IRI (CONTEMPLATED) Rule Changes

[Chris Fultz]

There is still lots of time before IRI, but here are some of the rule changes being considered. None of these are firm changes, and they require agreement with the planning team and referee team before we formalize.

1. All minibots worth 20 points, regardless of place.
Why? This actually adds some strategy. How long do you take to place that last tube before driving to the tower? How close can you get to :01 left on the clock to deploy? With so many fast minibots, should it really be worth 20 more points if you can climb in .15 seconds vs someone elses .2? This also saves teams from spending the next 8 weeks trying to make an (even) faster minibot.

2. Score Ubertubes in teleop. The Ubers could still be a doubler (if another tube is placed over them) but they don't get the 2 or 4 or 6 points from Auton. If an alliance doesn't score one of theirs, it is up for grabs. There could even be an extra one or two one the field...

3. Reduced lane violation calls, if it doesn't impact an opposing robot or have tube contact.

4. Instant Replay. Considered for the towers, for deployment, but may not be wanted / needed if change #1 gets made.

Others are being discussed. Nothing that has a drastic change on the way the game is played or negates a good design will be implemented. Just little adjustments that we can make with the hindsight of several weeks of gameplay.

I will commit the IRI Team to have all rule changes agreed by June 15 so teams know of any adjustments to make and have time to do it.

:)

[santosh]

Because almost all teams at IRI can score on each peg with similar ease, is there any thought to making each peg and logo set worth the same as to not marginialize better robots with diminishing returns?

[Chris is me]

I love 20 point minibots. There's still a benefit to being fast: Faster minibots make the clock stop faster.

I really think the best way to add value to the game would be to get rid of the diminishing returns on the rack. Make them all 3 points.

[AdamHeard]

What about making the bottom row worth more points?

With the high quality teams present, I see the middle and full becoming saturated pretty quick.

[Ziv]

Part of the excitement came from the fact that the minibot race was in fact a race. Another interesting element of the gameplay is that the match ends when all four towers trigger.

Maybe 1st and 2nd place get 20 points while 3rd and 4th get 15? It's a very possibly worth-it tradeoff if you decide you really must delay the end of the match so your alliance partner can hang that last tube. It also rewards teams that have spent time making superfast minibots without making it necessary for every other team to develop (very heavily inspired) new ramps and minibots.

[Billfred]

Part of the excitement came from the fact that the minibot race was in fact a race. Another interesting element of the gameplay is that the match ends when all four towers trigger.

Maybe 1st and 2nd place get 20 points while 3rd and 4th get 15? It's a very possibly worth-it tradeoff if you decide you really must delay the end of the match so your alliance partner can hang that last tube. It also rewards teams that have spent time making superfast minibots without making it necessary for every other team to develop (very heavily inspired) new ramps and minibots.
I'm of two minds--at the regionals, where not everyone's minibot was stupid-fast, it was more exciting than at Championship where you would be surprised that the clock made it any lower than 7. The 20/15 split might be a worthy middle-ground.

I like the idea of ubertubes after autonomous--but how about giving that extra ubertube to a feeder station only if all three ubertubes are scored in autonomous. (If you really want tension for that third robot, put it in the feeder station at 15 seconds. You'd almost certainly have to allow ubertube-over-tube to count, though.)

[Cory]

I really hope the minibot race stays a race.

The points are way out of proportion right now due to the low value of the middle/bottom row, but there is nothing inherently flawed about the premise of a minibot race to end the match.

If all minibots are worth 20 points it would remove some of that excitement.

If the bottom row of the rack was worth as much as the middle I think that would help with the issue of diminishing returns on the rack.

[Chris Hibner]

I would like to see the lane violation eliminated unless you impede an opponents robot. If you go in the lane to get a tube but don't inhibit anything, then no penalty.

All minibots worth the same would be interesting. What would be really fun from a strategy standpoint is if you make each minibot worth 10, but you can score on any pole. If you want to leave your rack early and try and score 3 minibots for your alliance, then so be it. Maybe that would change the game too much.

[Don Wright]

All mini-bots the same points makes interesting strategies... Deploy early then try and stop the other team who waits until the end to deploy...

I personally like all the changes suggested...

It's going to be insane no matter what...

[MechEng83]

Another thought on how to alleviate diminishing returns:
The point value of a scored tube increases by 1 point IF AND ONLY IF the row above it (left or right side, independently) is full.

This would result in normal scoring for the top row, and then the 2nd row would be worth the normal two points per tube unless there aren't any available pegs above -- then it's worth 3 points per tube. Bottom row would be 1 point per tube unless rows 2 and 3 are full -- then it's 2 points per tube.

All ubertube and logo doubling would still apply!

[Jim Zondag]

What we need is more reason to score more tubes, and a way to reduce the diminishing returns effect of the original scoring system.
We will have many matches with 3 awesome scorers and we have already seen that the motivation to score more or less stops at 4 logos.
We want to see as much action on the field as possible:
Solution:
Allow ALL tubes on the rack to score, including double tubes deep.
Allow a double stacked logos to count.
To enable this, you need to provide the HPs with 4 logos worth of tubes each.

If you provide more opportunity on the rack, the Minibot race will diminish in importance so you will not need to change it.

Oh yeah: Get rid of the feature that ends the game when the 4 minbot hits.....this is stupid and prevents exciting attempt for last second logos.

[vhcook]

Perhaps a bonus for a full wall of logos?

[bduddy]

What about the rule Bill's Blog talked about, where the last minibot is the one that gets the most points?

[LightWaves1636]

Part of the excitement came from the fact that the minibot race was in fact a race. Another interesting element of the gameplay is that the match ends when all four towers trigger.

Maybe 1st and 2nd place get 20 points while 3rd and 4th get 15? It's a very possibly worth-it tradeoff if you decide you really must delay the end of the match so your alliance partner can hang that last tube. It also rewards teams that have spent time making superfast minibots without making it necessary for every other team to develop (very heavily inspired) new ramps and minibots.

It be interesting if it were 1st and 3rd were 20 points and 2nd and 4th 15 points.....:P

[dtengineering]

Why not exponentially increase the value of logos... the first is worth 5, the second is 10, the third is 20... or some appropriate system.

It was also put forward on another thread that it was considered to have the minibots be a race to be LAST to trigger. It would be interesting to see that in action.

It would also be interesting to see something like VEX's programming skills competition... you could have two robots on the field (they have to stay on their own end of the field) and go head-to-head to score the most points in one minute.

I just know there are some programmers out there who are looking for a chance to show what they can really do....

Jason

[Colin P]

The minibots should, in the spirit of FIRST, be worth the same number of points.
This year is the first game (that I'm familiar with) where you can completely achieve the end game task to the best of your abilities and LOSE at it. What happened to "there are no losers in FIRST'', GDC.
I was hoping to see some interestingly engineered minibots that climb up the pole in a unique and INNOVATIVE way. When it's a race, everybody does the same thing, drag cars.
I wanted to see some of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuFlaykVjpA&feature=related
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSI7FsriMy4&feature=related
But we just got hundreds and hundreds of little drag cars.

I was just pretty disappointed by how the minibots turned out. They were weighted too heavily and took away from the rest of the game.

You shouldn't be able to lose the finale in my opinion.

[P.J.]

I also agree that the minibots are to heavily weighted, but I do think there should be a reward for finishing first, I mean it was designed to be a race. I think the idea of first and second being 20 and third and fourth being 15 is a good solution, because if one alliance scores first and second, then there is only a ten point difference, as opposed to a 25 point difference. Ten points is easily made up on the rack, where as 25 is not.

Also, as a ref, I agree with allowing more accidental lane incursions. I do not think teams should be able to grab tubes out of their opponents lanes, but I think as long as they:
a) don't take a tube (bumping it is ok as long as it stays in the lane)
b) don't interfere with the opponent robot in any way
they should not be penalized. This would drastically cut down on penalties, as quite seriously 75% of penalties I called were on actions that wouldn't be penalized under these two stipulations.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I would be in favor of reducing the minibot race scores to 20,15,10,5. I really dislike vast differences in scoring to occur in the last ten seconds.
Oh, and remove the rule about pushing an opposition robot into the end zone under the pretense you are trying to score forcing the opposing robot to incur a DQ.

[Jared Russell]

I am in favor of all of these changes, in general (especially #3 - TICKY TACK PENALTIES SUCK!).

Instead of all minibots worth 20 points, what about making the first three minibots worth 20 points with the fourth 10 points (or some similar points structure; this relaxes the race somewhat while still giving teams an incentive to have a fast minibot).

Also, making low logos worth the same as the middle would be a very welcome change for the depth of the field at IRI.

The one that makes me a bit squeemish is scoring ubertubes in teleop. How about giving each alliance a fourth ubertube that can be scored during autonomous, instead (half this field has at least attempted a 2-tube auto)?

[Dave Scheck]

I am in favor of all of these changes, in general (especially #3 - TICKY TACK PENALTIES SUCK!).Seconded


How about giving each alliance a fourth ubertube that can be scored during autonomous, instead (half this field has at least attempted a 2-tube auto)?If you do that, you need to make that rule now to allow teams to actually do something with it. The question would then come up "where does the tube get placed?" I would say anywhere on your side of the field (even in the scoring zone) to make things interesting.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I like the idea of changing the minibot scores. I think that scores for the minibot should be based on time remaining on the clock. Lower time = better score:

10 seconds to 7.5 seconds on the clock = 5 points
7.4 seconds to 5 seconds on the clock = 10 points
4.9 seconds to 2.5 seconds on the clock = 15 points
2.4 seconds to .09 seconds on the clock = 20 points

This would force teams who want maximum points to wait, and those who just want points to choose how many they get. Both alliances could get a minibot in the 15 point range, if they wanted to. I also like the idea of opening up the poles to any team, but there should be rules.

Ex. Teams can only occupy the opposing alliance's pole if a robot from that alliance is not at the pole at the 15 seconds mark, or if no minibot has been deployed there after 5 seconds.

[Jared Russell]

If you do that, you need to make that rule now to allow teams to actually do something with it. The question would then come up "where does the tube get placed?" I would say anywhere on your side of the field (even in the scoring zone) to make things interesting.

Yep, that sounds good to me. I want to see three (legal) ubertubes on the same high logo!

[Dmentor]

In thinking about this several months ago, the single rule change that I came up with to balance the game better was to replace the doubling effect of the logos with a straight 15 point bonus per logo. This would have the following effects:

1. Keeps the score for the top row approximately the same and preserves motivation to score autonomous high.
2. Provides incentive to complete logos on middle and bottom rack
3. Being two complete logos ahead offsets a 1-2 (50) vs. 3-4 (25) minibot result.

