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? :)