IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

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.

All other rules will be per the 2012 FRC rules as interpreted by the referee crew.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

What was the thought process behind eliminating the co op points?

I sense a storm brewing :D

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Playing only to win? Yay! No arguments here.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Excitement as each alliance tries to triple.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

That would be a lot more exciting! :D

what is the purpose of Co-op bridge now? just gonna be a random bridge?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Same as in eliminations I'd assume. A decorative bother.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

This is gonna kill our ranking, but it'll definitely be way more fun :)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think the logic is that there will now be triple balances in qualification matches and with the level of play at IRI every match will just be over the top fantastic to watch and play in. It will also not force people to pick for eliminations based on assumptions on teams being able to and not being able to triple balance because it will be a scoutable thing that teams will try for in many matches. As a team with a long bot that could essentially be a wide bot for triple balances because of our weight distribution and stingers I can say that having this important feature of the game be almost unscoutable is quite frustrating.


I think this is excellent for 4334. You will be the very rare bot that most alliances will be able to triple with granted they have a stinger of some sort. I think you proved that on your path to Einstein.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think pit scouting is going to come into play even more than normally now. Being able to tell if your alliance, or the other alliance, is able to triple is going to key in whatever strategy you are going to use.

I'm definitely looking forward to this rule change, and seeing how this change is going to affect the teams going to IRI, I think we might see a few upsets!

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Love #2. #3 will make quals very interesting. With the level of competition at IRI I think it will be more exciting to see teams going for the triple than coopertating.

Though it does suck for the alliances that end up with 3 long bots.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Oh the long bots woe! Well, I guess that just extended the time of our meeting tomorrow. At least it'll be fun to figure out haha

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

EXACTLY. Not a fan at all of #3. I cannot possibly fathom how a rule that so obviously favors one design over another and ties a team's fate even MORE into the "random" match schedule can be permitted to fly. It's not like we longbots can chop our frames down....

At least give teams who get hosed by incompatible alliance configurations another avenue of combating opponents who CAN more easily triple during qualifying. How about making balls scored in the last 30 seconds of a match worth 1-2 points more each? That would give teams an effective way of combating those who choose to triple. Can the scoring system be easily adjusted to accomodate such things?

Also, as a team who has never been "maliciously hosed" by the co-op bridge and has seen the game played as intended at every single event we've attended (3 regionals, Galileo, MARC), I fail to see how eliminating the co-op point concept to cater to the extremely relatively few who've been hosed by "alternate strategies" somehow enhances the game's quality.

I am EXTREMELY disappointed by the combination of these rulings. I do not pay $700 for a premier offseason event to be forced into playing a game that so obviously disadvantages and discriminates against a specific robot design and so radically diverges from the original game designers' intent. I recognize the right of the committee to make such changes, but they must also recognize the right of the paying customers (who had to pay prior to the changes' release) to voice their concerns/criticisms/disbelief that such changes were implemented.

Are the pansy hands-off triple defense rules of the Championship also going to be in effect, such that longbots have essentially zero recourse to directly combat triples if their alliance is incompatible with the maneuver?

Of course, this could also end up being a boon for the longbots, as those overly confident in thinking they can triple (outside of 3 wides) try it without any practice whatsoever, and end up failing epicly as the little old boring double (...or single...or even no balance) earns the victory.... Could be more bad comedy agony of defeat type moments than oh gee wow how epic moments during qualifying if people try to get too greedy. This rule change could also lead to more robot damage due to bridge tips and falls than many pit crews attending offseason events are prepared to deal with. Many teams travel very light.

Unless you are extremely careful in supervising it, you've also just turned your practice field into a train wreck and a likely safety hazard once the match schedules are released. Hope someone has plans to keep that area monitored and under control such that all teams have fair access to it and none dominate its usage. ORRRRR (my preference - the safe and easy and FAIR route) you flat out deny any triple practice on the practice field (before alliance selections) and require teams to have at it without any prior practice together save for any encounters at previous events.

This ruling is a double whammy against longbots - gives wides a decided advantage in scoring points and winning matches, and removes any co-op recourse needed for longs to still keep pace with them in the standings. I would have accepted #2 by itself, but #2 and #3 combined? I cannot view this as anything but a forced competitive disadvantage for my team and others like us before I even arrive at the venue, and that is a very unfortunate reality.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

This is a whole new game. Old strategies for elims are out. A triple balance is high risk and so is a triple defensive play. I agree that this will probably lead to more damaged bots. With the hours of run time our bots have seen, the pits will be a busy place. Oh, the carnage. Can't wait to watch how teams adapt to this play.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Seems to me that a triple balance would be relatively easy to defend. Just aggressively mess with the second & third bot before they get close to the bridge. Your driver would have to be disciplined enough not to be in contact with the robot when it gets to the bridge. You are really just trying to delay the balance. Mean time if you have a good scorer, it is shooting balls without opposition.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

To be honest, I like the changes. It'll mean elimination style play in every match, which will make IRI more competitive. It also means no one will be stranded at the co-op bridge, and everyone won't suffer if one driver makes a small mistake (like driving over the side of the bridge).

The long bot situation is unfortunate, but so is getting paired with two boxes on wheels. The luck of the draw is something we've lived with for about 10 years, at least now you're more in control of your ranking.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

And the point of IRI is to eliminate that as best as possible.

And I fail to see how you are 'in control of your ranking'. when you arent even allowed to play the full game...

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

With 5 extra pounds of weight, any robot can be made "triple balance compatible".

Stingers. Brakes. Apparatuses (apparati?) to grab onto/under an adjacent robot. Each of these can be made under 5 lbs as complete systems using pretty basic methods. Team 341's stinger weighs 0.8 lbs (granted it relies on a pre-existing pneumatic system, but a simple air tank and gauge assembly doesn't add that much).

Yes, three long robots is still a difficult task. But what if one of them uses the extra 5 lbs allowance to add deployable lateral skids (casters, omniwheels, or even just some slick plastic) to facilitate being pushed up the bridge sideways?

While these rules favor robots designed with triple balancing in mind, there is enough time and weight to allow anyone who wants to triple balance at IRI, to triple balance at IRI.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

During this years game, if I had a robot that consistently scored 180 points, I would win all my matches but there is no guarantee that I would be the #1 alliance captain.

At IRI, if I have a robot that consistently scores 180 points, I will (probably) win all my matches and I will (probably) be the #1 alliance captain. I don't have to rely on my opponents for my ranking.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Removing the Coopetition points is in direct contradiction to the statement on the website.

