Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I'll be very interested to see what comes of the elimination of coop points. I always felt like they just added too much noise that tended to mask what teams were really playing the game well.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I'm interested to see if some long robots will become triple balance defense specialists, I suspect many teams that realize that they wont be able to triple balance in most alliance setups will start practicing blocking the triple balance for the qualification rounds.....These matches are going to be awesome.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Oh the carnage that would take place at that bridge....tipping of bots already on the bridge, etc. But a test of bridge tender might would be fun - kinda like arm wrestling. :)

Here's a thought - do what you said, but only allow one and only one robot up on the co-op for 10. Here's the kicker - first one up and balanced gets the 10 points, but they have to STAY there the remainder of the match. Tipping the bridge once this balance is completed is a tech foul, as is leaving the bridge once balanced.

If one alliance goes for the triple, the other is free and clear to get the center bridge, while his partners can keep scoring and double late to try and negate the triple. If both alliances say forget the triple, they can contest for the center bridge, but he who gets there first, wins.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I too am opposed to this change. The Rules Update section of the IRI website states they would consider "minor rule changes...but not make a change that will encourage teams to alter their robot", then turn around and do the exact opposite?!?

I understand there will always be rule changes at IRI, but it looks like teams with long-bots are being "encouraged" to take a look at robot modifications instead of running what got us invited to IRI in the first place.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

[quote=Travis Hoffman;1175271 No Long alliance captain in their right mind would assemble such a group in the elims (would they?). QUOTE]

Great question. You'll have to ask 987, the Curie champions.

Travis, I agree with your point in principle since qualification pairings of 3 longs eliminates the 40 point choice. However, that doesn't mean the 3 other randomly paired robots will be successful with a triple.

As a fan of the game, I am wanting to see a shooting alliance out gun a triple balance alliance.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I see 3 ways 3 longs can triple balance...
1) The center robot gets pushed up sideways
2) 3 robots in long configuration
3 (the fun one)) Robot 1 balances the bridge and turns 90. Robot 2 pulls the bridge down to their side and climbs on. Robot 2 uses a stinger to level out the bridge. Robot 3 from the other side lowers the bridge and climbs on.

Needs:
1) 1 robot with low traction and 1 with high torque
2) 2 robots that can hang very, very, very far off (averaging 19" on the bridge assuming the center one is max and bumpers are not stacking)
3)1 robot with a stinger and 1 robot with a very powerfull bridge lowering device

548 also has a trick that we never used in the season, but I might get to pull out if we can't do any of these 3...

Not saying I like these rules, but they're not going to change so make the best of them!

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Or.. deal with the consequences.

Jane

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I simulated a match schedule for IRI, using the team list and robot stats from this post. There are 34 long robots, 31 wide robots, 2 Mecanum robots, 4 Swerve robots, and 2 Square robots. I assume that a triple balance can occur if there are no more then 1 Long robot on an alliance (although there have been notable exceptions, I think this is a safe assumption for randomly selection qualification matches). I did not try to look at stingers or overhang, as the data is less reliable

There were 110 alliances where a triple balance is possible and 86 where it is not. I then looked at two long robots and two wide robots who's members participated in this thread. I looked at whether or not that team's alliance could triple, as well as what the opponent could do, and whether that put the team at an advantage or disadvantage).

Here's the raw data in case someone wants to expand the analysis

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Personally, having been on a team that used Co-op Bridges to place well during qualifications, I'm not a big fan of the fact that they are no longer valid. I've always thought that FIRST did a great job this year with Co-op points and integrated coopertition into the game as was never done before. The unpredictability of the seeding was a very exciting aspect of Rebound Rumble, and I believe it was largely due to the coopertition points.

That said, I do see the rationale of wanting more triple balances to occur (hence the rule change to allow it during quals). Yes, I certainly do think allowing triple balance during quals is a great idea. However, I don't think the coopertition points should be discontinued.

Hence, my ideal rule change would be allowing triple balance during quals and still keeping coopertition.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

[quote=D.Allred;1175283]I would, but they won't be at IRI. ;) We always knew they were kinda crazy out there. :)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with these rule changes, specifically number two. Whether people like it or not, the Co-Op bridges are an integral part of Rebound Rumble. I can see the argument that changing the bridges amounts to no more than the change in Minibots last year. However, there is one fundamental difference.

When changing over the minibots last year, that was in in-game change. Nothing changed but the scoring. Removing the Co-Op bridge changes the rankings and changes how robots should accomplish the same task. With the minibot change, it was still advantageous to have the fastest minibot. With the bridge change, the task has changed from double balancing reliably to triple balancing every match, and as many have pointed out, this negatively affects a demographic of robots.

When we are given the challenge at the beginning of the season, we have to consider all the factors. The Coopertition bridge and associated ranking points were part of that challenge and if a team didn't plan for them, they were punished

I don't see how this change reduces chance in the tournament--I feel that it increases it greatly. The match schedule and what robots you are paired with are out of your hands. That is a given. With the Coopertition bridge in place, you always took two robots and balanced them on the bridge. At IRI, this would have been a given, since in any matchup, there are surely two robots who could do this. This is a bit boring, but it is fair. In the new system, you are thrown in with teams who may or may not be able to triple balance. In alliance selection, this is a careful selection process. Now it is thrown to chance. There is little doubt in my mind that in any given game, the two alliances will have different abilities to triple balance thus making chance a greater factor in the game than before.

As an experiment, this has merit. I'm sure many (including the myself) have wondered what Rebound Rumble would be like without the Coopertition bridge.

It will no doubt make the games more fun to watch, but at what cost? The game being played at IRI will not be Rebound Rumble.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Substituted 180 with some other arbitrarily high number.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

[quote=Travis Hoffman;1175289]Oops. I made a mistake. The Pink Team was captain. 987 was their first pick with 207 on defense. In either case, it was a great shoot out!

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I would argue that the entire competition (hence the name) is about winning. That begins with your first qualification match and hopefully ends in the finals. Because statistically 70% of #1 seeded alliances win their respective competitions everyone is trying to get there. This is where I lost you, I don’t really understand how eliminating noise in the qualification system is punishing anyone. If you could better articulate yourself on this point I would appreciate it.

I don’t really want to get into the already widely discussed topic of money and resources in this thread when it has been discussed so many times before. All it really comes down to is hard work. I’ll provide an example and leave it at that. In 2010, team 33 lost its primary sponsor in the Chrysler Foundation when they filed for bankruptcy. That summer our team contacted many companies providing letters, robot demonstrations, and presentations on how their money impacts our students. Everyone worked together, including the parents, to make sure that we would have the money to compete at the level we normally do. We acquired over 10 new sponsors which more than covered the absence of Chrysler. Any team is capable of doing that if they have the drive.

-------
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.

Regards, Bryan

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

We're long. We're not worried. There will be many matches where all 3 of our opponents devote 40 seconds to attempting to triple and fail. We will continue to score undefended while our partners double.

I believe Arnold said it best.