Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Anybody have recommendations for rule changes for Lunacy for an offseason? We're going to have a lot of people watching that aren't familiar with the game and simplifying would be nice. Thanks!

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Check for the IRI rule changes. Most of the time, they're adopted at most (if not all) offseasons after they come out.

Of course, <G14> will probably be one of the rules that disappears. [speculation] There might also be some changes to the EC entry rules; imagine how the game would change if you could throw them to your Fueling Stations without feeding them one at a time to a robot...[/speculation]

Lunacy is already really simple: Put those orange and purple balls into the trailers that aren't your color. Trade blue and orange for green and purple, and score green and purple for lots of points.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Allow supercells to come into play at any time (as long as the empty cells have been exchanged).
Allow robots to carry more than one empty cell at a time.
Adopt a 1-8 1-8 draft order

There will probably be much discussion about dropping <G14>, but I think it creates interesting gameplay and allows you to discuss the strategies and methodologies to the robotics layperson. Having said that, if the drive teams don't have access to real time scoring, <G14> may need to go.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

You mean blue and orange? :P

I'd think about changing <G14> (though think about it, it does keep matches closer and adds an element of startegy to the game, but on the same token no one really enjoys it and it does punish good defense).

I think the maximum preload and point values are perfect as is right now, I wouldn't change any of those.

I personally don't really like this. It makes defending against them almost impossible, as you have to stay away from half of the field (or a robot if you're named ThunderChickens) for nearly a whole match. From a spectator position, the suspense of the supercell was one of the best parts of the game according to the non-FIRST people I knew watching the events.

It kind of messes up the "balance" the GDC worked on with regular to supercells too.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I wouldn't want to see the 1-8 1-8 draft order, but maybe a way for the higher ranked teams getting a choice to choose where they draft, and then no picking in the top 8.

For example the Top seed would get to say, "we would like to be the 8th alliance captain", if they believe that they can make the best alliance that way. Then the 2nd seed would say "we would like to be the 1st alliance captain." etc. But assuming that this happened it would get incredibly complicated if they could pick within themselves.

I think it would give an interesting strategy twist. Something we don't see in the normal Regional/District competition.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

After watching how the game played out I have to add one minor problem with G14, Real time scoring is not reliable. This is of course, in addition to my other concerns with the rule.

Perhaps instead of allowing SC to be played only in the last 20 seconds we allow them to be loaded into robots at any time but not scored until the last 20 seconds. This would encourage teams to use their robots to score the SCs because they can get a lot closer.

Also, 1-8 1-8. No more serpentine!

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Autonomous Bonuses, maybe moon rocks are worth 6 points if scored by a robot in autonomous, it would be hard to tell wit human players firing away at the same time, so maybe if you are attempting an autonomous bonus you must announce before the match and then your teams human players cannot shoot until teleop. So then all shots scored in the opponents trailer at the end of auton count as auton bonus, even if the other team helped out.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Alliance selections 1-8 1-8 but not allowed to pick other alliance captains would be interesting.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Perhaps a better implementation of this would be to make a different ball for autonomous scoring similar in concept to the Keeper from 2007. Maybe autonomous balls could be a normal moon rock with some sort of markings or colored tape on it. At the end of auto, the refs could check the trailers for any of these balls that have been scored and then the scoring alliance could receive a bonus, (10pts, 1 empty cell pre-delivered, etc....) but if these balls are not scored in auto then they would just count as regular moon rocks when scored during the rest of the game.

On the field side of things, I'd love to see them go to a MSC style field (whether it was a mistake or not) with more carpet on the edges.

Edit*

I thought about this a little bit more and I'd like to see the payload specialist rules relaxed. At most off-seasons the Drive Teams are usually composed of underclassmen or younger members that aren't familiar with the rules, or at least not to the extent that a driver would be going into their second event. I'd say if the rules stayed as they were you'd have at least two penalties in every three matches, similar to what we saw early on at some week one and week two regionals. I'd Suggest:

1) Eliminate the tongs for picking balls up off of the floor Unless the ball is past the plane of the driver's station wall.

