Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I'm still advocating penalizing a team for harmful actions, but I don't believe that the entire alliance should be penalized for a lapse of a judgement of a driver who got caught up in the heat of competition.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Then what are you suggesting? Disqualification of a team? 5-point penalty?

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I agree. If one of my alliance members were to damage another robot, we would have no way to stop them. We also were not responsible (during seeding rounds) for picking them. There should be a penalty during the qualifying rounds for the offending robot, though not for the other 2 alliance members. During elimination, whatever team picked the offending team, as well as the offending team should be disqualified.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I would have to agree with this. A couple of times we would go to hang early, only to get penalties because we would be an inch away from the tower. It was noticeable, but... we were not trying to completely choke the game by then expanding and blocking the whole field, or punching out an arm to knock a robot out.

Perhaps... within five inches of the tower, you can go into final configuration mode, or something. I think it's too late for a team to design a robot to be a chokehold on the game because of that rule now, so that's what I'll advocate.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I don't necessarily think that hanging should be worth any more points.

I do, however, think suspensions should be worth MUCH more! I feel like suspending should be a serious game breaker. Not to mention, I'm going to be really disappointed if I don't see any more of these. ;)

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

In the finals, have the penalized team sit out the next match, and maybe have a back up come in and play for one match. Maybe 5 points, but I think that'd be something harder to implement in the game management system.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Buy 2 gold soccer balls, each alliance starts with one of them in their far zone in auto. Each gold ball scored is worth 2-4 points. It wouldn't really change game play but it would be interesting to see robots fight over these two balls.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Let's break out the Poof Balls and Regolith and play "Aim High on Ice". :rolleyes:

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

According to the rules (which I would hope the FMS algorithms were written from), during qualifiers it is only the offending robot will get the red card and have its seeding score dropped <T11>.

I also feel sorry for the MARC staff who would have to manually calculate the seeding for all the teams if the seeding system is being changed

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I really like this idea! and I agree-- it would be very fun to watch. :)

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Many rule changes are being suggested just for the sake of change and not because there is a fundamental flaw in the game. I'll repeat what I said in the other thread that piggy-backs what Jack Jones has been saying; teams built their robots to play under a certain set of rules and point values - changing them for no good reason is unfair. Many teams decided that it wasn't worth trying to hang for only 2 pts - why should they be punished now for that decision? If the point value had origianlly be higher, many of those teams would have put effort into a hanging mechanism.

Fundamentally, the game is fine the way it is and should not be changed in a major way. Are there rules that should be looked at because it caused many teams problems such as the "crossing back over the line" penalty in 2008? Maybe, and that's what this thread should be discussing...not completely changing the game; which, by the way, was pretty fun to play and watch.

Just my $0.02

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I there are any changes at this point, they should be be ones that don't favor or detract from any existing robot design features.

I like the idea of having two "special" (gold?) balls that are worth extra points. It would affect game tactics and strategy, but wouldn't require any hardware alterations.

I would also support a different seeding algorithm. Is this still open for discussion or is it locked in by the field management software? I would prefer to see the winners earn their score plus loser's score, with a guaranteed minimum (10 pts?) instead of a 5 point bonus. Loser earns their own score. This would discourage 6v0 without banning it, reward high scoring close matches, reward victory in all cases, remove some sting from a high losing score, and reward alliances for their own effort.

If there are no changes, that would be fine too. I don't think there are any "fundamental flaws" in the game. (Although I agree that hanging should have been worth more from the beginning. We removed our half-baked hanging device and used the weight savings to optimize our center of gravity for bump climbing. It wasn't worth the effort and "opportunity cost" to fix it for only 2 points).

Edit: NO RED CARDS FOR LOOKING LIKE A FOOL DURING THE MENTOR MATCHES!

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I've seen a lot of posts asking for bonus points for scoring in autonomous. I'm not sure if I'm the only person who thinks this, but it's just as easy if not easier to score in autonomous as it is in teleop. The condition of the field is the same in autonomous every time (pretty much), but during a teleop, the position of the ball can vary, there's defense, shooting from an angle etc...

The point I'm making is that scoring in autonomous is a chance to score without defense, it's not an action that deserves to be given extra-points.

Not fundementally changing the game is a good thing. Teams built their robots a certain way for a reason. I wouldn't give extrapoints for hanging either.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I believe offseason events get a near-full version of the FMS this year (doesn't have wireless encryption), including the seeding system. However, it would be possible to write an alternate seeder independent of the FMS that calculates based on our own algorithm

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

i think a good ranking system would be the winner gets 10 + their score, in a tie you get 5 + your own score, in a loss you just get your own score