Rack scoring (with/without autonomous)
Current Proposed
Top (2 Ubers) (6 + 6 + 3) * 2 + 12 = 42 (6 + 6 + 3) + 15 + 12 = 42
Top (1 Uber) (6 + 3 + 3) * 2 + 6 = 30 (6 + 3 + 3) + 15 + 6 = 33
Top (0 Ubers) (3 + 3 + 3) * 2 + 0 = 18 (3 + 3 + 3) + 15 + 0 = 24
Middle (2 Ubers) (4 + 4 + 2) * 2 + 8 = 28 (4 + 4 + 2) + 15 + 8 = 33
Middle (1 Uber) (4 + 2 + 2) * 2 + 4 = 20 (4 + 2 + 2) + 15 + 4 = 27
Middle (0 Ubers) (2 + 2 + 2) * 2 + 0 = 12 (2 + 2 + 2) + 15 + 0 = 21
Bottom (2 Ubers) (2 + 2 + 1) * 2 + 4 = 14 (2 + 2 + 1) + 15 + 4 = 24
Bottom (1 Uber) (2 + 1 + 1) * 2 + 2 = 10 (2 + 1 + 1) + 15 + 2 = 21
Bottom (0 Ubers) (1 + 1 + 1) * 2 + 0 = 6 (1 + 1 + 1) + 15 + 0 = 18

[kramarczyk]

I'd like to see G23 go away while keeping G24. If you bump my tower and nobody from my alliance is around to use it that it should not result in a DQ. G24 provides adequate protection and G23 is just silly.

<G23> Contact (via ROBOT or GAME PIECE) with the opposing ALLIANCE'S TOWERS is prohibited. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD

<G24> The opposing ALLIANCE may not interfere with the DEPLOYMENT or climbing of a MINIBOT. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD

[BJC]

Even if we do not allow hanging ubertubes in normal gameplay could we please get rid of the penalty for not releasing the tube in auto and not pulling it off the peg fast enough/ leaving it on. It still wouldn't count, but (IMHO) there should be no penalty for trying and failing at the auto objective.

[Brandon Holley]

I personally don't think the problem with the game is in the minibot race and the points value associated with it. I agree with others viewpoints that the diminishing returns on the tube scoring is the biggest flaw of the game. Addressing this directly will be the best way of improving the game in my opinion.

-Brando

[Chris Hibner]

Even if we do not allow hanging ubertubes in normal gameplay could we please get rid of the penalty for not releasing the tube in auto and not pulling it off the peg fast enough/ leaving it on. It still wouldn't count, but (IMHO) there should be no penalty for trying and failing at the auto objective.

What I would like is if the tube is surrounding the peg at the end of autonomous, it counts - even if it's still being held by the robot.

That way, you can't score them in teleop mode, but it gets rid of the penalty and the need to pull the tube off at the end of auton.

[M. Mellott]

The minibot race needs to stay a race!

Combine Al's idea of reduced point values and Jim's point to keep the game going to the end if all 4 minibots reach the top would effectively reduce the value of the minibots, but still keep the end-game excitement (if not adding to it with last-second tube scoring).

[cnepo]

It would also be really cool, for strategy reasons, to keep it at 20 points per minibot, but the towers did not have an assigned alliance to them. The possibility of creating a large swing by having all three minibots from the same alliance could be something cool to watch with the risks involved.

[sgreco]

I like adding more autonomous tubes. I say give teams as many ubertubes as they want. 3 teams on one alliance can score 2 tubes each, let them have 6 tubes.

What might be interesting is differentiating between autonomous tubes by color. Make it so you can score ubertubes after autonomous, but you can only score ubertubes that the opposing alliance started with in autonomous. So red could request to start with 6 ubertubes, but if they don't score them, it's to their disadvantage because blue can then bring them over to their own pegs in tele-op.

[efoote868]

How about, release an ubertube to an alliance that has triggered its two poles, and end the match 5 seconds after all 4 poles have been triggered? Will make for an interesting "last second shot"

[JesseK]

To really mess with things, flip the rack rows around:

Top row = 2 points
Middle row = 1 points
Bottom row = 3 points

I doubt any of the IRI teams have machines that are 'optimized' for the bottom row quite like they're optimized for the top row. Making the middle row worth 1 points removes the disadvantage that long-arm robots have due to variable-distance placements.

Or, if everyone's up for a 'challenge' -- randomize the point values of each row, each match (with top row always worth 2 or 3). Make up some goofy (or attractive) visual cues to indicate point values so the drivers understand it.

[Starke]

It was also put forward on another thread that it was considered to have the minibots be a race to be LAST to trigger. It would be interesting to see that in action.

This is a good idea. It certainly would add a dramatic effect to the very last few seconds of the game. Maybe have 20, 15, 10, and 5 points in reverse of the current scoring.

[Chris27]

Another vote for more uber tubes. I think If a team is able to reliably pull off a 3 tube autonomous, they should actually be rewarded in the game.

[sgreco]

It was also put forward on another thread that it was considered to have the minibots be a race to be LAST to trigger. It would be interesting to see that in action.


It would be interesting at the beginning of a season before teams invested time in a design. Chaning this now would totally alter the dynamic of the endgame, and people would need to re-design minibots to go slower. You want teams to feel like they are playing Logomotion, not rebuilding subsystems for a variation. The ideal minibot in Logomotion is a fast one. The ideal minibot for last would be one that deploys right before the buzzer and takes about ~10 seconds to go up. I think that is too much to ask people to re-engineer a minibot.