Emphasis mine.

Completely removing the Co-Copertition points changes the game so drastically, teams that utilize the white bridge will find themselves without the boost they need to get them to where they want to be. In fact, it actually changes the entire dynamic of the last ~30 seconds of the game, and can in fact cause teams who have been ranked highest in normal FIRST events to drop significantly because their robot is meant to score in a way that isn't in the top basket. This also alters alliance selection in ways you can't imagine.

I don't know how much weight my argument will hold, since I'm only going to be a spectator this year, but speaking only for myself if this rule holds up I'm glad our team isn't going to IRI because we would have very little chance.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Our team has had a knack this year of storming back from some early misfortune/bad luck at events to secure Top 8 status. I think it's happened at Wisconsin, Queen City, Galileo, and MARC. The co-op bridge was essential to our ability to rise up.

People discount the importance of having good strategy and negotiation skills in working with the opposition to plan and execute a co-op. We love that aspect of the game.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I vehemently disagree.

All these changes do is alter the method that teams are ranked at the end of the qualification matches. Scoring for the Elimination matches are exactly the same as they have been for the entire season. I would contend that we (the IRI committee) changed this game less than previous seasons. Point values in the finals are the same. Hybrid mode values are the same. No rules regarding robot interaction have changed. The only thing that has changed is that we removed a method for ranking that was a robot task that was not ever used in the finals.

Andy B.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

But we've seen the robots and what theyre capable of. We know no one scores 180 points. Most robots at IRI will score similarly, and so we'll see matches determined by the end game (As if thats something new...). But our end game isn't really fair anymore.

we shall see how it pans out though...Hopefully we'll have several overzealous wide robots...

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

How exactly did all you long bots who feel screwed plan on playing in elims?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post but you are most defiantly more in control of your final rank now than when co-op points make up half of your ranking points. There are two scenarios:

1: With the system that we have been playing with all season half of one’s ranking points were directly determined by how good your opponents were at balancing on the co-op bridge. This meant that no matter how good you were, you could still loose valuable ranking points if your opponent could not balance the bridge with you. So, even if you have the best robot in the world, if none of your opponents are able to balance the co-op bridge with you then you are not ranked first.

2: Now all of your ranking points are determined by how good YOU are at playing the game. If you win, you move up. If you win all your matches and have a high hybrid score you’re in first place. While your partners have a great deal of impact on one’s likelihood of winning the respective match the fact remains that if your robot is better than all three of the opponent’s robots combined it doesn’t matter who your partners are, you will win. So, while you don’t have control over your partners or opponents, every team has control over how good their robot is at playing the game and every team had the opportunity during the build season to build a robot that could beat any other combination of three robots.


The point of qualifications is to see who is the best. If the system worked perfectly the best 8 robots would be 1-8 every time. The Co-op bridge allowed an avenue for teams who were not the best to seed higher than teams who were better than them. Some people liked it because the powerhouse teams didn't always seed 1-8. You say your team would have no chance if they went to IRI without the co-op bridge. That may be true with your current robot, however, every team has the opportunity right now to work on their robot to their heart's content. If your team was going there would be nothing stopping you from making your robot more competitve so that you could rank higher.

Of course, these are only my opinions. Feel free to disagree with me, its certainly an interesting topic with several points of view.

Regards, Bryan

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I don't know exactly how to put into words how that change feels to me. It's almost catering to a certain robot design and leaving every other robot out there that has won events in the traditional game out in the cold because they didn't design their robot perfectly enough to play IRI.

If these rules were in place at the beginning of the FIRST season, you'd find very few long-bots at all, since being able to balance 3 robots at any time is worthwhile enough to design a small robot from the get-go. Additionally, you'd find fewer teams that go for only the 2-point basket, as that 1 point less each score isn't worth it when obtaining the maximum score is so critical.

There is only one reason I would like to think this change was made for, determining for the GDC whether or not the Coopertition points would make a difference. If that's the reason I say go for it. But otherwise it looks like the only way to make top 8 is to go undefeated, which even in the event where "the best teams should win" doesn't stack up, as FIRST has always been "The best alliance should win".

What ever happened to the Money Ball? It was a very well received component.

The problem is that teams are given randomly generated allies in qualifying rather than in elimination matches where having the right alliance is something a team can build. If Team 0000 is forced into battle with two teams that are unable to complete at an even higher standard than normal, yes Team 0000 can move on to their next match and are still allive in the competition, but their hopes of being a seeded team are done and over in just one loss. With Co-op points, there is the opportunity, granted not much but still the opportunity, that they can bounce back and make top 8.

I'd argue that the point of qualifications is not to see who is best. Elimination matches are to see who is best. The point of qualification matches is to earn seeding points and be ranked based on your robot's and your ever changing alliance's results. Why are we punishing teams that can make it to a top 8 but are just inferior against the other robotics teams? You have every right to turn a team down - it's part of the competition and we saw it a lot this year as "lower" power teams are passed up because other alliance captians bet their skills can be utilized on their own with their own alliance rather than with them. Again, why punish teams that can make it to a top 8? Is it just because they aren't "good enough"?

And yes, you are very right that our team can make any and all tweaks we want to better our robot and ensure a higher competition robot - that doesn't mean the finished product will be that way, or that we would have the money and resources to pull it off, or time allowed by our school to use the shop facilities during the summer.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

"all you long bots" - the robot class thing that is setting up here is kinda interesting. Longs. Wides. Etc. But I digress.

Let's separate the removal of the co-op bridge into a different discussion and focus solely on Rule Change #3. That is my primary concern with these changes.

In the elims, a Long alliance captain has the right to CHOOSE an alliance that is triple-compatible with them. 4334 was chosen by two Longs on Archimedes for a singular, extremely well executed purpose. Of course, a longbot has to earn an alliance captain spot before being granted this privilege. I believe that has just become much, much harder for Longs to accomplish at IRI, given how quickly devastating a triple can be to a match outcome, and given the fact that Wide bots have a statistical advantage in being paired with two other triple compatible bots. Some wides can triple with 2 longs. Many can do 1 long/1 wide, and of course, most all can triple with 2 wides - the last case being almost trivially easy to accomplish relative to the other configurations. Longs cannot realistically triple with 2 longs, and given that 47%-ish of the robots at the event are going to be longs, you are going to see quite a few long/long/long alliances during qualifying. No Long alliance captain in their right mind would assemble such a group in the elims (would they?). They will have no choice during qualifying.

No one can choose who we will be paired with in qualifying. Making a previously elimination-only gameplay element legal in qualifying - one that is so critically dependent on the physical configurations of the three randomly-paired partners - almost guarantees that more of those in the Long class are going to experience pain relative to the Wides in the rankings. THAT is the key issue, in my mind. We all want to be alliance captains, right? We all wish to have some modicum of control over our elimination destiny, right?

If a new rule makes it more likely that a Wide with similar basket scoring ability to a Long is going to advance higher than the Long in the standings, I cannot see how anyone can view that as a legitimately fair situation.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I can see what Travis means here.

Andy, when you say "All these changes do is alter the method that teams are ranked at the end of the qualification matches."

I read that as a "all it merely does," but long bots at IRI will need to be top 8 seed to get the alliance they want to win because teams will want a triple balance alliance for elims and more than likely may not pick a long bot.

Just like any other competition, your fair chance of being top 8 is cut down, and as we all know, top 8 is the only way to secure a spot in elims and with the teams you want.

I believe the ruling was first made to act as a handicap for teams who had built a long bot and so that they wouldn't be highly disadvantaged in qualifications, but if this is taken away, it is sort of like shooting a long bot in the foot (the wheel?) and makes it that much harder for them to control what happens to them once alliance selection rolls around. These are teams who walk into an event and think "alright so if I can seed high enough, I can probably pick an alliance to triple with in elims."

Sorry for the possibly incoherent response, I've got the flu! I just felt that Travis needed to be backed up here a bit.

+$0.02

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I agree with Travis. Robots are designed not just to "win the game" but to play the system of seeding followed by an eliminations tournament. There is a fundamental difference between designing a robot to *nail* a two-robot balance and designing one to triple-balance with the right partners. Changing a rule that directly favors one type of robot build over others for seeding purposes is, IMO, unreasonable.

(Note that I have nothing personally vested in this -- we're not going to IRI.)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Just as you ask the CD Community for rule modifications and suggestions, perhaps, upon completing a tentative/finalized list of rule changes, you could present those rule changes in a thread?

In other words, this thread would now become "IRI Tentative Rules Changes-2012-Open Forum"

I completely understand that there is a committee of sorts in place to handle and make these rule changes to the best of their abilities, but you're not in a situation like FIRST's GDC where you have to keep everything a secret—we already know the game and we have already made our robots. Your rule changes won't, or at least shouldn't, affect our game designs. IRI is simply meant to improve the quality of the match, not the committee's subjectively desired quality in terms of robot design.

I'm not asking you to hand over the decisions to us, or to allow us to vote in a poll. I'm simply requesting you rewrite the original post like so:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

All other rules will be per the 2012 FRC rules as interpreted by the referee crew.

The CD Community may now proceed in a moderated, mature, and rational open forum discussion regarding the tentative rules. In no way is the GDC of IRI required to listen to or follow the suggestions/concerns posted below. However, we will do our best to rationally look through each post, and if deemed mature, rational, and well written, we will consider a discussion for further modification of the rule(s). In roughly a week, we will post a finalized rule update to IRI, which may or may not be affected by the posts on this thread. Remember, just because your rule suggestion/complaint is not adhered to, that does not mean we did not take it into consideration or discussion. We try our best to make IRI the best competition possible, and nothing less. None of our decisions are an attempt to thwart certain robots or certain teams. With this being said, please proceed to post any concerns you have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just my thoughts.
-Duke

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Personally, I think that if you make a robot(s) on the co-op bridge be worth 10 points during the qualification rounds it would be a good compromise.

That way the triple balance only gives you a 10 point advantage for completing it.

-Clinton-

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.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

[quote=D.Allred;1175294]Unrelated scenario anyways. They had no choice. 233 would have been stupid to pass up 987. Neither of them had a dingus and therefore were never going to triple even if they had picked a wide bot.

Normally you have more control over constructing an alliance that can triple balance.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I'm a little hesitant to jump in here, since I'm not competing at IRI this year, but here's my two cents.

I don't quite understand where all the complaining in coming from.

On the point of removing coopertition points, coop points were just a method of ranking. I don't see them as an integral part of the game, ESPECIALLY at the level of play IRI will exhibit. Let's be honest. At least 90% of matches would have had a coop anyway. Having the coop points would have crucified the handful of unlucky teams who missed out. The coop bridge did add an element of strategy that I rather enjoyed, but I don't see it as a huge loss for the game.

For the triple balance in qualifications, I actually really like that. I didn't see the point in not giving a triple bonus in qualification matches, so I like this change. Many people that are complaining about this are teams that don't have confidence that their ability to compete with this in play. Tyler hit the nail on the head. I hate to be so course, but if you don't think you can triple balance, I strongly suggest you find a way to win without triple balancing. It's not "favor towards one type of robot." It's an element of the game that has always existed, and is now being expanded. Like Tyler said, 2056 is going to put in a bajillion balls in those last 30 seconds of play, undefended with 18 balls to work with. You need a lead of 21 points with a double balance to cancel out the triple. That's 7 balls in the high hoop, if the alliances are relatively even in scoring (otherwise, you'd just get hosed down anyway and lose to a wash of doubles). That's definitely doable for a large majority of the teams at IRI.

If you're worried about these things, I suggest you stop worrying about the rules, and start working on how you're going to turn them in your favor.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

To be fair, 233 could have gone with 1986 but I thought at the time they made the right call and the elimination rounds showed that they did.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

As FIRST constructed the game, the co-opertition points were part of the method for earning your ranking (and the associated privileges of picking, etc.). I think it's fair to say that most teams optimized their robots to seed high under the original rules—and for many of those, that involved taking advantage of the middle bridge to succeed in qualifications.

Where once there was a qualification game and a distinct elimination game, the IRI rule changes basically amount to playing the elimination game all the time. I'd say that for some teams, that will be a big deal, and that for a select few, it won't matter. That changes the implicit balance of power and gives the strategists something different to think about and the builders something new to build. Was it the intention of the IRI committee to give the teams a new challenge with a short implementation window? If so, they succeeded. (Of course, with FRC, you're told in advance that this is going to happen...with IRI, it seems to have taken us by surprise.)

