Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Team 930 is going to attempt to go. We've got a little 50lb lapbot that was able to run 11 laps with 4 lines at the Wisconsin Regional this year.

Hopefully we will be accepted

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

volunteering will be through the IRI website.
we will begin taking volunteer information May 5th.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I'm going, looking for maybe a room mate or two to share the cost with. I might have one already, dunno. Send me a PM.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I thought that the game was well designed and officiated this year. I liked the emphasis on protecting hurdlers in their home stretch and the limits on impeding.

Line violations is an area that could be reconsidered. Perhaps some of the suggestions made early in the season could be implemented. For example the violation is only called when the entire robot has crossed over the line in a counter clockwise direction. Perhaps the addition of a time element similar to impeding; that is, if the robot crosses back and remains over the line for more than six seconds, only then is it flagged?

What if you made the scoring for crossing lines in hybrid progressive, say 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.?

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

No. Please don't. There is a very, very good reason why the rule is written as it is. It has been pointed out in the forums (particularly by Sean Lavery, who was the first I read pointing it out). That reason is that if the rule is changed, teams will be able to knock balls off the overpass after crossing into the next quadrant. In my opinion, that is enough of a reason to keep G22 as it is.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

what if the rule change was applied only to the mid-line not the finish lines, as it seems like thats were most of the violations were anyway. I mean I'm fine with the rules the way they are, but if you were to change them that change wouldn't be to bad.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Maybe changing the rule so that your entire robot cannot cross back over the line but part of it can. Would definitely make it interesting as teams can more easily knock balls backwards so they don't complete a hurdle.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I like that. Probably could be difficult to implement, but I like the idea.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

Last year, IRI put 4 teams on each alliance in an attempt to allow more teams into the elimination rounds. While this was quite interesting and added an extra dimension of strategy, many of these "4th" teams didn't even see the field (both of the finalist alliances never used them, for instance). Perhaps this year IRI could goto a 12 alliance system (similar to what was used at GTR 2006). This would allow for 12, 3-team alliances (36 teams total) to make the elimination rounds. The 1-4 alliances would receive a bye through the first round, and the other eight would compete to make the QFs.
5 v 12
6 v 11
7 v 10
8 v 9
It would mean essentially another set of QFs to run, which would likely tack on an extra hour (or possibly longer) to the run time of the competition, but I think many teams would be in favor of it.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

That's a really neat idea sean! I should be there to volunteer.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I think Sean is on the right track but I would go a step further. Limit the number of teams to 64, have 16 alliances and give every alliance 4 members. Make sure every team plays just to add to the competition.

Also this one is where it gets interesting, after alliance selections, the number 1-7 seeds get to pick their opponents in the first round. If there is a selection to play an opponent in the top 7 then the highest seed moves up. It is kind of complex but I think it adds to the strategy of the game.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I see your point and I agree, changing the line rule would be a bad idea. It would make officiating even more difficult than it is today, I suspect.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

If the objective is to provide more teams the opportunity to participate in the elimination rounds, then it would seem logical to require that all four teams in each alliance play a match in each round. Otherwise, simply use the stand-by system.

If however, there is a different objective, say wanting to ensure that each alliance has the ability to execute their desired strategy by having a known "spare", then perhaps what was executed last year better serves that purpose.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

The line violation rule needs only to be modified on the end lines (non-finish lines). Make it so that only if the entire robot moves back into the previous quadrant would they get a penalty. That RARELY EVER HAPPENS.

This would reduce the number of violations down tremendously. The refs would see a robot "graze" the other quadrant as they often do now and be able to simply ignore it as most of the time, the bot is just turning or jockeying to head down the lane and a small portion of it breaks the plane temporarily.

Also, it's often really hard to see the far lane divider from the drivers station (especially in traffic) and the teams get violations and don't even know they did it. This would really clean things up.

P.S. Do NOT change the rule at the finish lines - leave it as: no breaking the plane.

Re: 2008 IRI (Indiana Robotics Invitational)
 

I'd like to keep the line violation calls the same. While the finish lines are crucial to staying the same, a similar concept applies to the lane markers at the ends of the track. Making it so the full robot has to go across gives defensive robots too much ability to push balls back into previous quadrants. While this isn't as big of a deal as the area surrounding the overpass, when a skilled defensive driver utilizes this, it will be very frustrating for anyone trying to grab that trackball as it's pushed away.
A 2-3" buffer zone would be nice, I agree, but that changes the call from a simple one to a judgement call with a lot more potential to be called incorrectly.

Hopefully <G22> won't be a massive issue at IRI, regardless of how it is enforced. Most of the teams attending are veterans with great robots and skilled drivers (or skilled trainee drivers). I forsee <G42> and <G37> deciding a lot more matches than <G22> at IRI.