Changing the rules is fine, but rule changes should be made such that teams can take their robot and compete at the highest level without having to change anything.

[MCahoon]

How about letting the vertical and diagonal logos count for double but keeping the same point values per row?

[JesseK]

How about letting the vertical and diagonal logos count for double but keeping the same point values per row?

That's an interesting twist; it makes the game much like 2007's. It'd also make the very center pole of each rack insanely valuable.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm looking into similar rules changes for a Houston invitational, so here's proposals from a mostly uninterested party:

First, I think y'all need to decide if you want to emphasize minibots or tubing, or make them about equal.

If it's tubing you want, you really need to make it very possible for the minibot race to come out even, or jiggle the rack scores to reduce the diminishing returns effect. It's fine to say a 10 point minibot deficit is beatable, but those 10 points are nearly two entire low logos at the current rate.

Towards that end, I really like Dmentor's fixed bonus for a logo, if not necessarily his particular value. Then you could get your excitement from a last second tube hang as well. I don't see how ubertubes fit well into his system, so perhaps instead of a fixed bonus, all tubes are worth 3 points for logo bonus purposes, subject to uber doubling.

Another option for the minibot race: Fixed minibot scores, still with the colored towers, but points for each minibot that hits the top. Thus, fast minibots are still a benefit because you can send up a second one on the same tower after the first one lands. Details would be that a team's minibot can only score once, and the minibot must physically touch the target. Running into the first minibot doesn't count. This might require a slight adjustment in match timing to make the 3 minibot scenario more achievable.

Also, I really like scoring ubers in teleop, and the bonus uber for 3 scored in auto.

[MCahoon]

That's an interesting twist; it makes the game much like 2007's. It'd also make the very center pole of each rack insanely valuable.

Especially if you hang an ubertube on it too!

[Dmentor]

Towards that end, I really like Dmentor's fixed bonus for a logo, if not necessarily his particular value. Then you could get your excitement from a last second tube hang as well. I don't see how ubertubes fit well into his system, so perhaps instead of a fixed bonus, all tubes are worth 3 points for logo bonus purposes, subject to uber doubling.

I intentionally kept all ubertube rules the same (ie. autonomous bonus and doubling the value of the tube hung over it) so that the only impact associated with my proposed change was to remove the additional logo doubling. Effectively this would decrease an ubertube's bonus from 4x to 3x (which incidentally I see as a positive for balancing overall game scores -- reference Paul Copioli's excellent commentary from the Michigan State Championship ABC special). With the fixed logo bonus that I suggested (which mathematically is tied to the 3s from the tubes and 5s in the minibot race), it would be possible to recover from an ubertube deficit or a minibot deficit through excellence on the rack making things more balanced.

[Clinton Bolinger]

1. I think that minibots should still be a race, so rather then making them all equal they should be as follows:

1st = 20 Points
2nd = 18 Points
3rd = 16 Points
4th = 14 Points

This would encourage teams to finish a logo on the bottom yet still take 4th in the minibot race.

2. I like the idea of being able to score ubertubes that did not get scored during autonomous. Also the idea of giving an extra ubertube to each Feeder Station.

3. Lane violation should be reduced, however if you try to get a tube from the opponents lane it should still be a penalty.

4. Dunno if it will be needed and could cause to many delays.

-Clinton-

[Cory]

If the intent is for this game to still feel and play like Logomotion, but with more parity between the rack and the towers, there really can't be major changes.

Realistically you probably can:

Change point spread between minibot finishes
Make all minibots worth the same amount
Allow for ubertubes to be scored in teleop.
Make the bottom and/or middle rows worth more points
Remove doubling and give a bonus per logo, as suggested

Beyond that if you try to do something like fundamentally alter the minibot so that the last place minibot gets the most points (unless post-buzzer climbs aren't allowed), or allow more than one minibot to score on a tower, or determine that all towers can be scored on by any team, you completely change the way you play the end game. Likewise if you start to introduce a vertical component to rack scoring, or make other drastic changes you totally change the way the game is played.

Just my 2 cents.

[johnr]

The only rule i would like to see is... IRI must be webcast and that talent show thing would be nice too:D .

[Andy Baker]

This is an outstanding thread. Please keep the ideas coming!!

Changing the rules is fine, but rule changes should be made such that teams can take their robot and compete at the highest level without having to change anything.

If the intent is for this game to still feel and play like Logomotion, but with more parity between the rack and the towers, there really can't be major changes.

Every year at IRI, we tweak the rules a bit. What sgreco and Cory are saying are exactly correct. We don't want to change the rules or point values enough so that robots need to be redesigned or changed significantly, or even play Logo Motion in a dramatically different way. We just want to sway things one way or another. There are many wonderful ideas in this thread that will help us do so, and nothing is decided in stone yet.

Chris Fultz has informed me that we need to nail this down and finalize the rule changes by June 15th.

Sincerely,
Andy B.

[waialua359]

The proposal of 20 points for any minibot that successfully climbs is a great one......in that teams wont have to give up their entire summer to building a faster minibot.:ahh:

I still like the ubertube counting ONLY during the auto period.
It made teams work hard in ensuring that it worked.
At CMP, the fun part was trying to decide who would do what.
The best match I could recall was our match with 1114 and 1056 from HI. We spent at least 10 minutes talking about how we were going to get all 3 up. As everyone knows, the lanes can cause teams to hit each other prior to putting it up, and 1114 can do 2 tubes.
In the end, it was great to see that our alliance all decided to do it, and 1114 put the Y lane one first and quick, then moved out of the way for us.