2) Allow the Emptycell to be thrown over the outpost shield, but - it must touch the floor of the playing field or a robot before it can be converted into a Supercell. I.E. you can't throw it directly into the airlock.

3) Re-Write the rules on Supercells so that they may be handled any time after an Emptycell is exchanged but they still can only be introduced during the last 20 seconds of the match.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Changes for BC10 (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Events/BattleCry/rules.html)

• <G11> Modification: MOON ROCK Starting Positions – Each TEAM is provided with ten (10) MOON ROCKS prior to the MATCH. The TEAM may place up to ten (10) of the MOON ROCKS in or on the TEAM ROBOT prior to the MATCH. These MOON ROCKS must be completely supported by the ROBOT – they can not be placed on the CRATER floor. The remaining MOON ROCKS are retained by the PAYLOAD SPECIALIST for that TEAM, to be used during the MATCH (containers will be provided at each PAYLOAD SPECIALIST location to temporarily store GAME PIECES). At the conclusion of AUTONOMOUS MODE, each PAYLOAD SPECIALIST will be provided with a bin of ten (10) additional MOON ROCKS for use during the remainder of the MATCH.
  
  
• Bonus Circle ("BCX") Autonomous & End Game Opportunity: There will be four 12 inch diameter circular areas designated on the playing field by "X" marks on the regolith. These BCX's will be centered 10 feet from each crater side border and 12 feet in front of each alliance base station wall. Robot coverage of a BCX is defined by any portion of the outer "belt line" of the robot (including its bumpers, but not its trailer) overlapping a portion or all of the actual "X" mark.
  
  
  • IN AUTONOMOUS: Robots will be awarded four (4) bonus points for covering any part of a BCX at the end of autonomous mode.
    
    
  • AT THE END OF THE MATCH: Robots will be awarded bonus points for completely covering the BCX. The end of the match is when time is out and all robots come to a rest on the field. Alliance points distribution is as follows: 4 points for a single BCX, 8 points for two BCXs, and 15 points for three BCXs.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I hate ranking points, always have. I wish the tie breaker was points scored.

Extend the super cell time to at least 30 seconds.

Allow the outpost player to throw empty cells over the wall.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I vote for these:

No G14

Only robots can score Super Cells AND extend the Super Cell Period to 30 seconds...

No Human player scoring/interactions with moon rocks during autonomous

Bonus for Moonrocks scored during autonomous... 2 points each...
Moonrocks would stay in the trailers and would count again at the end as regular score.

Pinning limited to 15 seconds....

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Well...

I might be the only one, but I would LOVE to see this game played on carpet and any wheels. I didnt like how the floor made everything so balanced and it would make teams think about making a more durable robot, maybe even if the weight allowance was changed for an off season

Also, I would like to see humans have less of an impact, and instead the balls start on the field, would give auto mode a cool twist

Along the same lines, maybe moon rocks should be worth 3 or 4 points in auto...

It would be cool to see robots getting a empty on the run, led by a throw from the outpost, as long as something like an empty cell had to be touched by a robot before the (standing human, sorry but forgot the name :) ) could receive it.

I would like to see more super cells scored by robots, maybe they were worth 20 points that way...

Thats about it, but I think Luncay with these changes would feel more impressive and be a bit more entertaining for observers. :]

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

The floor surface change would make this game a rougher version of the 2006 game. (the roughest to date) Many of the robots built for the current state of driving wouldn't be in one piece after a few matches let alone mobile if we changed back to carpet. It would be an incredible game to watch, but its just too much to ask of the trailers and the robots. It would be battle bots.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

"Autonomous Period" should be robots only, no human interaction, and moon rocks scored during autonomous should be worth 4 points each.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I would definitely like to see robot scored autonomous points really be worth something. Something considerably more than 2 points per ball.

