Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I apologize if such lunacy were suggested already, but since it seems many are considering breaching to be an afterthought, and greater visibility is desired...

Remove all defenses entirely. Bare carpet. Leave the secret passages. Field resetters, rejoice. Cycle times would greatly decrease - more matches per team.

2016? Meet 2014. Declare a safe shooting zone where the defenses used to be. Meet 2012.

Increase tower strengths to 15...or 20.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I like the game where RPs are used for qualification and then converted to points for eliminations. Raising the Tower strength at CMPs was a good idea, perhaps even a bit more would be good. Another thing might be to require all defense weakening to occur in teleop, effectively raising the number of defense crossing by three. Points could be earned during AUTO but the defense would not be weakened.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Allow the possession of up to three boulders at a time.

Did someone say 6 ball auto?

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I re-watched some of the matches, SF1M1 did get a bit excessive, but overall I think most of the flips were due to the all terrain nature of the robots. The hits this year have much less energy than 2014, and the force is a side effect of a single defender trying to disrupt two or three robots at once, something you can't do if you're moving slowly or trying to brake before every impact.


I do agree with you about the intentional fouling of robots during the endgame and generally throughout the match, it was disappointing when I realized that rule was not really going to be enforced this year but we kinda just buckled down and dealt with it.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Despite losing twice in a row for this reason, I agree that this change would be bad. Einstein was the most set of most exciting matches I've seen in sequence. That the final came down to breaking a tie was most appropriate.

I suggest replacing the first tie breaker with the auto points rather than foul points (and we could never remember which way the tiebreaker went). Let the teams have more control rather than leaving it to the fickle discretion of the refs.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Make it such that boulders can be launched across completely damaged defenses (or launched from the neutral zone to the courtyard when the defenses have been breached).

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

1. Redefine a breach as damaging all 5 defenses.

2. Keep tower strength at 10 (like in Champs)

3. Make scaling more valuable -- 25 points

4. Allow robots to push up to 1 extra ball over/through the defenses (in addition to the one they are carrying)

5. Auto mode -- record multiple defense crossings if performed in auto

6. Make the rough terrain more difficult

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I think that the first one would be too hard for the refs to determine the legality of the shot. The second one could be viable, though.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

The second option is in spirit of the medieval theme. Typically, when you are able to break down your opponent's defenses, it should be an option to feed through shots.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

One obvious rule change: put actual water in the moat...:cool:

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

As we can see here, some robots probably are capable of shooting that far.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

For those who are wondering, 4646, in auto, accidentally turns and shoots a ball over to the Ref, a la 2014 assist.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I think making the tower health double and adding more weight to high goals would be a lot cooler. I also think allowing two balls to be controlled at once would mean a lot less undeserved penalties.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Reduce penalties for interacting near defenses/crossing.

Such that if a two robots come in contact during a robot cross as long as the contact doesn't affect the cross and is unintentional there isn't a penalty.

This would be useful for teams accessing the position 5 defense and secret passage at the same time.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Raise the low bar to 5 feet high

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Well unless they build their own Portcullis it is out of play anyway. So if they do build their own defense please please please tell teams ahead of time what it will be with accurate schematics so teams can know if they can successfully cross it.


One thing I would love to know before we (or the Planning Committee) goes to insane with changing tower strength, is what percentage of qualification matches at champs had a tower brought down to 0 (or atleast had 10 balls scored) and what percentage had captures, cause this would help to see if captures were not happening because of tower strength or failure to get back to the batter.

Also I don't know if it is possible to do away with the extra RP for breach and capture since it is so ingrained into the FMS and referee panels but if we do go to a straight win/loss with bonus points for those actions (Like they did in 2012) I would love to see if we can use the breach and capture totals as the first tie breaker.

I think it would be cool also if we make it so there is an extra two balls that start in the castles and increase the number of balls allowed back in the castle by 1 or 2 to allow for teams to be more strategic in the balls in the tower instead of just creating a 469 in 2010 situation.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I 100% agree with paragraph 1, and I could roll with paragraph 2 at IRI.