I don't think I'd have made such a big a change to the way the competition works, but since I don't have a robot there, I'm merely interested to see what happens.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Team 0000 is not a good team with a subpar robot. It shoots good 3s and balances great, but lets pretend it's actually 20th in actual standings. Yet throughout qualifications this team was able to scrape up a ton of co-op points and make it to 3rd seed. The only reason this team was able to make it to the 3rd seed was due to the co-op points. And because team 0000 made it to 3rd seed using the rules of the game, they have the right to pick their alliance like all the other powerhouse teams that rocked the event.

So the question is, is having this subpar team 0000 in 3rd seed a mistake? Would having this team as 3rd seed be ruining the statement that "Only the best teams at the regional should be seeded"?

No. Using the rules of the game this team was able to make it to 3rd seed. Other seeded teams will refuse this 3rd seed left and right, as no one believes (or knows) that they can ever stand a chance winning with this 3rd seeded team, but still even after 4th-8th reject them they still get the right to pick yet again until they form an alliance to compete in the elimination matches.

This is my point - by removing the co-op points you alienate a group of robots who were able to reach a top seed because of those points. In effect, you are punishing those subpar teams from having the luck to gather points and end up in the top seed all for the sake of maintaining an ethos that "only the best robots at the event should be a top seeded team."

Granted the best robots at the event should be top seed, but in the same way one team maintained a top seed by scoring an amazing amount of points (as part of the game) another robot should be allowed to place top seed because of their skill with wrangling up enough co-op points (as part of the game).

Thats great. Our team does that too with mixed and minimal results. I's just how it ends up. Any chance you could PM me some of your team's pointers and tips for getting in contact with area business, how to get more parents involved and making presentations, as well as all other sorts of info like that? We could use some new directions to take if your team can do it and we can't measure up.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I am a little worried because we are long. but like Holtzman said, you wont have defense during the time they are trying to triple, that will give you the possibility to score more. Since we have our time to score a lot lower than ever we should be getting atleast 20 points in those 40 seconds.

I dont mind the rule changes, but i would have chosen rule #2 or #3. not both.
I dont think that this will change the rankings as much as people are thinking.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I definitely understand why changing the coop points can be major. And were this any other competition, I would agree. But what I'm trying to say is, having the coop bridge in play would be less of a reward for the teams that do it, and more of a punishment for the teams that don't.

When considering the quality of teams going to IRI, I have no doubt that a coop would be attempted every match. And at least 90% of the time, it will work. But for that 10% who couldn't get it right for whatever reason (malfunction, bad luck, etc.) it will be a crippling factor in ranking. Thus, the majority of teams who successfully coop will have an inherent advantage over those that didn't right off the bat. Even if it's just a single failed coop balance, it could cripple a team who otherwise won every match and cooped.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I always thought the coop points added an interesting aspect to the game. In Tetraman's scenario, Team 0000 got seeded high for cooperating every match. And of course, people are complaining that team 000 should never had gotten the third seed. The problem I see, is teams who are complaining don't coop themselves sometimes, or don't make it their priority. If the "top teams" cooped each time and won the matches they normally would, then the top 8 would consist of the best robots fit to be in it. FIRST added coopertition to the seeding this year, and those who didn't play to it payed the price.

In a game where every "good" robot coops, there would be no confusion over why someone is in the top 8 when they shouldn't.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I haven't formulated a value judgement on Rule 3 yet, but I disagree that it's always been a element of the game. Ok, maybe the element was, but the molecule wasn't. Triple balancing with one alliance of your selection (or gracious acceptance) has always been a element molecule of the game. Triple balancing with 8 (8, right?) random alliances was not. By my view, 1 by selection to 8 by random is not an expansion, it's an inherently different thing. In fact, they're inherently different strategic design issues.

That's not to say I disagree triple balancing with 8 randomly assigned alliances will likely be harder for everyone--even those geometrically/CoG capable of accomplishing it. Nor do I disagree that many teams there, long and wide, are quite capable of doing amazing things on offense during that time. I'm not sure I consider this change a "slight tweak", though.


As confirmation, does the lack of relevant comment mean that the refs will call triple balance defense the same way it was at Worlds?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

People keep mentioning the mediocre yet solid team that seeds high via the co-op bridge and how this change will unfairly punish them, I disagree with this point.

Lets assume normal FRC 2012 rules for IRI, then it would likely have the highest percentage of successful co-ops of any event, meaning win-loss would ultimately be the tie breaker.

The robots that had the strategy of focusing on co-op and merely being capable in other aspects of the game would actually likely do very poorly at IRI as aren't contributing much point value to the rest of the match. All year we've heard "cooperating is just as important as winning", at IRI it would have been "winning is just as important as cooperating".

What people have more credibility in being upset in is the triples being allowed in qualifying matches, but even that I don't think is something to be upset with.

It is going to be HARD to triple with a random qualifying alliance of robots that all have the physical capability to do so, so the success rate there would likely be lower than in elims. In elims teams were able to do it quicker due to better planning and repeated practice, in quals more time must be taken to perform the triple; as Tyler on 2056 already said, that is a LARGE amount of time for a competent scorer (which most random qualifying alliances at IRI will have) to score completely undefended with access to every ball on the field.

For any team that had a shot of leading an alliance to victory as a captain at IRI (keeping in mind that it's incredibly unlikely for a sub-par captain to win over the better alliances at IRI), their seeding will be mostly unaffected.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Haha! Okay, I can dig your molecule-element analogy. What I meant by saying it's always been a part of the game is the triple balance itself, though admittedly, I didn't consider tripling with an elimination alliance and tripling with a random alliance to be two different facets of the game. I was saying that the act of triple balancing in itself has been in the game since day one. It's nothing new. It's not like they're cutting off a foot from each bridge. It's the same mindset as in an elimination match. If you're confident your alliance can triple, you're gonna go for the triple. If you're not, you find some other way to keep yourselves on the map. No one is forcing teams to triple balance. Teams have been finding ways to overcome the triple balance all season. The only difference I see this making is it will be all elimination-style matches.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

OR... Some other alliance denied them the chance to get the coop points by refusing to coop. Those who played that way tended to do worse themselves, and quite possibly made themselves disliked by teams that were hurt by the refusal to cooperate. At one fell swoop, that whole thing is laid to rest...

...And there's a nice useless bridge in the middle of the field. (Well, useless in terms of the end game. I can think of uses for it, but for the sake of not seeing them in action, I won't post them.)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I'm glad someone else pointed out the distinction so I didn't have to.

As Siri aptly asked, does one way of "keeping yourself on the map" include appropriately-applied blocking defense to disrupt the attempt? I would ask the IRI folks to clarify this as an important aspect of the game.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

The rule changes have been thought out and discussed, and several options were considered, including "none".