If you can score it after auto, all that strategy and talk prior to the match goes out the window, and less gratifying.

[Eric Kosek]

Something else that might make the minibot more than just who has the fastest minibot would be to randomize which two poles each team can deploy on. Then in the last 15 seconds the bases would light up either red or blue and red could only deploy on red. Then it would be whoever could get to both correct poles fastest and deploy. This would also give the analyst a job to do in the last 15 seconds. Just an idea

[Bjenks548]

I wouldn't mind each alliance getting 4 uber tubes, with one not aloud to touch a robot at the start... Side note, my robot is not able to put up 2 uber tubes. I really think the minibots should stay a race (thats what all the teams have been working on) but I would not mind the points decreasing.

[XaulZan11]

Usually, I like very minor changes to the rules, but I don't think logomotion plays that well at a high level with the fixed max of scoring, diminishing tube scores and big point swings based on tenths of seconds in minibot races. If it was up to me, this is what I would do:

Uber tube can be scored after autonomous, but without the doubler. To keep autonomous as important, if an alliance scores all 3 ubers, they get a 4th uber placed in their driver station.

The bottom row of tubes worth 2 points opposed of 1 to get rid of the stupid diminishing returns of being a great scoring alliance. If your great at scoring tubes, you should have a bigger advantage over a good scoring alliance.

Minibot race worth 20 pts for 1st and 2nd and 15 points for 3rd and 4th*. With most minibots being super fast at IRI, a .1 difference in minibot speed shouldn't swing a match 40 points (From you getting 1st and opponent getting 4th to you getting 4th and your opponent getting 1st). Plus, does anyone really want to spend more time this summer working on minibots, in addition to spending more hundreds of dollars on motors?

*Note, with increase in auto and tube scoring points, these points values may need to be increased to 25/15 or 25/20.

[25robotix.Mo]

What about making the middle row worth 3 points, the bottom worth 2 and the top worth 1? This way teams would first fill up the middle row which would make it much more challenging for drivers to drive because of the tubes blocking their sight. Just another way to screw with the drivers :D

[P.J.]

I completely agree with all of the points made by XaulZan11. His seems like the best rule changes to implement to make the game both more fun while retaining the idea and feel of the game.

I wish this was Facebook so we could "like" the posts of people rather then just referencing them. That would make it much easier to judge the public's reactions to various ideas. Just a random thought.

[JB987]

Some great ideas offered already! 3 ubertubes scored earns another for teleop...check. Reduce minibot values to 20, 18, 16, 14, ...absolutely. Decrease rack's diminishing returns with 10 or 15 point bonus for each logo regardless of which row (incentive for 3rd bot to hang around and work the rack during endgame)...and insure availability of tubes by discouraging starvation strategy that is boring has heck and likely to be used more often if rack values are increased. Maybe just subtract 10 pts for each tube left in the feeder station after 30 seconds left in match and even if huge amount of tubes are dumped just prior to the the 30 second mark the opposing team has to chose how much effort they will put into tubes vs deployment preparation. Make any tube on the floor fair game for either alliance(except for those in scoring zones). Ok to go in opponents loading zone to get a tube but you risk penalty if you contact/interfere with opponent robots while they are in their feeder lane which eliminates bulk of match penalties we saw during the season. Lots of interesting strategy opportunities to consider.

[Trevor1743]

What if the mini-bots were given points based on the window in which they scored. If they reach the top in less then 2 seconds from the start of the end game they get 20 points, within 4 seconds 15 points,within 6 seconds 10 points...

[Bob Steele]

Here's an idea... How about doing logos vertically...
A logo would be worth 3+2+1 X 2 or 12 points per logo
You could have 6 logos or 72 points total
Uber tubes would score in autonomous the normal way but during teleop they would double the entire logo again.... so a logo with an ubertube would add another 12 points if on a vertical logo...

If a logo had 2 ubertubes it would be worth 2 X 2 X 12 or 48 points
if a logo had 3 ubertubes it would be worth 2 X 2 X 2 X 12 or 72 points

This would give a possible score of 126 for a rack....(with 3 high ubertubes in autonomous)

Presently the max score is 108 for a full rack... this would raise the full rack score to 126 AND give the lower tubes more value at the same time because they would be necessary for making a logo.

Another completly different approach COULD be to have the ubertubes double the entire logo they are on... but i think this is too many points. Given the rules as they are for logos... a logo doubling ubertube idea would mean that a logo on the top with 3 ubertubes would be worth 108 points by itself... this is too much .... so this wouldn't work...I suppose you could allow only a single doubling of a logo. no matter how many ubertubes were there... but this would net 96 additional points available from 2 high logos doubled and 1 middle doubled...

Just ideas....

[Bongle]

How about 5-4-3 scoring for the top-middle-bottom rows?

This fixes:
1) Tube vs minibot relative strengths
2) Diminishing returns (bottom row is worth 60% of the top row)

[JB987]

How about 5-4-3 scoring for the top-middle-bottom rows?

This fixes:
1) Tube vs minibot relative strengths
2) Diminishing returns (bottom row is worth 60% of the top row)

Ahh, the elegance of simplicity...a great idea as long as you ensure a disincentive for tube starvation as I stated in previous post and you reduce the scoring differential between first and last minibot places (20, 18, 16, 14). You still have the excitement factor during endgame, continue to reward faster minibots and every tube placement will become more critical than previously, keeping the excitement level high as spectators focus on every placement right up to the end. 5, 4, 3... easy change logistically too.