That said, I think ties in the finals (and only the finals) should be replayed. If finals yield the heavyweight title fight I think we're all hoping for, I don't think anyone minds the extra 10 minutes to settle it.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

At Suffield Shakedown, our robot almost made a boulder into the basketball hoop stowed up on the ceiling.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Just a friendly reminder: It's not possible to award a total of 8 ranking points. Only one alliance can get the 2 RP for a win.

Do you mean high goals should be worth more? Based on CMP, high goal shooting bots already have a distinct advantage over low goal bots. No need to further the gap IMO.

Wouldn't this completely change the idea and strategy behind the game? I love the concept, and it would be cool to play, but maybe at a less "important" offseason.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

+1 I agree entirely

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Change a challenge to only require 2 robots. Stop penalizing alliances a RP just because another of their robots doesn't show up to the field (happened to us 3 times this year). Keep a capture at 3 robots.

Please do NOT remove the safe fire zone in the defenses. Too many teams designed with this in mind (us included).

Change accidental contact when crossing defenses so it isn't a foul.

If a robot breaks down, don't allow other teams to gain points from them. A blue alliance robot broke down in our courtyard and it made me feel a little immoral when two of our robots hit him trying to get to the batter and got climb points for it. If they interfere with something fine, but being broken down in a corner.... no.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

These lights are not classified as lasers. They are not focused enough and your blink reflex is fast enough that they do not create a safety issue.

We are using a small cree LED flashlight. Is that tactical? We had a fun discussion with a volunteer at worlds after passing 2 district inspections, a state champ inspection, and the world champ inspection when he told us our light was too bright. We pointed out that the field lights AND the pinpoint spots being used were much brighter than our flashlight, and asked him to have those turned off as well.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

That's true. However that was just a hypothetical situation to help explain the concept.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Some of that data (from TBA Insights)

Field - Avg # Goals Qual - Avg # Goals Elims
Arch - 8.4 - 8.9
Cars - 8.9 - 12.2
Carv - 9.1 - 13.4
Cur - 8.5 - 12.6
Gal - 7.9 - 11.7
Hop - 8.9 - 13.0
New - 9.3 - 12.9
Tes - 9.0 - 10.8
Ein - N/A - 16.3

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Keep an eye on 829:

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016inpmh_sf1m2

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Seems like the teams at IRI are good enough and have worked on their robot enough to show up to the field anytime they have a match.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Ranking should go back to W-L-T. Let the breach and capture award their playoff point bonuses during qualifications. All else should remain the same.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

If I were in charge of making Stronghold a top-tier-robot-only game, I would:

Keep the tower strength at 10, as at Championship.

Keep all the defenses. (Heck, if we can design for the drawbridge, anyone can--and if they didn't, that's really their problem, isn't it?)

Get rid of crowd selection and choose the random defense with a coin flip. (I might just be grumpy that they institutionalized a built-in penalty for having a small team.)

Change it so that any boulder that has contacted the carpet of a secret passage must be carried over the outer works to be scored (as if it had come from the neutral zone--so no more scarfing up boulders from your opponent's secret passage and immediately scoring them, though loose boulders in the courtyard are still fair game).

Change a breach to all five defenses.

I would be adamantly against changing the breach/capture QPs--robots were designed with those parameters in mind, and it would be too significant of a change at this point. As others have said, it adds both tactical decision-making and end-game excitement.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Tiny change:
Spray paint the batter shields to match the color of the alliance.

Removes a massive annoyance for the drivers. Lets the audience watch great driving. Also maintains the challenge of fitting onto the batter for a scale.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I like this change a lot.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

My first choice would be to change nothing.

If you want to simplify the game for volunteers, replace the defense selection with a randomized selection of the defenses which applies to both alliances for a complete "round" of matches during qualification. Then, in elimination matches, allow the alliances to select their defenses. Keep the audience selection in both qualification and elimination.

