Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

Can't agree with you too more. We only selected the drawbridge once this season because the opposing alliance could do every defense and we used it to slow down their breach. Playing matches with the drawbridge on either side really sucked, and even with a camera pole at the maximum legal height we had huge visibility issues going over it.

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

Yeah, my point was more along the lines of "better", not "perfect". Obviously I wasn't clear enough... To be fair the play style was somewhat unique in IN (compared to other areas) which may explain our lack of panel breakage.

We did break a couple batter dividers though (1 in Indiana, 1 on Carson) and had various light string short-outs (which I'm not going to comment on further), so it wasn't field repair utopia. You can't win them all...

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

While it is true, that I have never played a match as the drive crew, I have been pretty involved with my team's defense selections and general strategy throughout the year. I've discussed our use of the drawbridge often with my drive coach, driver, operator, and human player, and always am sure to get consensus from everyone behind the glass (including alliance partners) before placing a drawbridge. I'll get back to you on whether my drive crew agrees with my opinion of the drawbridge in a little bit.

And to Edxu, yes, I'm aware that the drawbridge is more limiting to your own vision than to your opponents. However, I do believe that it can be used effectively - most commonly in position 4. For example, take a look at MAR Champs Quarterfinal 3, Match 1. (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016mrcmp_qf3m1) This was, honestly, not a match that the blue alliance would have won had the drawbridge not been in such a place that 5401 had difficulty placing their hooks and thus lost their scale. That match was won by less than 10 points. Note that 5401 got their scale successfully in both of the other quarterfinal matches, neither of which had the drawbridge. Furthermore, since we were in a position that we could play around the drawbridge (708 was on the right, and we intended them to focus on low bar-low goal) then the damage to our alliance is at least minimized. Lastly, this works to nearly guarantee that the opponents will not cross at least one defense - a ∆10 for your alliance if they have teams who will solo-damage the sally port from behind. It all comes down to whether you expect to be hurt by the drawbridge for more than 10, possibly 20 points.

Yes, the Drawbridge should be used carefully and thoughtfully, but I would disagree with a sentiment it's never the right answer.

(At this point, I've certainly departed from IRI discussion - my bad.)

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

Can you clarify how this removes the incentive? or perhaps I am just missing something

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

Just a note: I agree that the drawbridge can be useful, in the right scenario.

But it's really fun to watch that "near guarantee" turn into 10 auto points, plus an auto shot on the high goal (which probably drops for another 10), and then another 5 crossing points. (1197 built to be able to run a solo drawbridge. Figured if we couldn't do low bar, we needed to get a breach some other way if we needed to.)

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

If Blue robot is in Red secret passage, a Red can still be fully in the courtyard and initiate contact to create the foul. This change says Red must be touching the secret passage carpet for the foul to occur. It reduces the incentive because it requires more time and movement into the secret passage and not just a quick tap.

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

I agree with this and is exactly why the Rumble in the Roads most likely will not be playing either the Sallyport or the Drawbridge. While both could be used effectively to strategically block LOS, nothing is entertaining about watching a robot drive around uselessly because the driver can't see.

In my opinion, the Drawbridge and Sallyport added nothing positive to the game.

PS Thanks to the IRI crew for the rules posting, we will be looking at these to see if there are any we want to steal for the Rumble in the Roads.

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

It's both. At Champs, both in Qual and Playoff Matches, the Sally Port was used in 86% of matches. The Drawbridge was crossed in 7% of matches where it was used.*

This, added with the reduction in visibility (and impact to game play) that others have mentioned, were the main drivers.

*All data pulled from The Blue Alliance Insights page for each field. A huge thanks to the crew that manage that site and to FIRST for making the data available this year!

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

I think the purpose of the drawbridge in this years game was to block visability. It added another design challenge to over come. We had thee cameras on our bot this year so we could see past the denfenses as easier. Other teams had poles sticking up on their robots while some had a camra from the driver station. There where a lot if of ways to design for the challenge.

I don't think it was poor game design. In fact I believe it was a great game design choice because it added an extra challenge that only the best of the best could over come.

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

I have a few questions in understanding how this will work.

To make sure I am understanding this correctly could you confirm that the scenario below is correct.
How will these extra tiebreaker matches fit into the playoff schedule with the other matches?

Which tied match will be used to calculate FIRST tie-breakers?

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

In your scenario, Match 6 would be used to calculate the tie-breaker.

We are working on a listing to capture the scenarios we can think of and how they would be decided. Hopefully not needed, but we want to have it defined in advance.

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

Can someone explain this to me? Did FIRST discontinue the portcullis due to safety or durability issues? Or am I missing something obvious? Thanks.

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

FIRST discontinued the portcullis due to safety. It apparently gave a number of volunteers injuries and sent a couple to the hospital. (while putting it together/and taking it down, field reset volunteers didn't get injured but it was the volunteers who made sure it was ready/volunteers that needed to take it apart I think)

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

Was it discontinued before worlds or after worlds? Also, did those injuries happen at worlds or across the season? Did it have anything to do with the coil that made the portcullis glide up and down or did it have to do with the bar that popped out when it went up too fast? Thanks and sorry to get off track.

Re: 2016 IRI - Rule Changes and Reasoning
 

After worlds. Across the season I believe. I'm not exactly sure what part of the portcullis during putting it together/taking it apart gave some volunteers injuries.