Chief Delphi - 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Page 8 of 10

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Off-Season Events (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147485)

FarmerJohn

02-05-2016 16:38

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).

seg9585

02-05-2016 16:47

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

maxnz

02-05-2016 19:14

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn (Post 1581911)

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).

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.

Hitchhiker 42

02-05-2016 19:16

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn (Post 1581911)

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).

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.

Citrus Dad

02-05-2016 19:27

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

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

maxnz

02-05-2016 19:49

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42 (Post 1582004)

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.

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

CalTran

02-05-2016 19:55

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxnz (Post 1582021)

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

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

Gsquared

02-05-2016 19:55

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.

orangemoore

02-05-2016 20:30

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.

hectorcastillo

02-05-2016 21:19

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Raise the low bar to 5 feet high

MARS_James

02-05-2016 21:26

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1581651)

Might have been suggested already, but ditch the requirement that has one defense from each group on the field.

That alone will likely put the Group C's and the Portcullis out of play.

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.

Billfred

02-05-2016 21:50

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1581902)

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.

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.

Hitchhiker 42

02-05-2016 22:00

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxnz (Post 1582021)

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

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

b.arci

02-05-2016 22:56

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by S1LK0124 (Post 1581532)

Both alliances score 4 RP

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gsquared (Post 1582024)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman (Post 1581656)

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.

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.

Jellypickles234

02-05-2016 23:19

Re: 2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1581379)

I adamantly disagree with this rule change, actually. The batter races are some of the most tense and exciting parts of the game. While it is frustrating to not make it onto the batter, it adds importance to the endgame and creates more opportunities for strategies and risk (last second scoring, hanging with an unreliable mechanism, etc) and I think the game would lose a LOT of its value if this were gone. This change more than most other changes would change the dynamics of the game a lot, and I don't think it's a positive change.

+1 I agree entirely

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45.

Page 8 of 10

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page