To increase the game difficulty:

- Require that all five defenses are defeated to earn the breach points.
- Increase the defense strengths to 3 or 4.
- Increase the Tower strength to 12.
- During elimination matches, require one (or two) scale(s) plus challenge(s) to earn the capture.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I imagine a lot more teams would have designed in a scaling mechanism if they knew at the beginning of season that it would strictly be a must for an Elims alliance. While I like the spirit of the change, this one puts a heck of a lot more stock into scaling robots than a normal change would.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Also, somewhat related to a rules change, and may be a nonissue:
Will IRI be using the vinyl flaps that FIRST adopted ~Week 2 or will the low bar fabric made out of bumper material be reinstated?

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

To me this says that an increase to maybe 11 or 12 may be necessary but not much higher

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I have a few suggestions for changes that would modify game play slightly in regards to strategy, but not alter it in regards to robot design.

1. Different tower strength in Qualifications and Eliminations. Based on some of the averages displayed on this thread, I feel like 10 tower strength in Qualifications, and 12 in Eliminations, would suit the game play.
2. Bonus Boulders. We all loved the can grabbing in 2015. It was the one touch of exciting in 2015. I suggest two "bonus boulders" that are placed on the center line (in the spot of two boulders regularly placed there). These boulders are worth double points in Autonomous or Teleoperated. It will introduce new strategy, and value of being close to the center line at the end of Autonomous. Should we stay put in auto? Should we try and snag it in Autonomous? Should we cross, score, and come back? That's for teams to decide.
3. End Game Bonus. It's exciting, not to mention nerve wracking, seeing if a robot will make it to the tower to lock in the capture at the end of a match. I propose a bonus on boulders scored during the last 20 seconds of the match. This could be, perhaps, 2 points extra on high goals, and 1 point extra on low goals. Should you try and score lots in the last 20 seconds? Should you play it safe and go to the batter early, and not risk trying to score for bonus points? Once again, a new strategic dynamic to consider.

All thoughts are welcome on these rough drafts of game improvement suggestions.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

To me this means that championship divisions are much weaker than IRI is, and any three teams at IRI should be able to easily put 10 balls into a goal as long as none of them lose communications.

Honestly IRI qualifications should either:
Leave tower strength at 10 (then captures only occur if someone fails to get on the batter or some other strange thing occurs)
Increase it to at least 12, maybe up to 16 even, depending on how challenging we want capturing to be.
12 means each robot scores 4 balls each, or 2 robots score 6 balls each.
15 means each robot scores 5 balls each, or 2 robots score 7.5 balls each.

You might be saying "But Kevin, 7.5 high goals in a match for one robot is a huge number". But you're forgetting that low goals exist.

I think teams having to switch between which goal they're scoring into, or otherwise increasing their output of ball scoring is something cool about this game. I also think captures shouldn't be a given, even if it's IRI. I like having strategy meetings in close matches be a potential choice between getting a guaranteed capture and perhaps losing the match, or playing defense, losing the capture, and winning the match.

These choices are a big part of why I had a blast in FIRST Stronghold, and I'd like to see them stay at IRI.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Fair point, but this is off-season and teams have time to make functional improvements. Still, my first choice would be to change nothing.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I vote to Increase the Autonomous time from 15 seconds to 20 seconds. I guess you can leave the Teleop Period the same.

The reason for this change, while subtle will make a huge impact in autonomous. Robots whom currently have a 2-ball auto can spend the time to make them more accurate (more time to visually line up) instead of firing rapidly just to run back and get the second ball.

Also this opens the door for other robots/teams whom may have had slower mechanisms or systems which did not support 2 balls in 15 seconds or under, but the extra 5 seconds may now allow them to accomplish the task.

I think off-season events are all about pushing the limits, and this change may help make that 80-point auto a reality at IRI.

