![]() |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
I would still love to see a use for the center bridge.
I'll join the chorus of "hey, I'm really OK with the rule change, and I'm not speaking for my whole team," but I don't want to back off from my early and consistent hope that a 10-point center bridge bonus (heck, even 5-points) were available to counterbalance* the huge bonus for triples. *See what I did there? ;} Thinking through the probabilities: the benefit of tripling through the quals (which I do find highly enticing!) is that the many strong robots at IRI will get over twice the opportunity to practice this skill. As a result, there will be a lot of failed attempts. This means a lot of flipped robots and bent stingers. The potential for costly disaster is much higher with the arbitrary alliances of the quals. I am not "against" the rule change; I am in the category of "tweak the tweak." My personal (and strongly yet respectfully submitted) opinion remains that there should be some mitigating opportunity for a robot/driver to compensate for an opponent's 20-point surge. |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Quote:
I thought that MSC is was going to come down to win/loss but everyone else thought the same thing. Teams risked going for the win more then going for the co-op. I think you would have seen the same thing at IRI. (I know this was an old post and people aren't really discussing the co-op rule change. But I thought it was interesting information.) Also see the Co-op success rates for the rest of the Michigan events here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=105441 -Clinton- |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Quote:
Win/Loss Top 10 Code:
469 - 22Code:
469 - 46However, I'm going to leave this stat here. On average at MSC, a match was one by 19 points (19.3046875, to be exact). So on average, the 20 extra points from the triple would have changed the winner of the match. If the original losing alliance had gone for a triple and the original winning alliance hadn't gone for a triple in the matches where the outcome of the match could have been changed by 20 points, 75 matches would have been changed (approx 59% of the matches played at MSC). If someone has a link for the long vs wide at MSC, I'd be more than willing to do basically the same thing that Joe Ross did for MSC. Since, as it is now, it's hard to draw a conclusion based off of only that data. |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Quote:
My completely unnecessary 2 cents: I like the change. I really don't think that the sky is falling because of it. There are still plenty of strategic options. Reducing the triple balance by 10 points in quals would make it completely unbalanced and worthless in my opinion. |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
I think this rule change really emphasizes the difference between IRI and the main FIRST organization. I remember a few years back when IRI's slogan was "Where the egos go to play", and I think that's why this change was made. In the regular FRC season, it's all about providing as many opportunities for as many teams to win as possible. This means that teams who built first class robots may not beat a rookie team with a wooden frame and an upturned bucket protecting the cRio. But IRI isn't a FIRST sanctioned event, and IRI is all about the robot. IRI is where teams get to show off, shake their tail feathers, and win for the sake of winning, instead of for spreading STEM inspiration. This rule change is all about that: coopertition allows teams who by all rights should be dead last to rank in the top 8. Removing coopertition allows the game to be won in a much more standard fashion. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it is definitely something to keep in mind as we argue about this.
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
After running the data on MSC, assuming that a Triple Balance is successful, if 2 or more Wide Bots are on the Alliance.
26 Matches would have a different out come. Code:
Match Red 1 Red 2 Red 3 Blue 1 Blue 2 Blue 3 Rscore Bscore Win Red 1 Red 2 Red 3 Blue 1 Blue 2 Blue 3 R#Wide B#Wide RTriple BTriple Rnew Bnew NewWin Diff |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Ranking determined by winning. Winning determined by accumulating more points than the opposing alliance. Points scored by balls going thru hoops, plus balancing on bridges, minus penalties.
Coop pts eliminated, and Triple balance added to qualifying matches. Kinda late, but I think it would have been really fun to have the Coop part be included in the Triple Balance - 2/3 pts to one alliance, and 1/3 to the other. Incentive with very high risk/reward or no reward - for those matches where the alliance probability of having 3 wides is very high, yet not so, if including all 6 robots. Heck, make that score even higher than an regular old normal triple, with 3 bots from the same team. That also keeps some opportunity for both teams to continue to score baskets until the end. Excitement and fame for all teams, if they want to try the very illusive CTB (Coop Triple Balance). Wish I was attending, Have fun - I think that is still the objective, regardless of the rules. Mike |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Quote:
You're essentially exchanging time spent co-oping for time spent tripling, assuming they both take roughly the same amount of time. Amirite? It's still all about who can triple faster - who can spend maximum time scoring before breaking away to triple. If your random alliance can't triple, then it's about starting the countdown clock when the opponent breaks away, and hoping to Jeebus you can make up the difference in that time. Can you allocate TWO bots to scoring during that triple time, and still have time to double? You might have to if the triple alliance is hella fast. Or you get one bot balanced early as insurance and the other two keep scoring, hoping the triple alliance screws up royally. Or (if it is ALLOWED, which I'm still going to harp about until the IRI folks explicitly define what is legal IRI triple D), the third bot goes and blows up the triple while the other two keep scoring, and one balances late. It's going to be a lot fun in most random pairing configurations, until it isn't (the no matter what you do, you're hosed scenario I've outlined ad nauseum). Finally, count me as one who wants the lonely, neglected co-op bridge to be worth something to spice things up a bit more. We haven't had a king of the hill anything since 2004! Speaking of 2004 - OOOH OOOH CRAZY THOUGHT - let's go retro and give teams the option to play without their bumpers....more room on the bridge... :p |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Enough already.
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Quote:
I remember that gold frame with lexan paneling jousting atop the Stack Attack ramp. I also remember needing to sawzall a chunk of 1075's 2004 frame out because the 1" square tubing got whacked so hard it had moved ~1" into the wheel and was preventing it from turning. |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
I would like to have seen triple balancing in quals, but make the score 30 rather than 40. 40 points is just too much in quals when co-op points aren't available.
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Quote:
![]() Didn't look like that at the end of the season (we ditched the center wheels), but close enough. I might have video of your match from the 2003 Canadian Regional up at homarv13 on YouTube. Not sure if I uploaded all of them. 1114's first ever robot is featured in one of the matches. Little known fact - some maintenance lackeys at a local university where that robot was stored likely pilfered that robot and sold it for scrap. The bot was stolen. So sad. We don't like that place much any more. |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Looks like not. We made it all the way to the finals that year, with 188 and 306.
|
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
The amount of successful co-op balances likely to take place at IRI really negates the whole effect the co-op points would have on the rankings.
However, the added triple balance bonus in qualification rounds is an interesting change. But it is not a game changer. IRI will have teams with new drivers. It's going to be impossible to practice triple balancing with all of your alliance partners throughout the qualification rounds before your matches. Even with 3 wide robots, triple balancing is difficult, case and point made here. These guys had plenty of practice with this too, and it still fell apart. (Sorry Mr. Lim, but it was the best example I could come up with.) All of these stats people have are with veteran drivers. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you will see two, max three successful qualification triple balances. So longbots, need not to worry. -Nick |
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
Quote:
I can only speak for my team, but back in January, we had a quite lengthy discussion on whether to go wide/long. We eventually decided on long (but with weight distributed back so we could overhang). We came to this conclusion as you could only balance two robots for both qualification alliance bridges and coop bridges. I LOVE the point Evan brought up Quote:
After talking with Justin, and reading Tyler's post, I'm in complete agreement. Quote:
Sorry for the rambling, IRI will be fun no matter what. Mike |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:25. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi