Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

What if, instead of just three red balls and three blue balls, there was 1 red ball with a square on it, 1 red ball with a circle on it, and 1 red ball with a triangle on it (and same for blue)? That might make it easier for a ref to say, "Okay, I'm tracking the red ball with the triangle," rather than trying to follow a ball identical to two others.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think some of these are absolutely insane.

Without the zone possession requirement, teams that purposely built their robots so they are able to easily truss from the white zone or the colored zone are penalized.

My suggestions would be:
1) Double the points for a catch- as of right now catching has no place in eliminations matches.
2) Make accidental possession of an opponent's ball not a foul if it's only for a few seconds.
3) Allow inbounders to take the balls whenever they please, but only to inbound a ball when a goal has already been scored.
4) Referee fouls regarding frame perimeter contact more conservatively. No team going to IRI (I think) is going to purposely damage another team's robot. Unless there is an obvious infraction, let the game continue.

Now if we're going to go with some more radical ideas, I have some of those as well:
Option A: During qualification matches, play the game like Jim Zondag suggested- a big shootout with three (or two) balls in play that are marked differently that doesn't take assists into account. This will help guarantee that the best robots take the top seeds. Then, in eliminations, play with all the real rules. All the teams there know how to form alliances that play Aerial Assist- they don't need qualification rounds to get them to know the game.

Option B: During qualification matches, play the game with two balls per alliance that are marked differently, bring in more referees, and play the game with assists. Then, in eliminations, play the game the original way.

I like Option A because it lets the best ball-scoring robots seed up top more easily, then it lets the strategy come out in how alliances are composed in eliminations. It also doesn't crush a team with a bad schedule and bad luck as much.

Anyone think this is a good idea? Or am I just crazy and frustrated by fouls and broken partners?

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I would like no zones first off, and then crazy 12 ball play as an endgame. At the last 30 seconds, each hp would get an extra 2 balls to do whatever with, then no assists, 15 point high goals, 5 point low goals, 0 point trusses, and 30 point catches. Catching your own truss should also be worth a catch during anytime.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think this might be my favorite suggestion so far. It wouldn't be that much more work for refs, especially if these extra balls aren't worth assists or anything, and it could lead to some crazy fun last few seconds to watch.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I agree with both those rules. The 6 ball autonomous rule reminds me of this post:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ht=6+ball+auto

Also, I think it would be nice to see the game played with multiple balls per alliance and no assists.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

How about a coopertition catch?
A white ball is put on the field during the last thirty seconds. If one alliance trusses it, and the other one catches it, it would be 2 qualifying points.

(Please don't, I still have nightmares about this from 2012)

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Some of these suggestions would require a we-write of the game software, multiple balls in play, more than three ball auto, ext....

It barely functions as is!

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

This game gets a LOT faster, and in my opinion a lot more fun. :)

No. Seriously. Someone needs to do this.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

That might have been a fine rule on kickoff day, but at this point many teams have optimized their robots to accurately lob the ball into the high goal from precise scoring positions. By getting rid of the top bar, you would be eliminating an entire class of "finishers", and putting lots of successful designs with lower-powered shooters at a sudden disadvantage. Worth it? Maybe, but it's pretty drastic.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Plenty of time to add a few springs to your shooter before July.
;)

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

This is the best rule change I have seen, I love this. (goalies become useless though)

Also lets move the sticks to the ends of the truss, those things are annoying.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I don't disagree with the idea of this rule, but for conversation sake I'll point out this just WRECKS goalie bots.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Definitely this.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Here's a quick and dirty endgame idea: At the end of the game, an Alliance may receive 30 endgame points by having a robot place the ball on the safety barrier on the side of the truss closest to that alliance's goals, as long as the ball was not contacted by a human player during the action of placing the ball.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I love it! Now where should we put the minibot towers?