Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Do not continue from this point until you define the game and the match.

This is where the people who like the rule change and those who don't like it differ. They have different definitions of the game. Those who like it say that the rule change focuses on winning the match. What match?

First I'll look at the "2:15" match definition. In that match of the game, each match lasts 2:15, and the game is to win each match. People who see the IRI rule change as a good thing will tend to cite the number of what you might call "sub-par" teams in the top 8, fairly high in the top 8, in fact, and the relatively high number of teams who were really good but not in the top 8 as a bad thing. They tend to express the opinion that coop points ruined the game. They play by the Game section of the Manual.

Now, I'll look at another definition. In this, a "match" is about the length of a regional. A game lasts a full season. This is where the people who don't like the IRI change tend to hang out. The game they play is defined by the Game and Tournament sections of the Manual. The game changes every year. This group plays to win events.

In normal play, the two definitions are the same for about 5 hours. Saturday afternoons at a regional or district are full of teams playing to win matches to win events. But before then, there are teams who play to win matches and teams who look at their rankings, knowing that the only way to guarantee a spot in the eliminations is to be top 8. These ranking-watchers know that they can affect their rankings by scoring for their opponent--or, in extreme cases, actively preventing themselves from scoring. Teams like that understand the full game, top to bottom.

IRI is different, however. Normally, the rule change affects the game play as defined by the Game section of the Manual. This year, it affects the game play as defined by the Tournament section of the Manual. Does it penalize teams unfairly? Possibly. But not for sure. Does it take away the meta-game that was discussed during the season? Definitely. Is that meta-game important?

That question is one that each team decided during the season. In my personal opinion, it was very important to play that meta-game well during the season. At IRI, it has no value.


For many sports leagues, there is actually a meta-game. It's called seeding. If you win, you get so many points towards seeding. If you lose, you might not get any--or you might get some based on how much you scored. It is possible, in some leagues, to lose a single game--and yet come out ahead in the meta-game by scoring a lot of points in those losses, forcing your opponents to score even more to beat you.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Perhaps the skills developed by teams surrounding the "art of the co-op" are not solely centered around the robot?

In addition to a solid drivetrain, perhaps the skills that separate good co-op teams from those who aren't as regularly able to take advantage of it include the ability to effectively strategize with the opposing alliance before the match and communicate an effective co-op plan, and repeat and execute that planning process every match, like clockwork. Knowing how best to:

1. Decide which two robots will co-op (there was a standard we used all season that worked very well for us here).
2. Decide when the teams would head for the co-op bridge.
3. Decide who would tend the bridge.
4. Decide how and where the 2nd bot gets on.
5. Communicate the balancing method - who "leads the dance".
6. Convince the opposition that you would honor the co-op contract and had the driver skills/robot capability necessary to make it work.
7. Make it clear that robots violating the co-op contract by continuing to score instead of balancing would incur your graciously professional wrath.
8. And accomplish all this within a very short amount of time.

I don't think these things were as easy to accomplish as people make them out to be, especially at events where the pool of co-op partners was filled with more robots/teams with various deficiencies. Navigating that minefield successfully at each regional/district was a learned skill.

I understand why the co-op bridge process has been removed at IRI, but let's not trivialize the efforts of those who were able to grasp what the GDC was intending for teams to accomplish at the bridge and use the system to their advantage.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

So with the advent of these rule changes and the quality of the robots at IRI will we finally see the advent of a major ball starvation strategy?

If you have 3 robots that have a more than reasonable chance of tripping and are decent at ball collecting would it be advantageous to collect 15 of the balls before going to triple so the other alliance can't put up big points on you while your trying?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I don't understand this point. Teams will win/lose just as much as before.

The co-op would've been negligible at IRI anyway with a 90%+ success rate, so why even have it? Teams would've been sorted win/loss pretty much.

The removal of co-op is completely separate from the addition of triples, and shouldn't upset anyone once you analyze what likely would have happened.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Of course, the same strategy could be played by those expecting an opposing triple, preserving ammo for late in the match for that final scoring + double push.