We made the decisions we made with this type of thought process.

We would expect a high percentage of alliances to co-op balance. Most teams can do it, and teams would be hesitant to not do it because it would hurt their ranking, as well as be bad from a reputation standpoint. So, if everyone co-ops, then it becomes irrelevant to the rankings. This change probably has little impact on rankings.

The triple balance, and attempts at it, are very exciting. Alliances will need to determine if it is worth the reward (+40) for the risk (maybe 0, maybe robot damage), compared to an almost guaranteed double balance and more scoring from the 3rd robot. Not every alliance can triple, and even many of the "3 wide alliances" will not be able to triple. With the match schedule, alliances will not have time to go practice with each set of partners. We believe it is going to be exciting to watch the attempts.

The changes were not meant to help or hurt any robot or design. Many long robots are good at triples, many wide ones are not.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

What about the few matches where they devote 20 seconds or less to the triple and succeed? You willing to be a longbot that goes up against that with your "randomly generated" partners?

You don't think some of the teams in attendance can't execute smooth superfast triples with their uber balancing devices? How much practice is REALLY needed for 67 and two wides to say "ok boys, stick together and let's go!" and run the train right up the track with the super monkey arm pushing up from behind (I love that thing)?

Are Longs willing to "take your medicine" in such a scenario, when now one loss likely means so much in the standings?

That is why I would like to at least be given the OPTION to defend triple attempts during qualifying to give disadvantaged alliances at least SOME way to throw a wrench into the works.

Finally, let's be clear, I do not believe one bit that anyone responsible for IRI rule changes MEANT to place one group of bots ahead of another, but the disadvantage IS there, and I feel that it will impact at least a few teams in the rankings to the benefit of widebot brethren. We shall see, won't we?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

In terms of the 40 extra points, wouldn't 30 make the triple balance more reasonable in quals?

Even if there was 3 long vs a 3 wide alliance. A good alliance in a quals match can triple between 10-20 seconds easily. In that time any decent robot can score 3-4 extra balls?

Just a thought,

-RC

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I was thinking the same thing. But then again why not just do double balance and have that robot score 3 balls?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Accepted without question; trust and respect your judgement and integrity.

I think that you have introduced an element which has a high probability of increasing the impact of referee's judgement and random pairings upon the seeding results of the qualification matches. Neither of which supports an emphasis on robot performance.

I agree with folks who see the addition of points for triples in qual's as a significant change.

It will definitely be a different game in qual's than has been played through the season.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Bryan - I wanted to comment on this point briefly. I do not believe Evan was referencing an example of a team who was experiencing a major funding catastrophe. He was describing a very logical reality that teams of all kinds face as they attempt to operate during the summer.

Some very stable teams don't have the leeway to budget for unplanned robot upgrade projects (especially during the summer), nor do they have full time summer access to their schools/shops where they can enter the building any time they want. Some amount of advanced planning and scheduling with school officials is required. There are certain union and administrative realities that block some teams from gaining access when the primary school team leader is away on vacation.

More importantly, most teams in such situations have little to no realistic recourse to alter those realities in the less than one month they have between now and the IRI competition.

We are going into battle at IRI with the robot we had at MARC, because we have already developed and tested triple compatible systems for the machine. It can do what it can do, which is a lot, including tripling with many teams in many configurations (including 67 and a standard widebot, apparently - alas...MARC practice only). Short of inventing a shrink ray, there is nothing more we can do to enhance its triple compatibility given the realities of our summer budget and school access. I imagine many others are in a similar or worse situation.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Chris, Andy and Stu,

No comment on the rule changes. (I'm not playing, so I don't have a dog in the fight.)

How much are you planning on altering FMS? At MARC we couldn't run FMS Elimination matches because we had 4 on the alliance, so had to run them like practice matches so we could put in team numbers. We found that the head ref panel did not give an option for a triple balance as it was not considered an Elimination match. The scores had to be manually adjusted in any match with a triple balance.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Our FTA is saying that we can add points at the end of each match if we wish to count the triple balance. We don't think that we need a software change.

Andy

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I support revisiting the change and tweaking the tweak.

I really like the option of making the center bridge worth 10 points, but just during eliminations.

Without coop points (I'm not sorry to see them go!) the elims are all about finding the top 8 best all-round robots.

I'd say that a robot that can collect and score 3 balls in the final 20 seconds and then get up on the bridge for a 3-second solo-balance is a special robot indeed!

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I would agree, as I fail to see the problem with this. Shouldn't the top 8 best robots be the top 8 seeds and pick their strategically-determined alliances accordingly? Most of the robots at IRI are high caliber, and if they can prove their worth, will play in eliminations. You don't always need to be an alliance captain to do well.

Second, I think Holtzman said it perfectly. 2056 is long, but if they go undefended, they have a great chance at winning IRI. Travis, 48 has a great robot as always in addition to great strategy. Effectively countering a triple by means of a 21 point lead and a double seems entirely likely. People seem to be complaining about the luck of the draw schedule-at IRI, you can usually trust your partners. Once again: Stop Whining.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think I fundamentally disagree with you. I believe that every team's final rank should be resultant from how much they win (how good they are) because that is what we are competing to find out. Everyone is competing to see who is the best, so when the ranking system utilizes a metric which has nothing to do with winning it throws a tremendous amount of noise into the ranking system. If the ranking system is supposed to rank teams by how good they are why should hypothetical team 0000 be ranked over hypothetical team 9999 when 9999 worked harder during the build season, can more effectively play the game, and won more qualification matches? Now if when team 0000 is playing team 9999 and comes up with a cleaver strategy to beat 9999 that is a completely different story. Here is a comparison. In the NCAA basketball teams are ranked 1-16 for March Madness (eliminations) based on their record in the normal season (qualifications.) Now imagine the outrage if team's rank was half-based on how awesome their mascot was? Do you see the problem? The co-op bridges are like mascots.