At the Davis regional this year, I saw only one robot score during autonomous. Once they proved they could score, they turned that feature off. There was no advantage to scoring in autonomous and they weren't quite as efficient doing it, so they disabled the feature. To me that is a crying shame. Scoring autonomously should be highly rewarded!

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I like the Battle Cry X marks the spot in Autonomous, it will make it easier for us to score on them a robot stops on the X.

I would like to see different colored balls to give 4 points for a robot scored ball in auto.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Depending on area teams, I would add in a vote to the non serpentine alliance selection.

If there's more young teams in the area attending the event I'd personally stick with serpentine, otherwise, 1-8 1-8 ftw.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I'd carefully consider rule changes about autonomous scoring. I know a lot of teams specifically didn't do that because they saw no advantage to it, so changing the rules would end up rewarding the teams without the foresight to figure out that autonomous scoring isn't all that viable.

I also generally don't like rules changes that override design challenges. This is why I wouldn't support the throwing the empty cell over rule; a big part of the challenge was building an EC mechanism and this way it's basically saying all of your work engineering an EC solution was for naught.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

It would be cool if you added a bonus to the alliance with the most points at the end of autonomous, and NO G14.

It also would be interesting if you gave a 5 point bonus if the robot scores the super cell instead of the payload specialists.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I don't know that autonomous bonuses would be good because as Chris said, it would change the designs that get advantages, plus, it hurts the teams that human load in autonomous and would instead encourage more human player scoring that would in the end usually win the bonus points, not the robots.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

In a way, it is kinda hard because I believe that teams that can score in autonomous don't get enough recognition/reward for doing so. There should be at least some reward/bonus for doing so.

I don't believe that it changes the designs that get advantages, as they have gone out and done some really hard programming. Plus, it doesn't encourage human player scoring as that is what most HP's do already. If you look at some matches in which robots score in autonomous, they many times have more points than their opposing alliances HP scores.

My $0.02

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Quick question, what about the no show teams. Stuff happens and stuff tends to break down. What about if we take that trailor off the field?

**Just a thought, what do you think?**

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I had thought of that, or in the end just give bonus to balls that robots score.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I'd say that's a slippery slope. I don't have an answer, but we've been in matches where one of our alliance partners could barely drive, and leaving their trailer off the field might have made it a lot easier on the rest of the alliance. It's probably not GP, but having the option to try to convince that team that they would be better off not showing doesn't sound like a good idea. On the other hand, it's very hard to win a match when you are down one robot and the unattended trailer is completely full because it is such an easy target.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Actually if you go back and look at so of our matches on Galileo, in the playoffs at the end of auto mode we are down by about 40 points, but 111 has about 2o stored, and 67 has about 15, and either we filled up some at our outpost as well.
Also we had our HP's be very conservative and wait until a robot got pined up next to them before they shot, or they get more opportunities to load up our robots that were more accurate.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I know that teams had their HP's get more conservative, but they are still scoring as much as they can.

But in the end I believe that teams who do the hard things should be rewarded.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I might...

Please note, this is for offseasons only! (Translation: Dave, don't get any ideas.)

Have one of the teams on that colored alliance in the next (or previous) match play as a surrogate for a team that physically did not show up with a robot.

Now, record/rankings: For the team that didn't show up, they get a tie if their alliance wins, and a loss if they lose. (For full credit in a win, drive the robot that's been volunteered themselves.) For the team that loaned their robot's time and battery power, it's a tie in case of a loss and a win in case of a win. Or it just doesn't count for either team, same as a total no-show in an official event.

Now, the beauty of this plan: When you're done with the match, pull the robot and trailer straight to your favorite alliance starting position, change the battery, and load up.

OK, you can haul me off to the crazy house now...

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Eric, I actually like this. Hmmmm.... ;)

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

This isn't quite a rule change, but more of a design change. I think it would be really helpful to paint the post in the middle of the trailer the same color as the bumpers. I know I have trouble figuring out which team is on which alliance using the vision target colors or finding the bottom of the trailer and looking at that. Most of the time the trailer is stuck in a pile of robots, and you just can't see it.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Would it be possible that a robot would confuse the red for the pink of the vision targets?