A lot probably depends on who wins hybrid mode.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

This sort of thing happened before every single FRC qualification match I was the coach in, and it's been a while since I was in the booth so it can't be a new thing :). To imply that the Coopertition bridge introduced Cooperation to FRC is somewhat silly.

It is a skill, but not a new skill -- it just meant you needed to talk to 6 teams instead of 3.

-John

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

John:

"co-op" was short for "co-op bridge" in my last post. The GDC-intended interaction with opposing teams added a unique new challenge this season to the pre-existing "art of the co-op" with alliance partners. If I was unclear, my apologies.

I believe this is the first time where such communication and interaction with opponents was so heavily promoted by the game designers and so successfully facilitated by a game dynamic.

I think a drive team interacting with 5 teams per match instead of 2 is a positive thing. :)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

While not a completely new skill, there was definitely something different about the coop bridge. Since you cannot communicate with your opponents during the match (excluding hand signals, i did my fair share of flailing) you really needed to go over every possible scenario with your coop partner. Often times this seemed repetitive, yet at the Lake Superior regional in matches when our bridge manipulator broke, or 2 of our opponents died we were still able to achieve a coop balance.

At our first regional, I really liked the coop bridge. Coop balances were rare, and many of our coop partners had not double balanced before. It was pretty cool to congratulate our opponents after we had a successful coop balance. As the year progressed, the pre match discussions began to shorten, as it became expected for teams to coop. Post match, successful coop balances began to lose their luster, and the failed ones upset all teams involved. It was at that point that the "coopertition" bridge began to lose its meaning to me, and I believe IRI would have taken it to the next level. With the expected 90%+ success rate, the successes would be virtually ignored, and a failed attempt could lead to some serious tension between teams.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Someone should scrape this thread and analyze correlation between base orientation and objection to this change.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

*and whether or not the poster's team is attending IRI.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think the reason for the correlation is the long guys chose long because they felt the benefits outweighed the drawbacks in the game as it was presented at the beginning of the season. The wide bot teams went down the opposite road, choosing to take the potential maneuverability and stability penalties in favor of a better chance of triple balancing. But now, we are playing a game that the robots are, effectively, not designned to play. Instead of only needing to triple with an alliance of your choosing, which could be tailored to fit its captains robot, you get a random alliance for all of your qualification matches. Many teams would probably have built a different robot to play these rules than the ones they came to competition with.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

We're not attending octocanum. :D

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Does any of the below really surprise anyone?

Folks are welcome to correct any of these, or diversify the lists. I skimmed through very quickly.

This is in reference to #3 rule change only.

<Snip edited list in post below>

I also know of one other longbot team attending who is not in favor of #3 but does not believe the net disadvantage toward longs will be that large. I'm tending to agree with that person, but I am of the mind that any unfairness at all is blar and wish it would not be present. We, too, will abide by whatever rules are ultimately the law of the land.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

This is an interesting list. Your addition of "ain't no big thing, we'll beat it" and "triples are overrated" to opposing the change is really inaccurate though. Go back, read Tyler's post. Him and anyone with similar opinions are definitely in the pro (or at least neutral) camp

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

You don't need to be an alliance captain to do well. No, seeding may change some. Honestly, the teams at IRI know are there because they know how to win and awould be smart enough to coop nearly every match anyway so I don't know how much the rankings will actually be affected. The robots that win their matches will seed accordingly and strategically select partners for the elimination rounds. If you are a long robot, and you don't think you can play the new qualification style, then so be it. If you can shoot well, if you can balance with a planned alliance, if you can prove that your team would be a valued member of the winning alliance, then you will get picked, and you wil probably do well. If we consider 359 last year, they were not the alliance captain. They had an outstanding robot and were pciked as a backup team for the (if I recall correctly, please correct me if I am wrong) 4th seeded alliance. They got to play, and they helped the alliance win. You may not seed 1st, but that doesn't mean you can't do well. My team won't be attending so my words not may hold much value here. I still think Holtzman said it best.


