Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Coopertition is a game concept. Not a core value.

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

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Autonomous: 6 balls placed anywhere the alliance wants.

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Under the header of "Core Values"...

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

The Moneyball

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

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

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

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


EDIT:

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMHO, It should be like this:

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



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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

Larry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

(Long post ahead)

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


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

We have an alliance in Qualification XXX:

1 Shootbot
2 Boxbot
3 Shootbot

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

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

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

With co-op points so valuable, this occurs:

(% of maximum possible)

1.

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

2.


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

3.


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

4.

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

5.

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

IMHO a bad rule is a bad rule.

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

Respectfully submitted; re : Moneyball

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

...Or Like the VRC Skills Challenge

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

No reason to make IRI easier.

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

-Duke

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Back to IRI rule change ideas?

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

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

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

5) No maximum ball penalty in hybrid

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

BUMPERS. OPTIONAL.

:D

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

(emphasis mine)

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

OK, now for the other one...

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

Beat me to it.

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

-Duke

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

So each alliance still owns its alley, but not the bridge that leads to it? The words "Key, Alley, or Bridge" replace by "Key or Alley" in [G29]? And [G25] replaced by a rule (wording TBD) that protects the act of balancing a bridge? Is this what you mean?

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

Correct, I hit enter prematurely...:)

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Best of luck to everyone at Champs!

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

I think I can simplify it a bit.

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

So onto rule modifications enhancements:

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

I like this, even more than doing anything about the scoring with two. (Assuming, of course, that each alliance has a robot on there. Gotta keep the spirit. :))

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Wetzel

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

Why not go nano-bot?

This is a FTC bot that releases a smaller bot to score the magnet ball.
Crazy.

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

The strategies could be interesting.

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

Not yet available.

Wetzel

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

A possible process to implement something like this:

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

In light of recent developments:
Triple balance co-op is worth 3 co-op points. Quadruple balance co-op is worth 4 co-op points.
(co-op balancing must feature at least one robot from each alliance, of course)

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

IRI seeding algorithm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

Eliminate it.

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Wetzel

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

-Duke

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Purely Theoretical:

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

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

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

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

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

When will the rule changes be posted?

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

We will target June 18-ish for an annoucement.

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

I look forward to it, thanks.

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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

Re: IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas
 

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