Autonomous in Lunacy was designed so that there are more strategies than just scoring. You can load up from a human player, ram and try to pin a robot, score or just spin around in circles to avoid being scored on.

A reward for scoring in autonomous is great for the teams that score in autonomous, but acts as more of a punishment for the teams who have determined that it is strategically better to complete another task during the autonomous period.

I realize that it is extremely hard to program a camera tracking autonomous. However, this is what strategy the team decided would benefit them the most. Some strategies are more challenging than others. The team does not need to be rewarded with bonus points for choosing one strategy over another.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

What if they could have the option to pull the trailer off, if and only if the human player involved had to forfeit all of there moon rocks to the crater floor, because i think it is an unfair advantage to only have 2 trailers to score on, and shoot with 3 people.

They would still be able to use empty cells or super cells depending on there placement.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Pulling off trailers with no partner is a horrible idea.

First of all, there are a finite number of balls you can fit in 1 / 2 trailers. Once they're full, the opponent can't score.

Secondly, imagine, say, Wildstang versus 3 dumpers. WildStang gets 3 targets, and the three dumpers get one target. How is that fair?

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

It might be close, but the 3 robots would be smart to pin Wildstang in the corner, and then trade off scoring on them for the rest of the match, never letting them get a dump in.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Teams certainly get recognized for scoring in autonomous. That is why Team RUSH picked More Martians in Curie. The reward is the fact that you already scored when the game starts. If you decide that that is a viable strategy, good job executing it. Seeing as how teams already see it as a viable strategy (otherwise they would not have pursued autonomous scoring), is there any reason to make it more beneficial?

As for the X marks the spot idea, I dislike it. The first reason is that, as I understand it, the X will leave you in a spot unable to do anything productive in autonomous. Also, being encouraged to hold still somewhere is just going to make it easier to have human players to score on you. From my point of view the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of parking on one of these Xs. Depending on where they are placed, this also encourages toploading, because it is possible you can stop on one to topload.

I simply see no benfit to either rule change. If you look at past rule changes at events like IRI, they often augment existing challenges in the game, not create new ones like the X. Also, the last time they changed autonomous was in 2007 when they added a 15 point bonus for scoring a Keeper. However, this was already the only goal that year, so it was what teams attempted to do throughout build season. It wasn't encouraging or discouraging any other common behavior during autonomous, like how adding a bonus to scoring would discourage loading.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Shaun, BattleCry often tweaks the rules in this fashion. They're usually the only ones to do something of the sort. If it's really good, then someone else gets to it.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I was merely using my experiences at IRI as an example. I have never attended BattleCry, so I wouldn't know what rule changes they usually use. If IRI uses the same ruleset they do, then you can assume I referred to that competition as well.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

IRI typically does not use the BattleCry ruleset. The IRI rule tweaks are mainly the "this rule is highly unliked, so we'll change it slightly to make it better" variety. The BC tweaks are more "here's a new element for the game, deal with it."

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I picked Wildstang mostly because they're hard to pin. Replace Wildstang with ThunderChickens and their godly "oh it doesn't matter if I'm pinned I CAN SHOOT OVER YOU" turret and then you get the same argument, really.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

But then 217 would then be limited to about 20 balls, and 20 balls isn't incredibly hard for the other alliance to collect and score without any defense. Having a nice turret doesn't allow them to reload when pinned, and it would probably take a bit more than 20 balls on their part to secure a win.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Step 1: Attach trailer 1 to trailer 2.
Step 2: Attach trailer 2 to trailer 3.
Step 3: Attach trailer 3 to a chosen alliance robot.
Step 4: Enjoy.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Have you considered that team 70 was picked also because they were fitting into Rush's strategy (It is pretty incredible how well they plan this out) and they have also worked together often both being Michigan teams. In fact we were alliance mates with those 2 outstanding teams at Lansing.