Second, I think there are two debates going on here. Debate #1: For/Against. Debate #2: We hate it/Stop whining.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Hey I'm padding the stats to start. :D

Those who are indifferent/defiant to the presence of triples are definitely not pro. I can dig NEUTRAL. Let's refine:

#DISCLAIMER - a team number appearing below indicates a member of that team has indicated their preference for rule #3 one way or another. That does not automatically mean the entire team shares their viewpoint. It was easier to note the CD user's team number. If two members of a team indicate differing opinions, I will indicate this via their usernames. Not that this list is anything more than an informal two-minute skim of information that was already clear from reading the thread. :-)

PRO:

• 67 (W)
• 68 (W)
• 234 (W)
• 341 (W)
• 868 (SQ)
• 907 (W)
• 3940 (W)
• 4334 (W)

NEUTRAL:

• 33 (W)
• 359 (L)
• 548 (L)
• 829 (W)
• 1640 (SW)
• 2056 (L)

CON:

• 48 (L)
• 340 (L)
• 461 (L)
• 744 (L)
• 772 (L)
• 2168 (L)
• 2337 (L)
• 3193 (L)
• 3310 (L)
• Secret Unnamed Team (L)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Exactly, as I've said earlier in so many words I dislike the co-op bridge based on principle because it puts teams in situations where they have to choose between winning and ranking high and where winning does not necessarily get you a high final rank. I find that crazy. As others have said, at IRI the co-op bridge would be balanced most matches and would not really affect the outcome of the final rankings to sufficiently justify it as such a major part of the seeding system. As such, even if it did not force teams into the above there is no real reason to include it other than because that is the way it has been for the regular season. So, all other feelings aside, I am really looking forward to seeing some fantastic matches being played and extremely exciting end games at the IRI.

Hope to see you all there!
Regards, Bryan

Edit: Travis, could you please put 33 in Neutral. As I said eariler:

Oh, and because the topic of conversation seems to have shifted towards triple balancing in qualifications. I have to say that I agree that it is not a good rule modification. While the rule does not greatly affect my team I know I would be upset if I built a long robot and this change was made. So while I understand if the rule stays, I hope that a solution can be agreed upon that does not so heavily disadvantage long robots.

Thank you.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I didn't post pro or con just posed a question. Put us in neutral please.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Definitely overlooked that one. Fixed! Thanks for the sympathy. Are you sure you don't want to change your vote to CON? Come to the dark side! :cool:

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I view this as a lesser change than the weightings of minibots last year in terms of "not playing the game we designed to play". Where was the outrage last year?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Haha, will there be fruitcake? But seriously, I can't really speak for my team without consulting them. Thus far, all of the things that I have said in this thread, while reflecting on my team, are in fact my own opinions. As it is, I think I'll say in Neutral where no one is mad at me.:D

Regards, Bryan

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

A team with the fastest minibot has a right to be mad about one of their most useful features being made less significant. I believe that applies in this situation too. Why would a team that benefits from a rule change, object?



Also I would like to be moved to neutral...I may not like it, but I don't speak for our entire team ::eek: We are long though, and I suspect the kids would be rather upset if they lost a match because they couldn't triple with an incompatible alliance.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Love the changes. Didn't think they would do the changes, but really happy they did.

BTW, this is not the biggest change they have made to an FRC game. I claim the biggest change was in 2003 for the both the qualifying and eliminations.

I can't wait to MC this year!

