face-down totes be flipped right-side up before the reset signal is given from the last match, but drive teams have to help during the setup time. (This affects the landfill packing which may affect some canburglars, so it's an option play.)

[Kevin Leonard]

5) Alliances may request one or both lines of the face-down totes be flipped right-side up before the reset signal is given from the last match, but drive teams have to help during the setup time. (This affects the landfill packing which may affect some canburglars, so it's an option play.)

There's a really good idea right there. I like it.
+1 to this.

[NHoffmann]

Sorry if this has already been said, but here goes:

Remove the step. In the last minute, allow robots to cross the center. Any stacks you knock over gain your team half the points that that stack was worth (rounded up), but any stacks completed during that time are worth double. Stacks completed before this time will count as permanently scored, but stacks built during this time and then knocked over will not count. Stolen full stacks scored for the alliance that took them will receive the doubled point value for the team doing the stealing. Recycling containers stolen from the top of still standing stacks would have a point value assigned to each steal, and even more bonus points assigned to whichever stack they are placed on top of. Basically, a 1-minute race to steal as many resources as you can from the other team. Balancing defense, offense, precision, and time management.

[Nemo]

3. Go to 2 v 2!

#3 is the most exciting for me because this reduces the need for all of the cans and makes that race less influential without significantly changing the game. It also makes an alliance really weigh the trade-offs between auton and cans.


This is an interesting thought, but I prefer Zondag's suggestions to make more cans and totes available. If the game piece limits go away, then the incentive is to get the 3rd robot on the alliance to be as productive as possible, which I find to be more exciting. Let's see 10 stacks on each side of the field.

[Steven Donow]

Make can races an autonomous bonus. Whichever alliance gets the most cans ends up with a 20 pt bonus (or something...or just X points per can).

Then balance out however many cans by giving them to the HP station (ie. Red alliance steals 3 cans, blue steals 1, Blue gets two cans in the HP station, Red gets none), extend the HP area to an area similar to last year allowing them to place cans onto the field.

Only issue is this assumes a can race where all four cans are taken happens in every match/what to do about contested cans that are still being fought over in teleop.

[Shifter]

Add an end game:

Yellow totes that do not start on the field may only be introduced through the chute in the last 20 seconds of the match.

At the end of the match, a stack containing one or more of these end-game yellow totes scores double (ie. one six-high stack with RC and noodle where one tote is an end-game yellow scores 2 x 42 = 84 points). If multiple stacks contain an end-game yellow tote then only the stack worth the most amount of points is doubled in value.

Perhaps the same applies for the co-op stack during qual's - would love to see teams screaming through forests of stacks in a race to co-op before the buzzer sounds.

[waialua359]

*I posted this in the IRI poll thread also.

The BEST idea I heard all season is from Dennis Jenks of 254.
Keep the game exactly the same, EXCEPT make the step cans available the last 30 seconds of the match only.
Think about that for awhile........

[CTbiker105]

The BEST idea I heard all season is from Dennis Jenks of 254.
Keep the game exactly the same, EXCEPT make the step cans available the last 30 seconds of the match only.
Think about that for awhile........

It'd be interesting to see which teams could line themselves up the fastest to prepare for that. Although you may also see teams line up prior to the match and wait there until the last 30 seconds are approaching (but that would limit other alliance member's accessibility to the landfill totes).

[marshall]

Man the harpoons!)

LOL! I sense a new battle cry coming on...

[Nemo]

*I posted this in the IRI poll thread also.

The BEST idea I heard all season is from Dennis Jenks of 254.
Keep the game exactly the same, EXCEPT make the step cans available the last 30 seconds of the match only.
Think about that for awhile........

With that rule, competitive alliances would need to create some uncapped tote stacks and then cap them in the end game. Most robots can't do that, because with the real rules it isn't necessary to cap existing stacks. This change would significantly hose a lot of teams.

Also, referees would have to judge whether teams jumped the gun on the can race. I find that less desirable than letting the FCS ensure that the teams all start the race at the same time.

[indubitably]

*I posted this in the IRI poll thread also.

The BEST idea I heard all season is from Dennis Jenks of 254.
Keep the game exactly the same, EXCEPT make the step cans available the last 30 seconds of the match only.
Think about that for awhile........

I certainly wish this was part of the original rules, but this change wouldn't affect all strategies the same so I doubt it would be an IRI change.

[waialua359]

I certainly wish this was part of the original rules, but this change wouldn't affect all strategies the same so I doubt it would be an IRI change.

Me too! This would have been so much better. An end game sort of.

[Richard Wallace]

*I posted this in the IRI poll thread also.

The BEST idea I heard all season is from Dennis Jenks of 254.
Keep the game exactly the same, EXCEPT make the step cans available the last 30 seconds of the match only.
Think about that for awhile........Maybe I have not thought long enough. So far all I come up with is, pity the Head Referee who has to decide whether that robot won the race, or jumped the gun. Could be really tough to call when opposing robots try for the same can, possibly using different techniques; e.g., side claw vs. top hook. Harpoons fired from crossbows would be especially challenging.:rolleyes:

[GaryVoshol]

Maybe I have not thought long enough. So far all I come up with is, pity the Head Referee who has to decide whether that robot won the race, or jumped the gun. Could be really tough to call when opposing robots try for the same can, possibly using different techniques; e.g., side claw vs. top hook. Harpoons fired from crossbows would be especially challenging.:rolleyes:

Sounds like reffing minibots all over again. No thank you!

[MStump]

Litter can only be scored in recycling containers. If litters is thrown to the other side a foul is incurred. IMO litter throwing only takes away from the functioning of the robots and causes problems that really shouldn't be there.

Also add a third Quarterfinal match in playoffs for a total of 12 Quarterfinal matches.

[Chris Fultz]

This thread is starting to get long.

Maybe I should start reading ...

[Andrew237]

Perhaps an end game should be added (which is missing this year and was a prominent feature in past games such as Rebound Rumble and Logomotion) where you have a colored tote that has to be placed on top of a non-capped stack. However, instead of tripling the score of a stack like a recycling bin, it's a 20 point bonus and it can not be touched until the last 20 seconds.

EDIT: I agree with the ideas of no noodle throwing until the last 30 seconds (I can't express how many times our robot was made immobilized from this) and flipping the totes that are next to the step to make them usable.