It adds a WOW factor that gets you remembered but your consistency in competition gets picked.


I really like that multiple trailer idea, what a way to add a new dynamic to the game.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Our scout was talking to one of their team members about their selection, and when the Martians came up the their ability to score in autonomous ON TOP OF their other qualifications (as in, it was a tiebreaker) got them picked. This is just what I heard, if someone from Rush wants to correct me of course I wouldn't argue with them.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Robot scoring in autonomous was kind of a double-edged sword for us. On the occasions when it DID happen, we cheered like mad and the announcers got all excited. But then, tele-op started and we would have to wander around the playfield looking for missed moonrocks to pick up. As the competitions progressed to the point where the human players were more accurate or more conservative in shooting, we would die the slow death from moonrock starvation.

In the end, the kids enjoyed the programming challenge of being able to make the robot do something interesting during autonomous.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

At PARC XII, we voted to place one super cell in the middle of the field at the beginning of each match, in addition to those at the alliance stations. To me, this was the best of both worlds. Autonomous was much more interesting (there was actually a goal besides avoiding human players), and it made starting in the center position more beneficial. It also gave robots more of an opportunity to score a super cell and added interest and peril throughout the match, while still keeping the major super cell threat in the last 20 seconds. It creates an interesting strategy element by making running empty cells more important to the alliance that's scored on. Highly recommended, though you may want to measure and mark where exactly on the field it goes to preclude later discussions.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

The only time scoring in autonomous is ever a bonus is if you score on a very evasive team that you couldn't hit in teleop. I would never run a scoring autonomous, or think of a team in alliance selection more or less because of it. It's really a gimmick in terms of strategy, though an impressive technological feat.

The supercell in the middle idea is really cool.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I think your view of 2007's auto that the only thing to do was score is too simplistic. Like in Lunacy, there was only one way to score, but also like in Lunacy, teams could do things to put themselves in a better position for teleoperated. Teams like 48 would drive to the other side of the rack and get ready to play defense. Teams like 27 would drive out towards the rack to get in position to score right away. Teams like 111 would bring their arm up to get ready to human load.

So, by IRI giving the keeper bonus, they did encourge scoring keepers in auto and thus discourging other behavior. In our 2 regionals and in Atlanta, in auto we drove out, deployed our arm, and got ready to score right away in teleoperated. When we found out about the keeper bonus, we decided to build a whole new system to do a 'drive by scoring'. After missing it twice and having to take time to deploy our arm, we decided to go back to the old auto and scoring right away in tele.

I liked the bonus in 2007 and hope IRI adds a bonus this year, too. While I think its a great strategy, seeing 5 of the 6 teams do human loading isn't the most exciting to watch nor challenging.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Whoa guys; before proposing so many rule changes, think about the original intentions of those rules:

Removing trailers of no-shows would create GP nightmares. What if all three robots on an alliance do not show up? Now the other alliance has no way of scoring. What if a team is barely able to move, and their alliance partners try to convince that they'd be better off leaving their robot (the one they spent six weeks building) off the field. What if an alliance's scoring and defense strategy would work better with two robots/two trailers instead of three of each? Is a team allowed to voluntarily stay off the field even though their robot is working fine, because they know the opposing alliance's strategy requires three targets? It just wouldn't work.

G14 adds a great strategy element provided the real-time scoring is accurate. The entire rule is based on the accuracy of real-time scoring. If accurate real-time scoring cannot be done, the rule should go away; otherwise, it can stay.

The Serpentine draft makes elimination matches much more balanced and fun, not only for players but also for spectators. While the current system of 6-8 qualifying matches generally does a good job of selecting the top eight teams, where a team ends up within the top eight is mostly a matter of luck, and using 1-8 1-8 draft order would reward the top half too much for something dependent on a random match generator. Remember that opponent's score is generally what ranks the top eight; the teams have no control over the quality of their randomly-selected opponents.