Obviously this would potentially extend every match 5 seconds, unless it was reduced in Teleop? Is that a big deal? Over 100 matches that would only be ~+8 minutes.

Plus side, this change should be simple to integrate, and does not negatively effect any current design or team. Should only be a positive addition if implemented

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Here's an idea I had over dinner.

Make audience selection done via some sort of app or website. I'll preface that unless I have a work conflict, I'll be volunteering to scorekeep at IRI, so any resulting scorekeeper burdens I acknowledge and accept :D

The idea is that since IRI is an often watched livestream, for an audience selection to really reflect the audience, the livestream viewers should also have a say. In addition, this gives a more quantitative result to choose from. Finally, it frees up a little bit of cycle time (not that it's enough to care about).

Here's how it would work: When the selection is "scheduled" the MC announces the selection. AV shows the defense screen (which scorekeepers can do w/o making a selection at that time). Then the next match proceeds, during which people (including livestream viewers) vote on the defense. After the score is announced for the match, the selection's result is announced and entered into FMS (possibly the app's result screen shown by AV). While that puts the actual selection one match later than normal, as long as the choice is made before prestarting the first match using that selection, FMS is happy.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

This is a cool way to do it that feels more quantitative.

The one thing about audience selected defenses is that it does give you another piece of information to use during strategy discussions. Knowing 2/5 of the defenses prior to the match helps very much with match strategy.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

The other ones could be debated, but this one should not happen. If a human player blows the roll-in, and the drivers are willing to risk the penalties of going into the secret passage, then they should be able to reap the benefits.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I didn't figure everyone would like all of my suggestions. :)

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I'm with Billfred on this one. Your other suggestions are reasonable and should be debated. But this one is just legalized hoarding. It would change the game fundamentally, because alliances would not need to guard their SPs. Entrance to the SP would become a chokepoint, with a high potential for fouls. The result would be less shooting and more damage to robots. I think this area is one that the GDC considered carefully, from the viewpoint of match flow, and I think they got it right.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Okay I know I'm super late to this, but I had kicked around the idea with a few people of changing what was needed for a capture in quals (I don't think it's needed in elims, but perhaps)

You would still have to get whatever the tower strength is with boulders

You either have (a) all 3 robots either parked on the batter OR (b) at least one robot parked on the batter and a second robot must be hanging fully above the low goal.

I thought this would help solve the problem of being stuck with a dead partner in a qual match and also give a bit more value for hanging. Maybe I'm biased but this seems like a good thing I think.

Just my $0.02. I think this would help the rankings not be quite as dependent on match schedule luck.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

If you give the spy bot 3 boulders that can do whatever they want with, but only let them use them in the last 30 seconds that would make for some actually interesting human player strategy.

Or allowing multiple boulders to be held in the last 30 seconds as well, could add an interesting twist.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I too think this is an interesting idea, however, I do not know any teams with multiple ball-manipulation capabilities because the game this year did not allow for it. This would screw many teams over and I don't think changing the game that much at this point is worth the extra bit of excitement. Keep up the ideas though!

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I'd go out on a limb and figure that any team with an intake separate from their shooter could handle two (one in the intake, and one in the shooter). Just don't try to have two ready to shoot (973 in Ventura--Adam didn't look too happy after that match, something about a jammed shooter, a foul, and a tech foul when they crossed a defense--at least it looked accidental, but still!)

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Whatever you do, please do not get rid of the Category C defenses completely. Many teams (including mine) use it as a safe way to get out of the courtyard, which is a valid strategy.

Second note: if IRI's rule changes are about trying to increase scores, and if they are to standardize the defenses (which I would recommend to make field reset much easier), I would recommend choosing the ones with the highest damage rate per category, if its possible to find that out (I don't know what those are).

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I also agree about not removing category C defenses for this same reason, as well most tall bots are designed to be able to solo them so i think it'd also be unfair to those teams.

http://www.thebluealliance.com/insights/2016 the damage rates can all be found there