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I would characterize 341 as neutral, not pro. Even though the changes favor our particular design, it does produce a different game. Changing the game always raises concerns about what the end result will be. My previous comment was only made to point out that tripling in the qualifying rounds may be trickier than people think. However, we are ready to play either game and we respect the organizers right to change the game at an off-season event.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

As a team with a long bot we kind of saw this coming we knew this would make the game more interesting throughout the day. However, it does hurt us for now, but we have decided to use this as an opportunity to better our bot in a way that we should have at the beginning of the season. 5 pounds is a lot and there is a lot you can do with it :D ;) :cool:

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

First, I would say 744 is in the neutral camp. Does it kinda suck for us? yeah. But all that means is that we're adapting our robot in an attempt to make it triple easier. We're (trying to) add a stinger and a lot of smaller tweaks. There are three of us are in the lab every day working on the robot like it's build season. (we were almost done with what was originally just tweaking until this rule change came out, but we're not letting that stop us, we're gonna make us as competitive as we can)

Also, I think the below post accurately describes why a team would build a different robot with these rules. A triple in the eliminations can be carefully designed by a long bot captain, but a triple in qualifiers is a completely different animal, albeit, and animal we're willing to face.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

What were the changes made to the 2003 game?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

This thread is a train wreck, I know I shouldn't read it, but I can't pry my eyes away. Seriously, I think we can all agree this thread jumped off the tracks as soon as EricH started talking about street ball.

In the midst of some these inane arguments was a really intelligent post by Joe Ross, I recommend that you all read it carefully.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=38

Things aren't nearly as dire for long robots as people are making it seem. Throw in the fact that there are already many known strategies to counter the triple balance, as well as an entire community brainstorming new ones, I think the long robots will do just fine. Sure things seem to get a harder for them in qualifying, but you know, "limits, like fears, are often just an illusion..."

I would be curious to see an actual poll conducted about these rules changes. 6 options: Long in favour, Long don't care, Long oppose, Short in favour, Short don't care, Short oppose.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Travis, please put 68 in neutral or remove them from your list, the opinions and thoughts of one or 2 students is not the opinion on the whole team, nor should it be treated as such. I'll refrain from posting anything else about the IRI rules (I'm more than slightly biased as we are a wide bot, as stated above), besides that they're going to change strategies up quite a bit.

Good luck, and see you all in Indiana!

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Do we have to include a disclaimer in each of our posts that
I am in no way posting in an official capacity for my team, and that any opinions contained within this post represent the opinions of the poster, and not the opinions of the entire team.


By the way, won't triple balancing in qualifications benefit your team when you demonstrate that you're able to do it with another long bot? Won't that help generic assumptions made about the necessary composition of elimination alliances more than the effort you'd have to put in demonstrating on the practice field that you're able to triple in a controlled environment? Food for thought.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I approve of the rule changes.

(Then again, I was one the first posters to suggest it in the rule suggestions thread).

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Holy cow is there any horse left to beat! ;)

I think the new rule change is interesting but not a real game changer! Many alliances that have the capability to triple won't unless absolutely necessary because the the undue risk it entails. Most alliances will double balance and have one robot stay on offense, others will try to triple and fail in the process because it isn't easy, and some will triple and succeed because they are good.

Any team attending IRI with little to no experience with triple balancing should look at team 1717 and the drills they ran to beat the triple balance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzHHwj2qZo

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

No, but perhaps there will be cookies.

I edited the list and indicated your sentiment in a disclaimer - the presence of a team number in the list only means a person on the team indicated their preference - it does not mean the entire team thinks that way (although let's be real - it seems logical to me that most wide team members would like the rule or haven't said they like it, while most long team members would dislike the rule or are defiantly neutral). If another team member indicates a differing opinion from you, I'd indicate that by including your CD username.

Not that I really want to keep updating the thing - I think the point is made - wides tend to like it/are neutral-pro-biased; longs tend to dislike it/are neutral-against-biased.

Perhaps relatively few IRI teams were so "minibot-heavy" on capabilities last year such that their tube scoring capabilities couldn't make up for the loss of minibot points? Most teams were like "ok we'll just hang more tubes".

This year, some teams in attendance are more likely to be affected by a random pairing that gives the opposition a scoring advantage based on physical drive base orientation. Can that be countered by increased basket scoring plus a double and/or defense (the legal application of which has yet to be defined) and/or dark magic? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not.

