Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I have assembled a small committee of referees to come up with rule changes for MARC. Since this is the first off-season in Michigan, it may be setting a precident, or may not - KK, WMRI and any others that pop up can do their own thing. We'd like any of your suggestions.

A few guidelines:

• The rule change will not change the fundamentals of the game
• The rule change will not be any more restrictive than the current rule
• The rule change must be enforceable. It cannot make a situation harder to interpret or call. It must work with the field and scoring system. (So sorry, no change to DOGMA.)
• The rules to be changed are only those in Section 7, The Game. Rules in other sections of the manual will not be addressed.

Let us know what you think.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

More points for suspensions? :D

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

+1

Perhaps points scored in autonomous could be two points.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I agree, this year's game would have been much better if hanging could be a game changer. In my opionion, hanging should be worth 3-5 points. Many teams worked hard to comply with the original game challenge only to find out 2 points is not worth the 20 seconds of game time, resulting many teams abandoning the hanging part of the game.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

This is probably atleast partially a self-serving post, but I don't really like the rule changes that change the importance or weight of certain objectives. Teams spent a ton of time brainstorming and building their robot based on the point values in the game manual. I think giving extra points for hanging or autonomous goals changing the game too much from what the robots were built to play. As much I would like to see autonomous goals from the far zone worth 2 points, I don't think that would be fair.

That being said, I would like a change to the ranking system. Instead of the loser getting the winner's score, they could get 2 times their score. The winner would still get their score, twice the losers score and 5 points while the loser would get two times their score. This would eliminate the 6v0 strategy and would reward those teams that lose 13-12 instead of 13-0.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I don't know if you think this is considered working with the field and scoring system, but 2 ideas from the MARC thread:

1. 1 different point value soccer ball (so when scored, the team will get X number of points instead of one.

2. Make autonomous balls scored count for more points.

I'm not sure how MARC is going to be run, but if there is a person counting each goal, then the final score will be accurate, so that would reduce the automatic counting problem.

Just an idea.

Jason Law

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

One thing that I did not like was that if a team received a red card during eliminations, the entire alliance was disqualified for that match.

I'm sorry that I cannot suggest a better alternative, but that rule didn't seem fair. Maybe if a robot gets a red card, then it has to sit out the next match and allow an alternate to play?

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Well, my post was probably more self-serving than yours, but I think there's a good point to be made that most teams believed less points would be scored than were, and such that hanging would be more important (less people would try to hang knowing how much hanging would be worth relatively to other parts of the game). Also, considering the difficulty of suspension, the 1-point bonus granted was negligible, so I thought that should be taken into consideration in these rule changes.

Adding points to either of these things would perhaps even the balance of how many teams hang, though one could say that those who predicted accurately should have an advantage. More suspension points would be nice though. :)

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

If you were to post "official" rules relatively soon, some teams may be able to adjust their strategies accordingly. I know that we have a working hanger just sitting in our shop, for example. The reason we didn't use it was because it made us unable to cross the bump due to our elevated CG. We could switch to a 1-zone robot if we put it on, but since hanging is only 2 points, we didn't think it worth it.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

The fundamentals of the game are defined by the rules. Therefore...

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I disagree. After having been on the side that got intentionally run into while trying to hang in two different matches and watching our hanging arm get bashed violent against the tower (luckily not breaking it), I'd stick with the current rule.

I would agree that:
Auton balls 2 points apiece
Hanging 4 points
Loser score = 2 * their own score

In addition:

You can expand when not touching your tower (so the refs don't have to micro manage)

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Uhh.. Wouldn't this essentially just expand the allowed volume to the Finale Configuration, and allow much, much larger robots?

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Yep, I'm planning to add huge wings to our robot and just sit in our far zone and block both the goals :)

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

You should also expand to re-direct like 469 while blocking your goals :D

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Maybe early expansion if the intent is obviously to hang? I hated when you could tell people were trying to hang before the last 20 secs and they would get bumped off the tower for a sec while trying to line up, get a penalty and negate their effort. Also it would encourage more hanging. I havn't cross referanced the team list or anything, but I remember a ton of robot who took a long time to line up, would get it, and the buzzer would sound before they could lift. Many will chalk it up to design flaws, but it is the off season lets shoot for the most fun and not so many pesky rules.

Also I vote that ther should be a rule against high speed ramming. with the bumper zones where they are, alot of robots will flip if high speed rammed. trust me... we did and our CG is like 2 inches off the ground.

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

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!

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Sorry for not clarifying...

I was saying that if 2 out of the 6 balls were worth more, it would draw the attention to those two balls by both the teams and the audience.

2004 had something like this with the 10pt balls and the capping balls. It drew the attention away from the 5pt balls making the game much more watchable

My goal is not to alter the game for those competing, but rather for those watching.
FIRST has made movements to try to go spectator friends by teaming up with organizations
such as Cirque, my goal was simply to reduce the points of interests for spectators.

But you're right, it may change the game too drastically.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I think a lot of these suggestions are trying to fix something that isn't broken. I thought Breakaway was a great game, so why change it? Yes, adding special balls may make it more exciting. But it could make an already exciting game worse. With the quality of teams attending (a brief look at the team lists revealed 10 event winners), I don't think MARC will lack excitment or suspense. I would hate to see what should be a great event, get ruined by a rule change that makes Breakaway unbalanced and less exciting.

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

Even though I am not going to MARC,

I know that my our Invitational, Rule changes for us are the little technical ones that annoy us, such as loosing parts counting as a penalty, as well as some alterations to the DOGMA penalties due to lack of equipment. Other then that, the rules stay the same, and we keep rarely ever touch the main rules of the game.

Keep that in mind....

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I completely agree with you about fixing something that isn't broken. However it is nice after 6 weeks of the same game and going into your fourth event of the season to have an added challenge. Some teams used it to their advantage, others ignored it and focused elsewhere, but I think it is the game changes that make it exciting. Only playing 2v2 in events such as Mayhem in Merrimack and River Rage 2009, the dots for Battlecry in 2008-2009, all empty cells can be picked up by one robot in final 20 secs, 4 super cells automatically activated each offer a new twist on the game. Do I think adding these to official season would be a good idea, no. But they make these off-season events fun no matter how many good teams are there (BattleCry had tons of good teams in attendance).

Just my thoughts

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

I really like this idea!

With all the interest in increasing the hanging points, I think this will be a good addition to a hanging point increase.

Autonomous
Robot touching, partially covering or completely covering a disc at the end of autonomous = 1pt

Endgame
Hanging = 4pts
Suspension = 6pts
Robot touching or partially covering a disk = 1pt
Robot completely covering a disk = 2pts

The autonomous bonus is something that all teams could benefit from, and the endgame bonus has a nice balance to it. It doesn’t directly give hangers the advantage over the non-hangers or vice versa.

None-the-less I think this game plays pretty well as is.

My $.02

Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010
 

The changes for MARC 2010 have been posted:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?&t=85824

Thanks to all for the suggestions.

Closing.