_________________
I'll PM you tomorrow. One of our parents is a public relations guy and really guided us on how to do this. I'll publicly say this:

-A professional looking letter (not email) begins the process.
-Actually going to the company to present one's team is absolutely key to recruiting sponsors.
-Bringing a cool-looking and performing robot to demonstrate and explain is also very important.
-The absolute most important thing is to have a bunch of enthusiastic, knowledgeable students explaining what the program is about and how the robot works.
-Firm handshakes and looking people in the eyes is extremely important. Teenagers are very bad at this. All our presenters actually practiced this along with their pitch numerous times.
-A follow up letter is very important to close the deal.
-Once we have a sponsor we try very hard to keep them. Every year we make plaques for every company that sponsors us signed by every student to show our appreciation. We also invite every companies CEO's to come to our kickoff party, robot unveiling party, and end of the year picnic. Most of them don’t come, but it’s the thought that counts.


I love quotes. I’m going to toss some famous quotes at you that I believe apply to the situation.

“The great thing about working hard is that you can always work harder, the great thing about being good is that you can always be better.” -- unknown

“I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” – Thomas Jefferson

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” -- Beverly Sills

There is another in my signature. The point is that if these “stable” teams do not have the drive to find the money and/or shop space elsewhere to work during the summer, then you’re right. They won’t have a chance at IRI -- because IRI is filled with teams that have already taken that step. Ok, one more quote: “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” What I’m talking about doing does take more than a month. It may take more than a year. But it is a step that every “powerhouse” team has taken. Over the last couple years I have watch my team go from one that is all but inactive during the summer to one that participates in VRC, OCCRA, three offseason FRC competitions, is working on a drivetrain gearing optimization project, is further developing our 2011 drivetrain, and is improving our 2012 robot for IRI. There is no secret, there is only hard work.

Regards, Bryan

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I've thought about this for a while, and this is what I've come to. When I first read the update, my reaction was something along the lines of "WHAT!? That's just not fair to a robot whose random partners can't triple." Except not quite. After a little recollection of my experiences on the Curie playoff field, my decision changed. Us (1507, 34" long, with a significant overhang, with breaks), 51 (wide), and 3098 (wide with a stinger) tripled several times on the practice field. With those aids, and with that practice time, we still failed in the match we tried it. That was terribly worded, but the point I'm trying to make is that tripling, unless the alliance is W/W/W with practiced drivers, is by no means easy. And even then, the caliber of bots at IRI is such that there will be several (maybe even more) long robots that can put up 18+ points in 20 seconds while the other 5 are balancing.

I'm still not 100% sold, but I don't think this is the end of the world for long bots.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I do believe this has to be the most motivating are influential posts I have ever read on here. Thank you for this Bryan!

-D

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I think you meant to say quals.. and i'm not trying to pick on you specifically but all rules change threads have had someone say something along those lines and it bothers me.

Rebound Rumble was the game we were all given. It wasn't just scoring baskets and balancing. Each game is a strategy filled, complex game that requires teams to excel in many different areas in order to be successful. To infer that The Top 8 robots must be all around great robots takes away from what makes FIRST so addicting. If a team ranks high by specializing, they deserve it. You're devaluing teams that made decisions that they thought early on in January would make them successful. Now, in July, you're asking them to play a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT game. That's truly unfair in my opinion. Teams that chose to excel in quals by dominating and specializing in CoOp balancing are now SOL. And i'm speaking as a team that did not go that route.

IMO, the CoOp bridge was the most unique and paradigm breaking aspects to a competitive competition that I have ever seen. I thought it was awesome.

I've always thought that IRI reserves the right to make changes to fix the little things that end up being annoying through the course of the season. A lane infraction here or a contact penalty there. Not to make large, game altering changes. Rebound Rumble, as it was played all season, will go down as one of the best FRC games of all time. To change it this much was unnecessary.

Also...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=106213

In that poll, the FRC community voted 120-92 to keep the CoOp bridge at at least one point. I think that would have been a fair compromise.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

That's wonderful for you. Over the past few years, we've begun to transition in much the same way. This year, we are attending MARC and IRI and Rochester in the fall. We've already attended more demos in May/June than I care to recall. We are going to have team-building activities in August as well as continue work on the t-shirt cannon robot we developed LAST summer.

As I said, we are satisfied with the robot, heading into IRI. If I cared to do so, I could exfiltrate the robot and tools and visit one of our NEOFRA neighbors' facilities to work on it further. In fact, before we arranged for any summer access at the new school building last year, we worked on the bot at 379's facility. But I kinda like the notion of a break. And July is a good time to do it, since our school team leader will be away, and we already proved the bot/drive team out at MARC. We will practice a bit shortly before leaving, but that is all. I also kinda like the notion of not spending money we do not have on projects we don't need. Perhaps the United States government will someday have the same notion, but I digress.

And now I am going to shift gears a bit - there is a fine line you have to draw between offering constructive advice and encouragement to other teams from a position of an active, well-resourced program and entering the realm of the mildly condescending.

The manner in which you deliver advice can be a turnoff to your intended audience, if it is done in a relentless, in your face fashion. I personally have had to learn this more times than I care to count, and I'm still learning. Less is sometimes more.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Triple balancing is over-rated and under-analyzed IMO.
With the quality of teams participating at IRI this year, you will easily see 90+ points for alliances that dont triple balance.
90+ points is good enough to win, especially if alliances employ some sort of defensive strategy that's been seen all season long, especially at CMP.

Havent we all seen enough matches this year, to NOT generalize and say that a triple is the only way to win AND that you must have a widebot to succeed?

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I did mean quals. It was late.

I can't disagree with anything you said other than in matters of degree. Strategy was a great aspect of this years game, but the coop balance was not the keystone of strategy, and as has been noted, it will be less of a real factor at IRI with so many superior robots.

My point was that if the coop points are removed, I would like to see something made Of the center bridge that would add a new and different twist for strategizing.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I will chime in a bit in Bryan's defense (although I will agree that he does offer 'relentless' advice :) ) :
Bryan is very passionate about FRC and our team. Part of the reason he comes off the way he does is because during his time on the Killer Bees, we went through a very difficult period in our team history. The economic challenges which hit our sponsoring companies and this region of our country effectively removed about 90% of our team income in the fall of 2008. This very easily could have destroyed us. Instead of allowing this to happen, we decided that we had to change our approach to almost everything we do. Before this, in retrospect, we were lazy. Now we set goals and targets for everthing we want to do and then figure out how to achieve the results we desire. The results of our efforts over the last 4 years have been amazing (these were Bryan's 4 years on the team, so it is all he knows) and these results have come as the outcome of relentless commitment to success. This is a year-round effort for us. A lot of this drive has come from me and a few other leaders on my team, and I do push this pretty hard, so not surprisingly, it rubs off on some of our students.