The goal in autonomous this year is not to score, but to get away from the PS directly behind you. Disallowing HP scoring during autonomous would defeat the entire purpose of the mode this year; most teams would simply do nothing. Adding a bonus for autonomous scoring would divert attention from the main goal of autonomous this year, which is the move out of the way. Rather than reward players for doing something in autonomous, the GDC decided to punish players for not doing something in autonomus; that appears to have worked quite well, as a do-nothing autonomous was virtually unseen this year.

As for the camera, teams who figured out how to use it had plenty of opportunities to use that knowledge in teleop mode, where a good camera tracking system could improve scoring accuracy considerably. Autonomous incentives were not necessary this year to encourage teams to use the camera.

Think about the rules before you change them; many of them have very deep. complicated reasons that may not be immediately obvious.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Your post makes a whole lot of assumptions that may or may not be correct.

<G14> -- Where do you see anything in the <G14> rule that talks about the realtime scoring system. The onus of <G14> is on the teams and does not require a accurate realtime scoring system.

Serpentine draft -- While it is true that you have no control over the quality of your opponents, you do have some control over the points scored against you. There are no rules about allowing an opponent to score on you, nor one against scoring on yourself. Doing so is a tactical decision that teams must make. If they choose not to make that decision then their RP will reflect that.

Autonomous -- Just because your main goal of autonomous mode was to get away from the human player does not mean that that was the intent of the GDC. Many teams used autonomous for much more than getting away from the human player. However, I do agree that we should not give bonuses for choosing 1 strategy over another.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I liked the supercell in the middle; it made for some intense races to move three feet. Plus it was hilarious watching the robots continue to drive forward as per their autonomous code, despite the other robot doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Probably the funniest was CHASS's bot vs. CHASS's other bot. Or else 2753 versus anything, only because of how fast and powerful they were.

I always like the serpentine draft; it makes the alliances much more equal. If Regionals ever did 1-8 1-8, I would lose all hope for FIRST since it would kill all hope of the lower seeds getting anywhere in the games and goes against the fairness and equal opportunity FIRST promotes. I hope serpentine keeps staying.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

If you really want to solve the luck and fairness arguement, then I, like many others, believe that FIRST should get rid of the 1-8 selecting each other and make the selections 1-8, 1-8. This is about as fair as you can get and also takes the luck of your qualification round groupings out.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Pure curiosity here. How does a 1-8, 1-8 draft actually make alliance selection fairer? Each time, the 8th seed gets the last of what's left, especially in the second round. Am I missing something?

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Well, those teams who won all or nearly all of their qualification matches should be rewarded with a fairly substancial advantage. For some events, depending on the distribution of teams (where teams 16 and 17 may be better than teams 2 and 24), it may be better to be seeded 8th. I don't think it is fair that a team who lost more gets an advantage.

The problem with the 1-8 1-8 is that the top 8 seeded teams are not always in the best teams. I don't think having a 1-8, 8-1 selection is the correct answer to solving the problem. It's more of a band-aid to the problem. The only way to fix the fact that 'bad' teams seed high is more qualification matches. Increase the sample size and you will get better results.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I would love more qualification matches. I think that even with 70 some matches at some Regionals, there are not enough. I feel that 7 games is not enough to display who you really are. Some teams get dragged down by bad alliances, like 423 did on the first day of Philly this year, while some bad teams get held up by good alliances when in fact their robot isn't very good, like 423's alliance captain in Trenton this year.

Plus, more qualifying matches would mean longer competitions. That means less school and more robotics!

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

The rule itself doesn't mention it, but I honestly doubt the intention of <G14> was to penalize teams for doing well. All I can think of is that the GDC wanted "stop scoring or score on yourself when you're really far ahead" to be another strategy component, which depends on real time scoring.

Once again, this only works if the real time scoring is accurate. This year, at least, it was so laughably inaccurate, many teams probably would have been better of without it. I saw some matches in Atlanta where the real time scoring showed one alliance winning by 60+ points, then the final score showed the gap to be one or two moonrocks. When the real time scoring is that inaccurate, you can't expect teams to score on themselves; it would be more of a random crapshoot than a strategic decision.
[/quote]

If the GDC had intended for teams to score in autonomous, then yes, I think it was a serious oversight of them to not provide adequate incentive to do so.