[meaubry]

1) introduce a 5th scoring pole to provide an additional scoring opportunity that only one or the other of the alliances may potentially (if successful) utilize - special rules apply for robot interaction at this scoring pole - located in the center of the field.
2) minibot scoring on the 2 assigned poles can occur pre-end of game with reduced points, adds an additional element to when to deploy minibot and secure points (10 points for any bot that is successful pre-end of game).
3) 5th scoring pole can only be used during end of game time period
(potential scores if no minibots are deployed pre end of game 1st=20, 2nd=15, 3rd=12, 4th=10, 5th=5)
4) Play out the entire time - allows tube scoring a few more seconds than if the match ends based on minibot race ending.
5) scoring on wall revised - any lower logo counts the same as logo row above it - if there is a completed logo directly above it, otherwise it stays the reduced amount.

[Jack Jones]

Why not just play Aim High again?

[Paul Copioli]

I'm sure this is just assumed, but I never saw the rule change for the serpentine this year. So to make is an official request:

Make alliance selection non-serpentine (or the same as last year's IRI ... I don't care either way). So 1 picks first in both the first round and second round of the draft. If you still pick your own partner in the third round, then that can be serpentine.

I love all the other proposed changes by Fultz.

[jtdowney]

I'm sure this is just assumed, but I never saw the rule change for the serpentine this year. So to make is an official request:

Make alliance selection non-serpentine (or the same as last year's IRI ... I don't care either way). So 1 picks first in both the first round and second round of the draft. If you still pick your own partner in the third round, then that can be serpentine.

I love all the other proposed changes by Fultz.

Chris didn't mention it in his post but it is on the IRI website (http://www.indianaroboticsinvitational.org/rules-update/).

[nighterfighter]

1) introduce a 5th scoring pole to provide an additional scoring opportunity that only one or the other of the alliances may potentially (if successful) utilize - special rules apply for robot interaction at this scoring pole - located in the center of the field.
2) minibot scoring on the 2 assigned poles can occur pre-end of game with reduced points, adds an additional element to when to deploy minibot and secure points (10 points for any bot that is successful pre-end of game).
3) 5th scoring pole can only be used during end of game time period
(potential scores if no minibots are deployed pre end of game 1st=20, 2nd=15, 3rd=12, 4th=10, 5th=5)
4) Play out the entire time - allows tube scoring a few more seconds than if the match ends based on minibot race ending.
5) scoring on wall revised - any lower logo counts the same as logo row above it - if there is a completed logo directly above it, otherwise it stays the reduced amount.


1-A 5th scoring pole? Eww. Would make it seem very congested.

2-Would be an interesting tactic if any team could score on any pole, but I think you would still see teams waiting until the end.

3-See point 1.

4- Yes. Definitely.

5- THAT seems like a perfect way to do it. It would essentially make all 3 rows worth the same amount of points, if you can score in order...

[Bill_B]

Anyone want to author a survey monkey page for this stuff?

I was looking at what was required to make a survey and thinking it is too complicated by half.

[Craig Roys]

I like anything that reduces the value of the minibot race - too often, the actual match is pointless; just wait to see who wins the minibot race. I've seen matches where an alliance has just dominated on tube scoring, but lost the match because of minibots. I like minibots being 20 pts as long as they climb the tower; or even the possibility of keeping it a race, but diminishing the point values so they don't dominate the scoring. Teams should be rewarded for being good tube hangers which is the primary objective of the game.

I also like the idea of ubertubes staying in play and reducing lane violations.

[IKE]

There are a lot of neat ideas, but personally, I think many go too far. The 3 objectives everyone seems to agree on are:
1. Slightly less restrictive penalties.
2. More emphasis on tubes.
3. Less emphasis on minibots.

I think some great ideas have been posted on #1, so I would like to discuss 2 and 3. The bottom row needs to be worth more. Currently they is very little incentive above bragging rights for that row. I would go with 2 pts, just like the middle. This would likely cause a fill of top, bottom, then middle. Also, this makes a logo on that row worth 12 points. I will return to this in a moment.
Minibots need a winner. Otherwise it looses a lot. It however does not need a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. In the grand tradition of first, let's reward the winner, and give the others a nice concellation. As far as point values go, I would award 2nd - 4th 10 points. This is less than a full mid or lower logo, but more than the third tube to complete that logo (that last tube is worth 12- 2*2=8 pts.). The question is then how much to award the winner of the minibot race. Depending on the emphasis level, I would go with 15 or 20 pts. 20 would be more in line with the historical significance, and 15 would be the minimum.

The other change I would do is the winner is the tower that gets 4 lights. To get the 10 points, you just have to hit the top because the sensors are not 100% reliable.

The changes along with relaxing the penalties should make for some really exciting game play, and allow foe better endgame strategy/optins.

[SavtaKenneth]

In my opinion increasing the emphasis on the tubes and reducing the emphasis on the minibots should be done by changing the value of one of them. The moment tubes are worth more they can swing the outcome of the match, reducing the value of the minibot drastically will only make unimportant. I think that the value of tubes on the bottom row should be increased to give the excellent tube scorers an edge however to retain the current minibot values, to still give them significance in the game.