All I can say is that if I had 40 students as determined as Bryan, I cannot imagine how much more we could accomplish. (BTW, my company just hired him :) ). Despite near going bankrupt in the recent past, today our team has more money, more mentors, more students, more ability and more measurable success than we ever had in the past. Our plan is simple:
1. Decide what you want.
2. Determine what resources you have.
3. Define what you will do.
4. Repeat incrementaly until you can achieve your goals.

All of this is a bit off topic for this IRI Rules thread, other than to say that if you want or need to make changes to be competitive at the IRI, the is key to commit to acting on this desire, and then make a plan to do it.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Back to the thread...
I think these rule changes are for the bettter. Like it was said above many teams now can change there robot with 5 pound allowance to make a long bot triple balance. Yet, with the elimination of co-op balance and the addition of triple balances during eliminations, the good triple balancing bots to move up in the rankings and the now top bots to shift or move down. A powershift is in the makings for IRI and I'm ready to see the outcome.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

While I do think these rule changes play to the strengths of teams that can triple balance, the decision to go for a triple balance in a qualifying match has to be calculated very carefully.
Our triple balances at the MAR Championship and on Curie were the result of very carefully selected partnerships.
Going for a triple with an untested partnership in a qualifying match, could result in zero bridge points and cost you the match.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (see what I did there?)! It's eaaassssy to triple, Wides. You know you want to try the triples...destiny is calling your name. Fortune and glory! :)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Which is exactly why, in most cases, teams will just balance two and keep one scoring. The end game just got a whole lot less exciting.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

To actually make your point clearer, Co-Op Bridges are more like Slam Dunks. If some teams gained an advantage in the standings due to the number of Slam Dunks they earned, three-point shooting teams would be upset.

However, the argument doesn't hold up.

At the beginning of the FIRST season, teams built their robots to a specific set of rules - one of those rules included additional points to those teams who can co-op with their opponent on the white bridge. These were the official rules of Rebound Rumble. They were part of the game. And so a season went on where the white bridge was involved. Then came IRI, who had a bunch of teams sign up first, and then announced that the white bridge's effect on the game is going to be completely removed.

At the beginning of college basketball season, teams build their roster to a specific set of rules - one of those rules included that any shot made inside the 3-point line would be worth 2 points. Theres were the official rules of Basketball. They were part of the game. And so a season went on where the 2-point shots were involved. Then came the NCAA tournament, who slotted 68 teams first, and then announced that Slam Dunks would earn 3 points rather than 2.

Some basketball teams build themselves around defense and rebounding, or transition shooting, or they could "live or die by the 3-point shot". Coaches recruit students that work in a particular system too, and mold players to be as effective as possible. The best teams are almost always those who can do everything about the game in the best possible way, and sometimes those fringe teams who excel in one or two aspects of the game make it to the top too. Now those teams who rely on 3-point shooting find themselves at a huge disadvantage going into the tournament because they could have earned the same amount of points by just dunking the ball with less risk than going long. (see what I did there?) However, they had no idea that their initial build was going to be hurt due to a change in the rules once they were accepted into the tournament. Thankfully they have a few weeks to learn some new maneuvers and alter their roster, but in the end all of the fundamentals of the game have been severely altered for them and they start the tournament at a disadvantage against those teams who have studied the art of the slam dunk all season long.

Thank you so much. It means a lot.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Justin,

I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on some others.

First, I agree with you that Rebound Rumble was an amazing game to play. Challenging, inventive and exciting. Along those lines, I certainly agree these changes are quite drastic. I would never have imagined that IRI would remove the coop bridge. But they have. And here is where I disagree with you.

Secondly, I don't think a team that specializes in one thing is deserving of a #1 Seed finish. I believe the #1 seed should be the best robot for the game. If that means they specialize in one thing and dominate the field for it, then they'll take the #1 seed spot. But I think that's a different discussion we can have elsewhere.

The main point I disagree with you on is the removing of the coop bridge being unfair to some team and that those teams are "SOL". I agree that it is a change that teams will have to account for, but no one is "SOL". It's down to a "Win-Loss" situation, so those teams will need to play Rebound Rumble. Make baskets and balance on alliance bridges. If teams weren't prepared to do that... Well, I don't know what to say. Maybe IRI isn't a great place for them. Maybe that itself is not a fair statement, but I don't see how the removal of the coop points leaves anyone at an unfair disadvantage. This isn't regional competition. This is an event where the best of the best play off.

Drawing a loose tangent that will probably be torn apart by others, take the change in minibot points last year to 20-20-15-15 (I think that was it...). Say you have a team that put up 3 or 4 tubes, which is "good" for regional levels, but a minibot that broke speed records. They were good in teleop, but astounding in the end game. At IRI, their tube scoring ability would be "just okay", and with the new minibot spread, their end game was FAR less valuable. It's the same thing. A game change hurts teams who planned for the minibot to be a game changer. You find ways to adapt. You find ways to succeed. If the lack of coop points is truly what cripples a team, I feel that they may not be ready for IRI.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

That definatly depends on the score, where the basketballs are, and what your opponents are doing on the bridge.

If it's your only chance of winning, and with no coop to help your standings in a loss... It will be attempted in quite a few matches

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

In the same vein, you should expect a high percentage robots that score in the 2-point and 3-point hoops. Most teams can do it and teams would be hesitant to score in the 1-point hoop because it would hurt their overall score and ranking and reputation. So if no one uses the 1-point hoop, it becomes irrelevant to gameplay. Removing the 1-point hoop probably has even less of an impact on rankings.

Do we remove the 1-point hoop?

Not disrespecting the decision that was made, but arguing that I believe it is the wrong one.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I have a slight issue with this ongoing analogy. It seems to me that people repeatedly are associating IRI with the NBA official tournaments. IRI isn't an official FIRST event. They are not required to play by the same rules. They can make these changes because it's an offseason event... Street ball has different rules than the NCAA tournaments doesn't it? I think that IRI is essentially some really high class street ball.

Also, if coaches are allowed to modify their roster for play in the "off season" with these modified rules, then they should go ahead and do so. Some coaches may not have the resources to hire new plays (read: modify their robots) but thats part of the game...

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

What did any team do in their design process that was specifically pointed at performing a Coop balance? I have seen very few teams that do anything other than drive on the bridge and hope it balances.

If you looked back at the beginning of the season, most teams didn't even attempt a coop balance.

We designed and built our robot primarily for balancing, and I still wouldn't say if was specifically for a Coop balance. It was more designed for effective triple balancing.

