Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

That is not necesarily true. While it is more difficult to triple in some cases, there are plenty of long bots that are capable of tripling. 217, 1114, 2056 all have their own dinguses to help tripling. Wave 2826 *almost* tripled with HOT in Archimedes, and Robostang has tripled as well, and that is just off the top of my head. There are plenty long bots that can triple.

(Thanks to Adam for correcting me)

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

Unfortunately, Wave has never tripled with HOT in an actual match. That was part of the problem.

Now I will go sit in the corner and cry...


Regarding Triple Balancing in Quals - I agree with Paul...teams can either decide to triple, block it, or attempt to out score it. It just adds another element of strategy to qualification matches.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

I like that idea alot!

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

If I may make a comment, while I do like the discussion that is happening, it is kind of irrelevant to the topic. Mr. Fultz gave us three options, and from what it sounds like they have probably narrowed it down to these three from all the other suggestions in the other IRI thread. So I believe that they have decided to not allow triples in quals for whatever their own reasons are.

That said, I like option 3.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

While I won't attend IRI, I agree with Paul. IRI is traditionally all about being competitive on the field the whole time.

The biggest incentive to add in a triple balance is that it will give more opportunities to teams to *try* a triple balance when they've never been on an alliance that had an incentive to do one. More triples = more excitement for the successes and more heartache for the teams who fall off.

Are HP's/BP's still being tracked at IRI? Towards the end of a full set of Qual matches, one would be hard-pressed to find two teams with identical QP's and HP's. Yet if BP's were tracked (much easier) at IRI, then that could be the secondary sort after W-L-T, thus incentivizing the triple balance.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

There will not be a co-op award at IRI.

Andy B.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

Triple balance in quals sounds like fun!

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

OK, fine. Revised option 4: 2 co-op points for every co-op. It is not used at all in the rankings, but for every co-op point earned at IRI Innovation First will donate $50 to the IRI Scholarship fund. Triple balances count in qualifiers and every robot balanced on the co-op bridge is worth 10 points for that color alliance.

C'mon Andy and Chris, let's breaks some eggs and make Omelets!!

EDIT: By the way, many voting processes in the US have a write in option. I am exercising that right with option 4! Option 4! Option 4! Option 4!

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

How about Option #5: Eliminate co-op points, but make the middle bridge worth 5 points to any robot that balances on it at the end? It would narrow the 7 ball gap, slightly, needed to out score a triple balance with a double balance, which could make for some exciting matches and create some interesting defensive strategies.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

Give a group of engineers the choice of three options, and they'll pick choice number seven.

Having said that,
::stand and applaud::
Although - I could see this becoming a no-holds-barred king-of-the-hill contest for the middle bridge, resulting in more than one broken body upon the white altar.

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

What if the "random" match scheduler puts 3 longs on an alliance? Or 2 longs and a wide that isn't compatible? This option certainly gives some designs an advantage over others, if other rule modifications are not made to level the playing field in such situations.

Even as a longbot, I'm potentially ok with allowing triples in qualifying (we've got a stinger, we can hang off the bridge - we're game), and I agree that all triples all the time sounds more exciting (maybe not for pit crews dealing with agony of defeat moments), but "Option 4" is a definite non-starter for me, UNLESS...

...IRI relaxes the namby-pamby bridge defense rules implemented at the championship - no penalties of death if triples are attempted on the alliance's basket side of the field. If defenders want to park over to block, and they are pushed into the bridge - tough. No 40-point penalties. Nothing. You widebot stinger boys want to triple - get ready to do it by fighting through some pain, break away from scoring and line up earlier, or cross the bump and get your butts lined up in the protected area where ye belong. :)

Option 4 is too much reward for a certain subset of robots, with not enough risk.

I do like some kind of co-op bridge charitable incentive option, especially if Copioli is writing the check. :-P

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

Given a free choice I'd be up for triples in quals. It will make the rankings the most accurate possible by making the game the same between qualifications and elminations, while also giving people more practice and better scouting for triples resulting in more exciting finals.
If forced into the three I'd pick option 1

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

You want a bloody altar? Let the team with the most co-op points at the end of qualifying get to bestow the accumulated funds to one of their seniors, their discretion. :p

Re: Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote
 

I see your point. So, perhaps the committee would consider relaxing all of defense-inhibiting rules, I mean why draw the line at bridges :yikes:

But seriously, Chris explained their intent around game play and their philosophy about rules changes. I agree that Paul's suggestion has merit. I also think that it is outside of the box that they chose to work in.

That said, if they do add that option and we are fortunate enough to be invited, we, being among that certain subset, would be inclined to support it :D

This isn't without precident, especially after last year's changes.

I vote option #4, because it takes co-op bridge out of the rankings. (And no bias either, we made it up to 11th with co-op points and ended up winning the regional.) I feel co-op is really pointless at IRI where either everyone tries to co-op or nobody does. If I have to vote within the 3, it'd be option #3. Again, get co-op out of the rankings at such a high competition event.