And heck longs aren't the only ones at risk - what if a wide is placed in an alliance with two incompatible longs, while the opposing alliance is a 3 wide who triples uber fast?

This rule would make perfect sense if you could guarantee that each and every alliance was at least physically capable of tripling each match, but ya can't.

Joe Ross can analyze the numbers all he wants to indicate that the problem *isn't so bad* (thanks, by the way), but guess what...it's still a problem! And for me, even ONE match occurrence of [alliances match hybrid/teleop scoring prior to endgame (GEE - seems like based on that they should have an equal chance at winning the match, no? But wait, there's more...), one alliance can triple very quickly and does/other alliance cannot triple and does not have enough time to overcome, non-tripling alliance loses (thanks for playing, though...)] is one occurrence too many. Oh well, tough break, losing alliance. Sucks to be you! ;)

I was done debating this on Page 4 (really, go back and check), but the request for a list based on orientation sucked me back in. I will now retire *Mass applause* ...unless someone really rocks the boat in the other direction. Or I can find a dead pig to beat (we can roast it and eat it for dinner on Friday afterward). So shhhhhh. Longs uber alles!

...now how about some more scintillating debate on Rule #2, eh?!!?!

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Some time has past since the rule change was announced. At first I was shocked and mad by the major change to the game. After talking it out and cooling down I'm more OK with it. First is like the real world. Government regulatory agencies change rules all the time. I must change my business process to meet the rule changes and continue to make money. The IRI regulatory agency has changed the rules. Our team will adapt and find strategies to deal with the rule changes and compete to the best of our ability. In real life I do not have the power or money to contest government rules. Our team can not change the IRI rules. We will use the grey matter and find a way to thrive.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Kind of lost in all the bigger movings and shakings was the simple "fix" of putting balls shot over the endline into the corral instead of back onto the field.

Maybe they'll just do that, and they won't be publicizing it? :)

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
 

I don't know if I agree with that. I think that MSC would be the closes thing to IRI interms of level of competition. The Co-op success rate was only 73% at MSC, which is very high but not 90%+.

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
 

Even if you base MSC data off of just win/loss, your rankings within the top 10 basically shuffle. You drop/gain 2 teams.

Win/Loss Top 10
Compared to the Coop Top 10:
Dropping coop at IRI isn't an issue at all.

However, 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
 

While this is interesting, do keep in mind that tripling is taking another ball scorer away from the game. If the tripling alliance scores even one less ball on average, than tripling wouldn't have an outcome on the average match.

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.

-Clinton-

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
 

Wouldn't most matches at MSC have all six bots going for bridges regardless? Old way - the third alliance bot went for the co-op bridge while the other two doubled, at about the same time the new way's three alliance bots would be going for the triple.

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
 

Speaking as someone who saw xtremachen back in 2003 for the first time at the then Canadian Regional: Must be someone from 48 suggesting a return to the pre-bumper days.

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
 

Ahhh, the good old days.



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
 

This list says it perfectly! Notice a trend? You can't deny it! Those for the rule change are all wide bots, while those against it are all long bots. This would be similar to the MLB extending the salary cap. All the Yankees fans would be totally for it (because they could afford it), while the Astros fans would be totally against it (as they couldn't afford anyone else). You would be giving an unfair advantage to certain teams, and that's what the IRI planning committee is doing here, whether it was their "intent" or not. Not a tit for tat example but hopefully you get my idea.

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 So they pretty much did the exact OPPOSITE of what they said they were going to do. Rule #3 is in no way a "slight change". "Minor" rule changes wouldn't have teams question the reason why they built the robot they did.

After talking with Justin, and reading Tyler's post, I'm in complete agreement.
Triple balancing is HARD. Teams could barely perfect it by Finals Match 3, and that was after trying it up to 8 times before then. You have to nail a triple with two teams you may never have done it with before. Justin made a good prediction that teams are going to realize how hard it is, and after many failures by a lot of alliances, teams are just going to stop trying for the triple balance during qualifications, and go back to the double. Many alliances died by the triple balance; attempting the triple when only needing a double, or just failing at the triple for a loss throughout the season(148/33 and 67/2826 for example). The triple balance during quals at IRI will be high risk for little reward. There are going to be so many great scorers there, the extra 20 points won't be that significant and in my opinion won't make the difference in too many matches.
Sorry for the rambling, IRI will be fun no matter what.
Mike

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

After thinking about it, I've come up with a few more thoughts.

