Co-Op Rules for IRI - Unofficial Vote

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

OK, fine. Revised option 4: 2 co-op points for every co-op. It is not used at all in the rankings, but for every co-op point earned at IRI Innovation First will donate $50 to the IRI Scholarship fund. Triple balances count in qualifiers and every robot balanced on the co-op bridge is worth 10 points for that color alliance.

C'mon Andy and Chris, let's breaks some eggs and make Omelets!!

EDIT: By the way, many voting processes in the US have a write in option. I am exercising that right with option 4! Option 4! Option 4! Option 4!

What if the "random" match scheduler puts 3 longs on an alliance? Or 2 longs and a wide that isn't compatible? This option certainly gives some designs an advantage over others, if other rule modifications are not made to level the playing field in such situations.

Even as a longbot, I'm potentially ok with allowing triples in qualifying (we've got a stinger, we can hang off the bridge - we're game), and I agree that all triples all the time sounds more exciting (maybe not for pit crews dealing with agony of defeat moments), but "Option 4" is a definite non-starter for me, UNLESS...

...IRI relaxes the namby-pamby bridge defense rules implemented at the championship - no penalties of death if triples are attempted on the alliance's basket side of the field. If defenders want to park over to block, and they are pushed into the bridge - tough. No 40-point penalties. Nothing. You widebot stinger boys want to triple - get ready to do it by fighting through some pain, break away from scoring and line up earlier, or cross the bump and get your butts lined up in the protected area where ye belong.

Option 4 is too much reward for a certain subset of robots, with not enough risk.

I do like some kind of co-op bridge charitable incentive option, especially if Copioli is writing the check. :-P

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Option 4 is too much reward for a certain subset of robots, with not enough risk.

I see your point. So, perhaps the committee would consider relaxing all of defense-inhibiting rules, I mean why draw the line at bridges

But seriously, Chris explained their intent around game play and their philosophy about rules changes. I agree that Paul's suggestion has merit. I also think that it is outside of the box that they chose to work in.

That said, if they do add that option and we are fortunate enough to be invited, we, being among that certain subset, would be inclined to support it