Supercell in the middle sounds like a really fun idea. I like this one.

QFT. Without serpentine, I know my team would all but give up if we were on the 6-8th seeded alliance. The imbalance of power there is just too strong.

You can't get rid of the 1-8 selection one another. That creates huge GP problems; you would have many teams intentionally losing the last qualifying match (and therefore screwing over their alliance partners) to stay out of the top eight so they can be picked by #1 or #2. Which would you rather be - a member of the #1 alliance, who gets both first picks, or captain of the #8 alliance, who gets both last picks?

In most regionals, there is one team with a perfect record; this team is #1. #2-#7, sometimes even #8, all have one loss. On Newton in Atlanta this year, every one of the top eight teams had a 6-1 record. The RP made all the difference in sorting them. And, given the inaccurate real-time scoring, I don't think teams should be rewarded all that much for a high RP.
[/quote]

Yes, more qualifying matches would solve the problem for good, but until we can figure out a way to do that and still meet time constraints (Michigan district system, anyone?), 1-8 8-1 is the selection process which produces the most fun elimination tournament for everyone.

Also, I think maybe RP should be based on alliance score rather than opposing alliance score. The current RP is a remnant of coopertition that just doesn't fit the current competition model, IMO.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Have you ever watched IRI? the eliminations there are typically home to some of the best matches of the entire year. I know my team has from the #5 seed alliance helped to defeat the #1 alliance on two occasions 2006 and 2008, once the field gets strong enough the serpentine is worthless.


RP is the best way to sort teams with the same win loss hands down, its a representation of the quality of opponents faced due to the random qualification matches,

in newton we faced 16, 469, 148, 365, 2970 and made it out as 6-1
our ranking score was 71.1 meaning we fought tougher than the rest of the 6-1's through our matches and in our last match with 234 we scored on ourselves to keep our RP high.

i believe high RP should be rewarded as it filters out whos been facing what level of alliance.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

If GP is the highest standard that FIRST goes by then FIRST should uphold teams to that standard. At a competition, you can tell if a team is throwing a match and if so disqualify them from eliminations based on not following GP. I believe a couple years ago FIRST disqualified the championship winning team because they were not using gracious professionalism. Do the same for FRC.


Yes, more qualifying matches would solve the problem for good, but until we can figure out a way to do that and still meet time constraints (Michigan district system, anyone?), 1-8 8-1 is the selection process which produces the most fun elimination tournament for everyone.

Even with 12 matches 67 selected 217 at both the districts they attended and were clearly the winners of every match. Don't you think it would have been more exciting to have those teams select other alliance partners and compete. Think about it, How fun is it when you are the #8 and you get the 8th/9th pick but you compete against the #1/2/24 pick. I think I have a better chance going against only one top team than competing against the two best teams.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

About RP: I think it's a really awesome system for offensive teams and offensive games. If you have a stacked qualifier and win your matches, you deserve the first seed.

The problem arises in that it becomes unproductive to play defense. There were some standout defensive teams this year with powerful drive systems that could hold anyone down, but winning matches by plyaing defense would keep your RP low.

My initial thought would me to make RP the difference between the winning score and the losing score, with a low RP desired, but then rather than rewarding the best teams you reward teams that played similar caliber alliances.

Still, RP is the best we got. Sorry defense, that's what the second pick is for :P

The problem is, how do you define gracious professionalism? I've heard people say that playing defense on high scorers is un-GP, and I've heard people say throwing matches so your companion team can be in the top 8 is. You can't just say "that's not graciously professional" and call it at that.

Besides, I challenge you to find one team on Einstien that's not full of gracious professionals. (For your own sake don't post if you actually believe a team on the field was un-GP, we don't want internet drama)

I think you're missing the "tition" part of coopertition. Games are designed to be competitive, and one of the rewards for being the first place team is being able to pick your favorite partner. The Top 8 is stacked against the 8th seed, and that's completely intentional; what people forget is taht the first seed EARNED their spot. To the victor go the spoils.