I see nothing in these rule changes that, at this point in the season, changes the design of any robot. Most teams have already added some type of balance assist mechanism to triple balance.

You could say that if we could have tripled in quals during the season, then more teams would have built wide instead of long. I would disagree with that statement, since triple balancing was always a possibility in elims, where it is most important to win. Teams either valued it highly or didn't in their design process. The possibility of completing a triple in quals is even lower than the possibility of doing it in eliminations.

I think these rule modifications change some strategy options...but not designs.

I am excited to play this IRI version of Rebound Rumble... I think there will be a lot of excitement, successful triples, failed triples, extreme scoring bursts, etc...

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

While the competition invites many elite teams in FIRST to participate, I think the general population has to take care not to elevate IRI onto so high a pedestal as to become elitIST in describing it.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I certainly wasn't trying to play IRI as an elitist event, though rereading, that's what it seemed to come out as. And if that's what it came out as, it doesn't matter I meant. I'm sorry I unintentionally played IRI up as "elitist".

At the same time, IRI is definitely not a place for the weak of heart. I will never refer to a team as "too weak for IRI", but if asked personally (not that anyone should put stock in anything I say) if a team is ready to COMPETE at IRI, there are teams I would say no to. Attending and learning is one thing, competing is another. There are teams who, competitively, are not ready for IRI.

I didn't mean to refer to IRI as an elitist event. IRI is an amazing event and it's not like some high-society snooty country club where the commoners aren't allowed. But it is an ELITE event, where the elite go to play.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Again I say I do not disrespect the rule alteration, I think it's a bad idea, even as an exhibition event.

I believe it alters the game too much and will make a loss or two in qualifying an insurmountable feat to overcome, especially if you put the triple balance in play and teams will be ranked by points after the are ranked by standings. In this particular FIRST game, I think it's a bad idea.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Along that thought pattern, what happens to the teams in the handful of matches where a coop is failed (expecting IRI to have a very high coop percentage). Losing with no coop would be twice the insurmountable feat to overcome.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I like that characterization much better. :)

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Yes and no. It really depends on the street ball you're playing, and where you're playing, and who you're playing with, and which game/game type you're playing. I've seen it at 2/basket, regardless of distance; you could be playing halfcourt, short basket. It really depends on all those factors.

Most common, of course, is that the official scoring rules, height rules, etc. are left alone except as needed for half/full court situations.

Oh, but wait! There are some changes made in official tournaments! For example, in the NCAA, the time is often shortened in the wide spaces of the bracket. This is because there are games on back-to-back days, and having players play tired isn't good for anybody. I seem to recall that there's something similar in international competitions. But the only things messed with are time and possibly number of officials and replay.

I would suggest that IRI isn't street ball. It's the Olympics. You're supposed to tweak small stuff. The problem is, the tweak this year was to change the inbounding rules (or whatever other basketball rule you want to use--slam dunks was a good one earlier), which changes the face of the game.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

"A vote says more about the voter than the thing being voted on."

-John

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

There is no reason to have co-op points at an event like IRI.

The co-op bridge and points were determined by many to be a way for underperforming teams to have a chance at being seeded high (you may not share this opinion, but I do). No that doesn't mean that it always shot lower performing teams into the top 8, but I don't think that IRI is the place to cater to the underperforming teams. Most of the teams attending are above average or top tier.

I see no place for the co-op bridge or co-op points at the IRI. This rule change, I believe, was a correct one.

+$0.02

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I don't think it follows that how much they win = how good they are. We can measure wins easily, but we factor other things into our assessment of goodness.

Given that the original rules seemed to count the ability to balance the co-opertition bridge as a good thing, I have to disagree with the premise of your argument.

If you use wins as a proxy for goodness, you should expect error because you're neglecting other factors. But that error isn't noise in the conventional sense—it's a collection of unidentified explanatory variables.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I agree 100%. There's a difference between "good at playing any particular match" and "good at Rebound Rumble." There are a lot of commonalities between these two things, but they are distinct -- distinct enough to call these rules changes significant game-changers for which competitors thus disadvantaged could feel justified in their disgruntlement.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

I don't disgree, but why then have the vote...

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

This is going to put a new strain on Qual partners, someone has to be in charge of calling the balance and when. In Elims, its been fairly eazy as there is always a captain. Now each alliance will have to have someone incharge of balancing because 2 going for a double and 1 going for a triple does not work well. I know many (mostly michigan) teams pretty well and trust their coaches, but there are many more that I don't know. I hope to go into every match with an idea of how my alliance can triple balance, even if we don't use it. Also, really hoping to get paired up with 67 and/or 118 and another wide as I know we can triple quickly and reliably with them. Should be a lot of fun to see how triples progess (or don't) throughout qualifications.

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

Every robot is built to try to win matches in its respective game. Even though there are other factors involved (such as your partners and opponents) I think that how many matches you win overall during the season is still a fairly good indicator of how "good" your robot is. It's not perfect, but its the metric used by competitions everywhere. It is, in any case, a better way to determine robot rank at a competition then the co-op bridge is. So no, it is not the only or best metric to determine how "good" a robot is. Additionally, I believe that my use of "good" has been slightly misunderstood because it is such a vague term. I eariler used "good" to describe how high a robot would seed. While I can't think of a better term, that is probably a poor choice of words for the reasons you described. I hope I explained myself well enough.

Regards, Bryan

Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012
 

But that's the thing, the co-op bridge isn't the only way in which your rank is determined. You have to win the match before you can reap the real benefits of the co-op bridge. There is a benefit in earning co-op points when you lose, but the real winner is the robot that wins the match and earns co-op points too. And in order to gain those points, your alliance must still win the match. So yes, you are right, if a robot is deemed "good" it's usually because of how many matches they win, but part of the game of Rebound Rumble and what makes teams (not robots) good in Rebound Rumble is their ability to utilize the white bridge.

Every robot at IRI is going to win their fair share of matches. That's for certain. And the robots that are expected to be in the top 8 will most likely do so. But the co-op bridge allows you to extend your victory and turns it into the same as two victories. Cooperating is a skill of Rebound Rumble, and it is a whole lot more than just another way to rank robots. It's a skill, and an alliance can be rewarded for utilizing and implementing that skill.

I find that removing the co-op points is more than just the removal of a "fairness" system that FIRST implemented because Coopertition and GP and all that, it's also removing a core and fundamental part of the game just so the teams and spectators can watch a few more triple balances.