Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

This might not be possible as FMS might need to be changed but....

Get rid of RP for breaching in quals and replace it with the 20 points you get in elims.

Breaching should happen in every match, especially at IRI, and having it give an RP was an OP move by FIRST. Giving it the 20 point bonus still puts a emphasis on making sure the breach happpens.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Given that there were still missed crossings on Einstein, something should be done to fix that..

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Get rid of any and all tiebreakers. Replay every tie in elims.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Eliminate the portcullis (already being done), drawbridge, and sally port. No more major visibility problems, no more problems with teams missing boulders they can't see. In return require all 5 defenses be knocked out for a breach, and as others have said give breaching a point value reward instead of ranking points.

No audience selection - just let the teams choose all of them.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Go back to explaining fouls.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Seconded.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Ties in eliminations are decided by another match not tiebreakers.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Perhaps, but it doesn't really seem like there is that much space on the field to gain momentum, unlike 2014.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

You can't really get rid of both the drawbridge and the sally port, unless you plan to do away with the defense categories altogether and have teams put any defense in any slot. Aside from that, I for one, happen to like the portcullis. :rolleyes:

This. So much this.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I'd take this a bit further and replace the extra RPs for breaches and captures with their elimination point bonuses. I don't see a reason we should be playing a slightly different game between qualifications and elims.

In addition, remove the batter requirement for captures. I'm assuming tower strength will be raised for IRI and putting that many balls in the tower is an impressive effort in itself. Removing this requirement will remove the chances of a weaker 3rd robot losing the alliance 25pts by not being able to make it back to the batter on time, and opens up more strategic flexibility within the last 30s of the match.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I agree with this one, at least in part. Focusing on the capture, for a team trying to rank very high, losing the one RP due to a single alliance member's mistake can be very defeating. I think teams should at least be allowed to make up for their alliance member's mistakes by outscoring their opponents above the 25pt bonus (and not spending a bunch of time pushing their own partner around, despite how awesome it was to watch).

For the breach, the importance is less, as one robot could theoretically achieve a breach alone, but if we are changing the capture, we might as well change the breach over to elims style too. The FMS might even let us do that already, though I am not sure where the play-style change made by the Scorekeeper, and if it necessitates actually running an elims bracket.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

When I breach, your secret passage is no longer protected. I can get returning boulders with impunity, and cross back to the neutral zone without negotiating a defense.

This has the following advantages:
- it encourages faster breaching.
- it encourages higher scores
- it gets rid of some penalties
- it fits the theme

This can be combined with many of the other permutations mentioned (forcing three crossings, crossing all five for a breach, doing away with ranking points, etc).

You might also remove the one defender limit when the walls fall, if you want to force teams to be more strategic about it.

Look at it like this - whatever you do by forcing additional crossings is still going to be easy for IRI teams to do in two minutes. Anything that's reasonable enough to be implemented will still happen every match, it will just take longer and we'll end up with less scoring. This wil make fast breaching more important while still keeping the focus for the audience on robots shooting balls.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

There's enough space to gain excessive force. A bump is enough to disrupt any shot. What I saw out there was excessive. Look at the match videos from carson field. I don't want any to ever have to experience play like that again.

I think a large amount of the issues I saw on that field were from uninforced rules, but adding another layer of protection is some positive step as opposed merely blaming refs.

Also the definition of intent may be vauge, but I think we can all agree that giving up points or drawing fouls should count as intent. Maybe we can make that clearer. You can't accidentally tip a robot inches from the outer works outer works, they were already gone. You can't accidentally push a robot into your own secret passage from your courtyard in the last 25 seconds when they should be running away. I saw both of those things happen in our field, and it needs to end NOW.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

Thanks for all of the suggestions and input. We are working to create the modifications (if any).

Any rule modification will be posted for teams before the Invitation Response deadline, so teams can determine if they want to play the modified game before they commit.

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions
 

I think the batter requirement makes the end game so much more exciting. 330's second self-righting wouldn't have been that exciting for the 5 point challenge nor would 1678's and 1405's near misses at challenging be as heart-breaking.