Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Add 2 more "refs" to focus on the outerworks, and reverse the hinge side of the sally port. These two new refs would not need to call any fouls and would only need to know the wave off and what counts as a crossing.

As for actual adjustments to the game, I'll leave that up to everyone else :)

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Leave all of the defenses in the same place for each round of matches so we can play more matches and make field reset easier. Don't change them until every team has played their first match, then until every team has played their second match, etc...

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

The protected zone around the outer works was not a loophole in the rules, but an obvious and almost certainly intentional aspect of the game. Yet, relatively few teams took advantage of it. I don't think teams should be penalized for having made good design choices to take advantage of the obvious protected zone.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Add extra points for multi climbs/a triple climb bonus. Maybe make the rough terrain blocks a bit taller so that there's a reason to select it. Possibly add weight/take off the constant force springs on the portcullis?

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Replace the 5th defense with another Low Bar to encourage more two ball autonomous routines.

Or allow teams to replace whatever defense gets put in position 5 with the Low Bar but don't only give it points for the first crossing as the "penalty" for putting it in.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Return any ball that flies out of the field to the SPY. They can do what we they want with the ball, except score it.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

If the goal is to increase scores, have 3 balls start touching the castle wall, but not in the secret passage, on each side placed by the alliance in that tower.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Does that include nailing a defending robot? :D

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I'd also donate to this fund. The drawbridge seems to be much harder than the sally port for many teams (since you can't just spin around/wiggle to break contact), but it's not getting much use because of how much of a hinderence it is to drivers. It's almost like there's only 8 defenses instead of 9 because of how little it's used. There's something to be said for tradeoffs, but I think it would still a challenging defense to cross even if the door was clear. The #damaged/#opportunities success rate in the quals at the DCMPs was low, which is partly due to the abysmally low denominator, but also because it's difficult.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

For those keeping score at home (because I love numbers) the Drawbridge was the least selected defense in Qualifications, being chosen 27.67% of the time. However the Portcullis (28.71%) and Rough Terrain (29.29%) weren't chosen with much more frequency.

In Playoffs, the Drawbridge was actually chosen with MORE frequency (28.30%) than either the Portcullis (28.17%) or Rough Terrain (20.87%)

Your mileage may vary based on region, week of competition, district vs regional vs DCMP, etc.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

At MAR CMP, according to TBA, the drawbridge went 0/34 in quals and 0/13 in playoffs. We are one of the teams guilty of putting the Drawbridge in 4, since in that spot it is worse for the opponent than for you in many cases.

Looking at NE, they had the drawbridge go 0/9 in quals and 0/17 in playoffs.

Unless you are one of the few with a very good dedicated drawbridge mechanism, at the highest levels, it's not worth your time versus scoring more boulders and just lowers everybody's scores.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I did see that too. For category A at DCMPs (which I'm using because IMO they'd be more similar in competitiveness to IRI than a regional), the portcullis and cheval seem to have similar success rates, so it makes sense to choose the one that doesn't impede vision at all. Looking at some week 6 districts and regionals, if the success rate isn't the same, the portcullis tends to have a slightly higher success rate.

For category D, I'm guessing that's because the rough terrain is incredibly easy compared to the rock wall; it gives your opponents a fast way in and out of the courtyard. I'm surprised the rough terrain wasn't used less. I'd actually like to see the rough terrain modified somehow to increase its difficulty for IRI and put it more on the same level as the rock wall, but that might be changing the game too much.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I totally agree with your assessment. Additionally, Rough Terrain use dropped to only about 24% in both Weeks 6 and 7 (and even lower to 21 and 19% in Playoffs), and I wouldn't be surprised if it drops even lower at Champs.

The question becomes what could be done to increase the difficulty of the Rough Terrain without changing the game too much?

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

+1:D

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

The main breaker shouldn't be that hard of a target.