Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I can confirm that off-season events (useing the first field at least) will be useing FMS-Delta which included everything expect encryption (Seeding, Pit Screens, Audience screen with all the graphics etc.). Unless the even planners choose to use FMS Light (which I heard is going to be released shortly for the 2010 edtion) this should be the case.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Lighten the expansion rules slightly. If a team goes to hang earlier than 20 seconds let them instead of possibly penalizing them if they aren't completely in contact with the tower. Obviously, if a team expands in the middle of the wrong zone they aren't hanging and should still be penalized.

Take a closer look at flipping. It is kinda silly that a team is allowed to ram and flip another team at will but if they go near the tower in the last 20 seconds it is a yellow card.

Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.

Call balls that are kicked outside of bounds. In soccer intentionally outing a ball is a penalty (as far as I recall) 1pt penalty per ball. As long as the ball first contacts another robot or game element it is ok but if it just flies clear out and hits a ref/volunteer/grandmother in the face that is a safety hazard. Place the balls back into play in the defensive zone of the robot that booted them out. Yes, this discourages teams that just blast the ball but it also encourages safety.

I too would like to see more points for hanging/suspension but it is not fair to teams who designed and built their machines for the REAL game.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I like the concept, but what if my robot flips over blocking one goal? Then the other robot that came in could block the remaining goal, eliminating scoring potential.

What if you allowed a second robot into the defensive zone only to right the flipped robot. Once the robot was righted, the alliance would have 10 seconds to figure out which robot will stay in the zone, and act on it.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Well, then the other team would have a pretty big interest in NOT flipping you wouldn't they?

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

True, and that would accomplish the goal of reducing unnecessary ramming/flipping. I know that if we try hard enough, and have our elevator on, we can flip ourselves. I'm not sure if there are many other teams out there who can do that, but it may be an issue.

I do like the idea of less ramming, it would keep the driver's more focused on playing the actual game.

Which I just lost....

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

We have had more problems scoring against robots tipped near a goal than against robots defending against us.

Teams really need to take into account CoG when designing and building, their is no reason to add a rule that benefits teams that designed poorly and have robots prone to flipping without the ability to right themselves.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I agree, if a robot is tippy it is one thing. If a robot is rammed repeatedly it is an entirely different thing. I know 397 has no CG issues (it is ~5 inches off the ground and we never flipped) but that didn't stop people from trying. At one point in time we were vertical and another team kept pushing. THAT is trying to tip. Being hit once and rolling over because your CG is 25" in the air is another thing entirely and it is clear to any observer when a team is being way too aggressive.

Edit to Wayne:Rule G19 clearly states that the penalty and a yellow card are to be called for any ball outed from the field intentionally. I merely replaced the yellow card with giving the opponent a better chance to score the ball.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I think this is a solution without a problem. There were a lot of wide shots on goal that left the field of play without ever touching a field element or another robot. I don't recall seeing intentional O/B shots that presented a safety issue. It would be tough for referees to discern the difference between some intentional and unintentional O/B kicks. Returning balls to the opponents' home zone would have made sense if it was in the original rules, but I don't think it meets the "fundamental flaw" standard to change it now.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

In the 6 events I attended I don't recall this ever being called. Do you have a specific event where it was enforced.

I think it should be enforced due to being hit while sitting field side for reset.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

No, it was never called to my knowledge.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I'd like to chime in, having seen some rule modifications at BattleCry this weekend.

BC had a large box in the middle zone around each tower, in which robots were allowed to expand to finale volume. I think this eliminated a few unnecessary penalties, but didn't have any major effects. As XaulZan11 jokingly alluded, no one (I hope!) is going to rebuild their robot to violate the spirit of the rule just because the letter has changed.

Incursion penalties for driving over balls were rarely called at BC, although this was due to the referee's choice, not a specifically announced rule modification. In general I felt that this was a good thing, since accidentally driving over balls was common.

I would suggest that penalties not be called for robots which exceed the allowable volume because a chain falls off or other part of the robot breaks and drags around outside the frame perimeter. In my opinion, the penalty just adds insult to injury and doesn't improve game play.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

FYI
Intentionally kicking the ball out of bounds is NOT a penalty in soccer...You may get penalized for intentionally delaying the game.... in the opinion of the referee ... kicking the ball out of bounds might be intentionally delaying....

Practically speaking... this infraction is extremely rare....especially in today's soccer that has extra balls lying around to be put back into play quickly...

Playing the ball out of bounds intentionally is an important part of the game of soccer...

In our game... I believe that the intent of this rule was to not allow teams to kick balls out of bounds just to keep them away from other teams...and to protect the referees/volunteers/spectators...
I would make the change that the balls be placed directly back into the zone they came from and NOT all in the middle zone.

getting ready for World Cup.... just a month away...

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

One thing I found in this game is that is awfully difficult to follow for spectators. Its like watching a doubles tennis match with two balls.

Thus I would propose only using 6 balls on the field rather than 12.

Also make two balls worth 2 points if scored, it gives the audience something to focus on.

There was just simply too much going on in this game, it was almost unwatchable as a general spectator. It is interesting too because there was only one way to score during the main part of the match. (2004 had 3 ways and was much more watchable)

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Well, as already said, I feel like changing the number of points something is worth or even making any major game play changes the intent of the original game.

And I don't get why 2 points would be any different than one point. If it makes you feel better, multiply the scores by 2 at the end of the round. Unless you're trying to lessen the value of hanging to have the equality of one goals, in which case, the importance of hanging has been downgraded and you arrive back to my first statement.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Anther addition to game play that isn't necessarily a rule, but definitely made matches more interesting at BattleCry11. Teams were allowed to trade 1-3 of their balls in the zone before autonomous for a 8 or 10 inch disk to place on one of the ball starting positions (max 3 per alliance). Robots touching or partially covering the dot at the end of auto received one bonus point, and robots fully covering dots at the end of the match also received bonus points. Balls removed before the match were placed back in mid-field at the start of teleop. It was a cool way for teams to earn a bonus even if they had no hanger or kicker as well as increasing match scores and increased match strategy with sometimes 4 dots on the field.

Also, what if at the start of the match a "special" ball was placed on each tower and worth 2 points each time it was scored?

Additional items like these make the game more exciting and add a new dimension to match strategy!