Also, in serpentine 8th seed with 8th and 9th pick can be very deadly, since you get to pick exactly the two partners that work the most well together. While you're picking your first one you have your second pick waiting, so you can pick teams that complement each other.

And many times, there are gems in the rough. If we were 8th seed in newton, we would have our third and fourth choice as alliance partners.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Gracious Professionalism is a compass, not a set of calipers. It should be used to guide what you do rather than to measure it.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

This has turned into an interesting thread to follow and read. I'm sure Stephanie and the planning committee for the off season event during NI Week are very appreciative of the suggestions that you are offering.

If you have any more rules tweaks/suggestions, please contribute.

Just a small attempt on my part to guide the thread back on track...*cough*


Thanks again,
Jane

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Spotlight. Rep. Awesome quote Alan.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Undoubtedly one of the best characterizations of "gracious professionalism" that I have yet seen. I want this on a t-shirt.

-dave



.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

For all of the people complaining about the serpentine, I'd LOVE to see a reverse serpentine. Give the #8 Seed the First and Last Pick, and the #1 Seed the Eighth and Ninth Pick. I'd Much rather have the double pick than the first pick.

Also, another thing I want to see, is the ability to start a robot backwards in a spot (Robot Touching the AirLock). In week 5 I had my prog make a program to start like that just for the sheer awesome of it, and it was well, awesome. Nothing get's people's attention like a robot going backwards and then doing a 180 and driving forward.

Finally, I think we should be able to re-load the Outpost HP. This is just one of those things that always bugged me.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Seeing all of these posts saying that 1-8, 1-8 does not even out the playing field, look at the winners of IRI the past 3 years (I picked IRI because it was the first event off of the top of my head I could think of that had non-serpentine draft in serpentine years). In 2006, the finals were the #5 seed (71, 1625 and 910) defeating the #6 seed (233, 217, and 1272). In 2007, you have the #4 seed (111, 1114, 2056, and 494) defeating the #2 seed (47, 33, 68, and 93). Last season was #2 (330, 67, 987, and 68) defeating the #5 seed (1024, 1625, 1126, and 1731). Since the move into the 1-8, 1-8 draft format we have seen the #1 seed lose in the semi-finals every year. We haven't had a number one alliance win since 04 I believe (Andy or Chris could correct me).

I have no huge offseason rule changes, I would like to see the amount of carpet around the edges increase by a couple inches to lessen pinning. I also would like to see the empty cells a different color or maybe remove their nylon covers. I am mildly color blind and have had a very difficult time this season picking them out of piles of moonrocks (it took me more than a second to do, but it was possible). If they are more visible and different it will be much easier for referees to spot if a team has two in their possesion. One major rule change, how about scoring a empty cell in a trailer is worth 4 points instead of 2 points. This would add a twist and would add to teams scoring.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

I think IRI is a bad example of showing that 1-8 1-8 is superioer to serpentine. IRI has 72 of the best teams in the nation. Every single other event, even the Championship, if the #1 team picks twice in a row, they will face far weaker alliances from say, #4 and down. #2 and #3 will have solid alliances that could give #1 a run for its money, but they will win the majority of the time. At Regionals? Forget about it. The #1 seed will win 75% of the events, if not more.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

You're forgetting about the ability of the #1 seed to pick others from the top eight; that alone is quite a reward. I rarely see a regional where the #1 or #2 alliance doesn't end up choosing someone further down the line.

The one-decline rule gives the #1 seed yet another reward; the ability to break up an alliance between the #2 seed and another top eight team. Overall, I think the #1 seed gets enough advantages as is.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Make sure the head ref has read all of rule updates.

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

Well I have IRI covered ... :ahh:

Re: Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?
 

A bunch of the seniors had the idea that it the game would be much better if there were only four teams on the field.