1) I still believe the #2 and #3 rule changes are bad ideas. I believe they take away from the core fundamentals of Rebound Rumble and I think will alter the tournament in a negative way.

2) That said, I'm becoming more interested in finding out if I am right or wrong. This experiment might end up as a good thing for FIRST - why? Because it may determine the future of FIRST robotics games. I theorized at the end of the FIRST robotics season (to myself, I didn't write it anywhere) that we won't be seeing any more Co-op point interactions in the near future. However, I think this might end up giving the GDC the factors they need to greenlight more Co-Op interactions in the future or hammer the nail in the coffin.

3) Why is rule #1 enforced on the honor system? Are the robots not weighed and inspected at IRI? And why is it worded like that? Is the rule stating that your original robot must maintain it's original weight +5 pounds? With all the talk about being able to do some upgrades on your robot, why is the rule +5 pounds rather than maximum robot weight is 125 pounds? And +5 pounds since when? Since championship or the end of the ship date, since many robots are altered greatly at each event they attend.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Where are you getting this information from? I don't see anywhere saying that 907 is pro the change? Put us in the "just deal with it and stop complaining" section please....

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I was thinking the same thing. I doubt it will hurt us. we can hang over so far that i think (as along as we can be on the outside) that we will be able to triple most of the time. Even though we have never tripled at competitions as we only tried it once in queen city, we also put our COG on the outside of the bridge and just flipped.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

It has always (for at least the last several years) been this way, so that teams can make repairs and modifications and not be worried about the 120 pound weight limit. +5 refers to the FIRST rule of 120 pounds.

No, we don't inspect at IRI. We trust teams to be legal and stay legal. We don't weight robots, but if a robot appears to be signficantly heavy, the referee can check it.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Count one Secret Unnamed, and long, Team to Pro. In my opinion, cooperation points just masked what teams played the game best. Not that our team would have done better, just that cooperation points didn't rank teams such that teams that would do better in eliminations would be ranked higher. It added noise to the system.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

To be clear, that list was only relevant to Rule Change #3 - the qualifying triple rule change.

Hey Dustin - step away from your popcorn and post your meme. It summarizes the general gist of the #3 rule change analysis fairly accurately. :-)

I think Rule Change #2 (no co-op bridge) has been generally accepted by most participating teams, expressed in a range of opinions spanning from "awesome!" to "not horrible".

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Well here we are, doing what we CDers are best at...

I may as well chip in. My only real issue (as I've stated before) is the elimination of the coopertition bridge, probably my favorite feature of this game. (So I guess my response to that specifically is more adverse than "not horrible".) But there will certainly be plenty of excitement with triple balances in quals, with the caliber of the teams attending.

Also, I completely agree that the perceived detriment to long bots from this change is quite overblown. For one, you can never completely avoid being randomly assigned a match that is weighted heavily against you (doesn't mean you can't win though...). However, at this event, the caliber of those attending shouldn't give you much to worry about when it comes to your alliance's ability. But in any case, it's a great opportunity to make your robot even better to meet whatever challenge is specifically posed to your team.

And as many have mentioned, the organizers certainly have their right to make rule modifications to make the event more exciting for spectators, more inspiring for teams, and generally better. I have no doubts that the committee were very thoughtful and deliberate in this decision.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I couldnt agree more.
Not because we are a long bot, but because teams still have to be able to score. There is still a large difference between teams that can score quickly down to the ones that have a much more difficult time.
If the rule change was that detrimental, we would have either canceled or made a widebot in preparation of this tournament.

The rule change makes elimination matches in every match, nothing more, nothing less.