[J_Miles]

The bottom row needs to be worth more. Currently they is very little incentive above bragging rights for that row. I would go with 2 pts, just like the middle.


I couldn't agree more. I think two points is sufficiently valuable to make that bottom row plenty worthwhile, but not overpowered, and it will really count to separate the great alliances from the good alliance.


Minibots need a winner. Otherwise it looses a lot. It however does not need a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. In the grand tradition of first, let's reward the winner, and give the others a nice concellation. As far as point values go, I would award 2nd - 4th 10 points.


I won't really suggest specific point values, but I think that there needs to be more balance. With the current system, if an alliance were to take first and second in the minibot race, their endgame score would yield a 25-point advantage over the other alliance (assuming the other alliance were able to score their minibots 3rd and 4th). I don't think that awarding 1st place a higher score and then assigning uniform values to 2nd-4th would be ideal; however, there should be more parity between 1st and 4th. I think that, if an alliance takes first and second in the minibot race, there should not be more than a ten- or fifteen-point swing if the other alliance was able to successfully score their minibots as well. To make the race still exciting, there needs to be different values for each place, but if all four towers were activated, the point margin, in my opinion, should be significantly smaller than 25 points. To me, ideally, the scoring would play out like (<1>+<2>)-(<3>+<4>)<=10 points. This way, an alliance could come from behind with the endgame in a tight match, but, coupled with increased value for the bottom row and decreased margin for victory in the endgame, strategy would be more critical to alliances because it would no longer be imperative to score the top minibot or top two minibots in each match that might be remotely close.

[StevenB]

If the rule is not changed to allow ubertubes to be hung in teleop, at least remove the penalty for doing so. That is, replace <G16> to read, "Ubertubes hung after the conclusion of the AUTONOMOUS PERIOD are not counted for points or as doublers for LOGO PIECES hung over them."

No team is going to intentionally hang a tube for zero points, and I've seen painful instances where a team was penalized because their robot released a tube but was still "supporting" it at the end of the autonomous period. As soon as they backed away, they incurred a penalty. It hurts enough to not score the ubertube; there's no need to rub salt in the wound.

[Chris is me]

If the rule is not changed to allow ubertubes to be hung in teleop, at least remove the penalty for doing so. That is, replace <G16> to read, "Ubertubes hung after the conclusion of the AUTONOMOUS PERIOD are not counted for points or as doublers for LOGO PIECES hung over them."

No team is going to intentionally hang a tube for zero points, and I've seen painful instances where a team was penalized because their robot released a tube but was still "supporting" it at the end of the autonomous period. As soon as they backed away, they incurred a penalty. It hurts enough to not score the ubertube; there's no need to rub salt in the wound.

40 actually lost Battlecry by 1 point because of this penalty. It was crazy.

[Marc S.]

I personaly don't know why were changing any of the scoring rules. The penalties are understandable but changing the way robots score doesn't make sense to me.

I would like the score board to display the times each minibot got(maybe that could decide points?). But having all minibots get the same amount of points just doesn't make sense to me, it removes the competitiveness and challenge of that part of the game.

The current setup rewards the 1st minibot with the advantage(if all 4 minbots reach the top) so even if they get 1st and 4th, they still lead that part of the game with 5 points. Certainly something that a good tube scorer can get around.

[RayTurner1126]

If the rule is not changed to allow ubertubes to be hung in teleop, at least remove the penalty for doing so. That is, replace <G16> to read, "Ubertubes hung after the conclusion of the AUTONOMOUS PERIOD are not counted for points or as doublers for LOGO PIECES hung over them."

No team is going to intentionally hang a tube for zero points, and I've seen painful instances where a team was penalized because their robot released a tube but was still "supporting" it at the end of the autonomous period. As soon as they backed away, they incurred a penalty. It hurts enough to not score the ubertube; there's no need to rub salt in the wound.

they are going to allow the ubertube to function as a doubler, but not the points you would get from autonomous (i.e. the 6 points if it were on the top row) and there wouldn't be a penalty

[AlecMataloni]

I'm an advocate for eliminating diminishing returns on the pegs. As with the FTC game this year (Barely any baton scoring & too much balancing), not enough emphasis was placed on the scoring of as many game pieces as possible. Instead, the endgame's point values encouraged many teams to head over to the minibot poles with plenty of time left in the match. I'm not hating on the teams that did this; however, I'm slightly disappointed that we didn't see higher scores due to the fact that, for many teams, it was not worth the trouble.

I hope the GDC has learned not to over-value any one scoring aspect of the game, especially not the endgame.

[J_Miles]

I hope the GDC has learned not to over-value any one scoring aspect of the game, especially not the endgame.

Last year the opposite complaint could have been made about the endgame: few teams did it and did it well because it was worth so little and was so difficult (a good number elevated, but VERY few even attempted suspension).

The trouble with your comment is that the GDC can't possibly know how the game is going to turn out. Go back and watch the game animation from this year's kickoff: Dave specifically mentions that to get tubes, teams will have to traverse the entire playing field. From this is can be inferred that the GDC did not expect human players to be throwing tubes across the field into their own scoring zones. I think that with Breakaway, scores ended up climbing higher than the GDC expected, which caused the endgame to be undervalued. This year the endgame was, in fact, overvalued, but I think that, again, this was caused by the GDC being unable to predict exactly how matches would play out throughout the season, and you can't begrudge them that, as the game will invariably be played, in some ways, differently than the GDC intended almost every year.

