IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

[daniel_dsouza]

Originally Posted by EricH

Idea: There are 20 basketballs on the field. Yes, that's 2 more than normal. But those two extra basketballs are special. They're +3 if scored during either Hybrid or the end game. Each alliance starts with one. But...

They're NOT the normal basketballs. Either they've been given a funky covering, or they're actual basketballs (or you could just wrap a Poof ball in duct tape).

I'd say make those kickballs or dodgeballs. They fit almost perfectly in most systems.

[sprocketman92]

I think it would be really interesting if every robot was able to pre load 3 balls for autonomous.

[ratdude747]

My Idea for Qualification balancing:

- Toss out the whole coopertition bit. Let's be honest; Coopertition has no place at IRI.
- Allow triple balances during Qualifications. I personally think having separate game rules during Eliminations vs Qualfications is stupid... They should be the same game.

Also, I think trolling and side-hanging (118) should be legalized... trolling is quite a feat and I think it presents a challenge worth points... since most troll bots couldn't do much with the balls*, its a reasonable trade off.

* At IRI, one could find a way...

Also, I think that it should be made legal to use the 6 Autonomus balls in any way the alliance sees fit, as long as no bot has more than 3 in the bot any given moment... so 3 + 3 + 0 and 1 + 3 + 2 would be legal configurations

I agree that hail mary shots deserve more credit... just not so much that they become like the supercells were in 2009.

I also agree that the kinect needs axed... Useless.

On a last note, I am not sure if it would fit in but I think it would be cool to revive "best play of the day"...

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

Also, I think trolling and side-hanging (118) should be legalized... trolling is quite a feat and I think it presents a challenge worth points... since most troll bots couldn't do much with the balls*, its a reasonable trade off.

Yes. When I saw 118 at Alamo I thought "Yep. That's illegal but very very cool. IRI should allow them to do that. IT would be quite a show."

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Also, and this is probably the easiest rule addition for everyone - Any basketballs shot over the player station wall by robots are put into that player station's corral rather than returned to the field. Fouls/Technicals given for purposefully passing balls in that way. This way, any of your missed shots over the top of the wall become "rebounded" and at least controlled by the opposite alliance.

I hated the idea that a ball shot out of bounds was given back to the alliance that shot it. I like this idea.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

My Idea for Qualification balancing:

- Toss out the whole coopertition bit. Let's be honest; Coopertition has no place at IRI.

I really hope you don't mean that Coopertition is just a silly game element that can be pulled out of FIRST...

Perhaps you could make a case that the Coopertition Bridge is just a silly game element that doesn't belong at IRI; however, even that would make me wonder why you think it doesn't belong at IRI... About the only thing I could see is because you think that IRI (unlike everything else in FIRST) isn't about Coopertition... rather it's a no-holds-barred fight amongst the best robots to crown the champions. That simply isn't true. IRI seeks to invite the very best robots to play the FIRST game, achieving the highest level of play, while keeping in place the FIRST atmosphere.

Really though, I don't understand the antagonism against ranking teams better that can consistently work with their opponents to balance the center bridge. I think that at IRI (with the strong, deep field) Coopertition balances will be the norm, hence why I'm in favor of reducing the double Coop balance to 1 point, and allowing a triple Coop balance for 2 points. This ups the amount of skill and effort required to achieve the same boost in rankings. I wish that the norm I foresee at IRI (working together to accomplish a single goal) was so easily achieved by all...

[dodar]

Originally Posted by IndySam

I hated the idea that a ball shot out of bounds was given back to the alliance that shot it. I like this idea.

I guess so do the regionals because both regionals my team attended(weeks 2 and 5) everytime a ball went out of bounds it was placed back in the field, not in the corral.

[qzrrbz]

Second on the "shot out of bounds goes into the corral" idea! Makes it very much more in keeping with "real" bball play.

Think that might tweaked to just be those that go out behind the endline, not those that fly out over a sideline for whatever reason. Harder to figure out whose ball it should be, and there aren't any inbounders on the sides. Keep the stock rule in play for the sidelines -- put it back on the field close to where it went out. Sort of like lacrosse... hmmm... game idea? :-)

Definitely an IRI flavor rule!