Coopertition, while great in concept, had flaws that created drama between several teams this season. Anything to revise or adjust the concept in the future to avoid such situations would be great.
The most odd part of it all that baffles me, is that two different games were being played in order to be successful between qualification and elimination matches.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Part of me hates to revive this thread, but ...

Now that the IRI has been played with the modified rule, what are your thoughts?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I thought it was a great rule change and really devalued the triple if anything because teams saw how it wasn't as worth the risk as they thought. In the long run I think it helped long bots make the eliminations more than it hurt them.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think 2826, 1114 and 4334 proved that being long doesn't matter for the triple. It's all about the combination of the bots that makes it work. Even on the practice field, we could pretty quickly triple with 245 instead of 4334.

I did not originally agree with the elimination of the coop points and I really disagreed with the full time triple award, but I now think it added a whole new level of excitement to the game. At least half the matches had all the excitement of the Archimedes finals. Seeing multiple qual matches topping 100 pooints in an alliance keeps the crowd coming back for more.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think it was an awesome change that made matches more exciting and added a bit of extra strategic depth to qual matches.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think I already provided my post-IRI feedback to Chris in person and therefore don't need to repeat it here. :-)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

For the teams which accomplished it, it was quite a rush. The crowd certainly seemed to appreciate it. I wonder what the statistics would say about the impact on the rankings. The way it was officiated was explained and seemed to be applied consistently.

The end game of each match was certainly different, but I wouldn't say that I missed the co-op bridge.

It obviously made Paul very happy.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

It obviously made quite a few people very happy:D The loud cheering when the head referee went over that rule change during the driver's meeting was immense.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

As you were quite vocal before the competition, I am curious what your feedback was.
Per the rule changes:

The rule changes / refinements for the 2012 IRI are pretty simple.

1. +5 pounds allowed. Honor system, unless the referees question you.

2. No Co-Op points. Ranking based on win-loss and the existing tie-breakers.

3. Alliances may balance 3 on their alliance bridge during qualifications. Three robots balanced is worth 40 points.

4. Draft is 1 - 8, 1- 8, 8 - 1. Alliances select their own backup. Use of the back-up is at the discretion of the alliance.

1. +5 lbs allowed for Wildstang to put on their Fun Lights. That alone was worth it.

2. As far as the Co-Op switch up, initially I would have said that the traditional W/L structure did a poor job as there was very little inside top 8 picking. However, there were a ton of teams picked immediately outside of the top 8, so my reaction probably needs a bit of vetting with some math and analysis versus other events.

3. I missed most of Friday, but really enjoyed Saturday. I believe I heard there were 19 triples in qualifying. Doesn't sound like the game changer some were expecting, but again more analysis would be required to see if it was a bigger player.

4. Every year i think the 1-8, 1-8, 8-1 back-up will lock in a victory for the #1 seed. Once again, my fears have been subsided with some amazing strategy and play. There are so many top tier teams that this style of draft does work well.

Overall, great job (IMO) with the rule changes.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Beforehand, I was worried that Rebound Rumble would not be as exciting without the co-op bridge. After seeing IRI, I wish we could play this game again next FRC season, using IRI rules.

My opinion now is that the co-op bridge overemphasized the endgame stunt, at the expense of last second shooting by robots.

To help Paul keep track of his prediction (30 triple balances in qualifying matches), I kept a count. I saw 19 successful triple balances in qualifying matches, plus three more that were awarded automatically (but not actually completed by the robots) as penalty for interfering with balancing. And there were several (five by my count) very near misses.

However, I was more excited by the ridiculously high hoop scores that IRI teams put up -- and excited to see the best hoop scorers at the top of the seedings. This game is more fun to watch when it is decided by shooting -- and of course by ball control, since you can't shoot balls that you don't have.

TL;DR: The IRI field showed us the way this game should be played. Thanks, IRI committee, for giving them the opportunity.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

:cool:

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Does anyone have all the IRI match results? I want to do some math on this event to compare with the regular season data.