[AlecMataloni]

You're absolutely right. It's wrong to blame the GDC for not being able to see into the future; however, if the game played out like they may have expected (with only slot loading robots), there's a possibility of tube scoring being even less frequent (with lane congestion issues, more defense, etc.) and the minibot race would've been even more over-valued.

[AdamHeard]

I personaly don't know why were changing any of the scoring rules. The penalties are understandable but changing the way robots score doesn't make sense to me.

I would like the score board to display the times each minibot got(maybe that could decide points?). But having all minibots get the same amount of points just doesn't make sense to me, it removes the competitiveness and challenge of that part of the game.

The current setup rewards the 1st minibot with the advantage(if all 4 minbots reach the top) so even if they get 1st and 4th, they still lead that part of the game with 5 points. Certainly something that a good tube scorer can get around.

IRI traditional changes the rules, there are going to be changes.

I like keeping the minibot scoring, as it benefits us. But i'd be fine with it being changed.

[bduddy]

You're absolutely right. It's wrong to blame the GDC for not being able to see into the future; however, if the game played out like they may have expected (with only slot loading robots), there's a possibility of tube scoring being even less frequent (with lane congestion issues, more defense, etc.) and the minibot race would've been even more over-valued.The main problem with the tube scoring in this game, IMO, is that ultimately most good alliances were able to fill the top row and most/all of the second row; at that point, additional tubes did not change the score much. I suspect the GDC was thinking it would not be so easy, and thus the differences between alliances would come in filling the top two rows, making for different score differences... of course I'm completely guessing here.

[sgreco]

After reading this thread again and all of the suggested changes, it seems that there is one problem with the game that everyone agrees on: People don't want otherwise-even matches to come down to the "minibot coinflip".

I personally would focus on basing the changes around having matches not be decided by a tenth of second in the minibot race, and actually be decided by effective strategy and execution on the field.

[Ben Martin]

I would like to see a new scoring configuration for IRI where the maximum number of scorable points remains the same, with a diminished value of the minibot race and increased value of tube scoring. To me, keeping the maximum score intact insures that the game we play at IRI is as close to the game we played during the season as possible. I do believe in diminishing the value of the minibot race however, since it allows teams to spend the summer not having to worry about optimizing a minibot and reduces the percentage of the match that robots are parked in front of towers waiting to deploy their minibots.

I personally like the IRI planning committee's idea of making each minibot worth 20 points (the maximum score remains the same). Almost every team (if not every team) attending IRI has a minibot on board, thus if deployments are executed correctly, the winner of the match will come down to tube placement. Even though the value of the bottom row of tubes is low, by decreasing the point differential between the minibot placements to zero, those tubes are inherently more valuable.

If the minibot race must remain a race, the points awarded could be 22-18-18-18 or a similar point number that keeps the point differential small and allows for minimal changes to the original rules.

[J_Miles]

You're absolutely right. It's wrong to blame the GDC for not being able to see into the future; however, if the game played out like they may have expected (with only slot loading robots), there's a possibility of tube scoring being even less frequent (with lane congestion issues, more defense, etc.) and the minibot race would've been even more over-valued.

Ah! Got me! This is true. I was simply stating examples. As far as this game is concerned, I do think you're right. My statement was more of a blanket statement regarding possible future oversights. I'm honestly stumped as to why the endgame is so highly valued this year. At our kickoff strategy session we did the calculations to determine the highest possible score and realized that taking first and second place in the minibot race contributed just short of 33% of that maximum score...I would think the GDC would have come to the same conclusion...maybe they didn't expect as many teams to successfully complete the endgame goal based off of previous years' experiences?

[Kevin Kolodziej]

What about this for minibots:

If only one minibot scores, its worth 10 points
If two minibots score, 1st gets 10, 2nd gets 15
If three minibots score, 1st gets 20, 2nd gets 15, third gets 10
If four minibots score, 1st gets 30, 2nd gets 20, 3rd gets 15, 4th gets 10

This way, if only alliance scores two minibots and the other scores none, its not a 50 point bonus, its only a 25 point bonus, which CAN be made up in tube points (depending on ubertubes and fullness of the rack, and other contemplated scoring changes).

[Ken Streeter]

In order to reduce lane violations, I would suggest that IRI simply shorten the length of the LANES, as was done at BattleCry@WPI12. The BattleCry rule change is below: (from http://www.wpi.edu/news/Events/BattleCry/rules.html )

Arena Modification: At the end of the FIELD opposite from the ALLIANCE STATION, LANES are marked on the carpet for each ALLIANCE. There are two LANES for each ALLIANCE, located in each of the opposing corners of the FIELD. Each LANE extends for approximately 7 feet from the opposing ALLIANCE WALL toward the center of the FIELD. Each LANE extends inwards approximately 4 feet 3 inches from the edge of the FIELD.

* The LANE ends at the end of the LANE DIVIDER.

What the above did was limit the length of the protected LANE to be only as long as the lane divider. From what I heard of BattleCry, this reduced the lane violations to nearly zero.

I'm not entirely sure as I didn't personally attend BattleCry, but I believe there was a "10-count" given to opposing robots which entered the modified section of the lane (between the end of the lane divider and the tower). This served to prevent robots from blocking off the feeder stations, yet prevented robots from receiving penalties from a momentary accidental incursion, or even a brief dash into that area to pick up a tube. (If an opposing robot were to remain in that area for 10 seconds, they would receive the same penalty as for pinning.)