[Koko Ed]

Also the field should be 68 teams- to stick with the basketball theme.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

My Idea for Qualification balancing:

- Toss out the whole coopertition bit. Let's be honest; Coopertition has no place at IRI.

I think you meant "I don't like the Coopertition bridge."

Coopertition is not just a game element, it's not just a bridge, it's not just a ranking point. It's part of the core values of FIRST.

Coopertition is the teams who see their opponent in the finals is broken... and then walk over with the part they need.

It's the spirit of the FIRST Community. It's how we do things here.

If you don't like the Coopertition bridge, that's fine. Quite a few people don't. However, Coopertition itself should certainly have a place at all FIRST events.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Also the field should be 68 teams- to stick with the basketball theme.

I'm expecting 66 again this year. It makes the match schedule come out even, and even that many is pushing the limits of a two-day event.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

I think that at IRI (with the strong, deep field) Coopertition balances will be the norm, hence why I'm in favor of reducing the double Coop balance to 1 point ...

I agree with your reasoning, but I think the opposite should be done with the coop points (increase them, not decrease them). Here's why:

At the IRI, coop bridge balancing should be the norm. It might even occur in every match. If it does occur in every match, than it has no value at all. Every team has the max CP value so we're back to win/loss record.

If coop balancing occurs in 90% of the matches, even then it has very little affect on the outcome of seeding. In thid case, it becomes a minor penalty for the odd match that coop balancing isn't successful.

Because of the fact that coop balancing will probably occur in 90% of the matches at IRI, coop bridge points need to be increased in order to increase it's affect on seeding. Make the coop bridge worth 4 points for a double balance in order to really penalize a failed attempt.

[kramarczyk]

I propose 1 seeding point is awarded to any alliance that connects to the field before Paul starts ranting about the green light.

[qzrrbz]

Originally Posted by kramarczyk

I propose 1 seeding point is awarded to any alliance that connects to the field before Paul starts ranting about the green light.

Hmm, this year Paul may get confused? All those pretty green lights *on* the field have to go off for things to get under way! :-)

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Because of the fact that coop balancing will probably occur in 90% of the matches at IRI, coop bridge points need to be increased in order to increase it's affect on seeding. Make the coop bridge worth 4 points for a double balance in order to really penalize a failed attempt.

I can see what you're saying, but I don't think a single element of the game (the ability to balance the bridge) should be able to overwhelm the several elements of the game and various intangibles that go into winning a match. Several things concern me about more than 2 points being awarded for a standard co-op balance:

- When two robots in a match failed to get co-op points for a "silly" reason... perhaps a robot was flipped on the bridge, they got a wheel stuck on the siderail, etc.... you'd have the failure of a single robot at the last second dragging down six teams in the rankings. This wouldn't be a single point, this would be equivalent to winning two matches! So, your un-defeated, super-awesome team whose only flaw was that they trusted their capable partner to balance the co-op bridge for them is suddenly set back anywhere from a 1 or 2 to 10 or more places in the rankings.

- If a 2-robot co-op balance were worth more than a win, you'd be radically skewing the ranking system toward a single capability: balancing. There's a lot more to this game than balancing though... hybrid scoring, ball harvesting, accurate shooting all in addition to the intangibles like strategy, driver skill, etc. By elevating any single element so dramatically the rankings would skew dramatically too.

Taking Troy as an example, as it had many co-op balances, I was interested in seeing how applying 4 points for each balance instead of 2 would affect the rankings... Attached are two plots side-by-side for comparison. I also attached the spreadsheet from which I made the plots.

The plots indicate a noticeably higher correlation between Rank and Points Scored and Rank and Wins when the co-op balances are worth 2 points. They also have fewer outliers. One could say the graphs for 4 point balances are almost characterized by outliers, producing a loose correlation.

Interestingly, the top 12 teams remained the top 12 teams, but the order jumbled around a fair bit... instead of proceeding "1->12", it went, "1, 8, 2, 3, 5, 4..." The greater changes seemed to be in the mid-tier teams though...

This graphing really didn't provide any overwhelming change in correlations, but it certainly looks like it'd put at least one more team in the top 8 that would make you scratch your head.