IRI - Dates, Info and Rule Ideas

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Gregor01

Eliminate it.

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

I finally saw one live on Galileo during quals. I had watched several hundred matches before seeing it occur.

Per the "simple" explanantion of my seeding algorithm:
With first games, it is often easier to stop teams from scoring than to score yourself. FIRST would be rewarding teams for doing the offensive objective. The algorithm rewards CoOp points at 2x the rate of winners points. Thus the algorithm rewards high scoring close matches where teams cooperate instead of driving scores down.

With an average alliance score around 15 points, the algorithm I described would be worth as much as the average win. What it successfully does is it reduces the penalty of an opponent intentionally hurting your rank by not cooperating.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

Yes, but not often. Look for odd numbered RPs.

Wetzel

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

Yes, but not often. Look for odd numbered RPs.

Wetzel

I believe it happened twice to our team in Washington D.C.

-Duke

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Did a one-point Co-op ever happen during the season? I watched a whole lotta lotta matches, and don't recall seeing one.

For events that had twitter data, there 33 1 point co-ops out 5744 qualifying matches.

[dodar]

Is FRC Top 25 doing the release show again this year?

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by dodar

Is FRC Top 25 doing the release show again this year?

I was talking to Justin a little while ago. They are still undecided, but i sure hope they are

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by IKE

IRI seeding algorithm:

I was actually a big fan of the 2010 algorithm with a few tweaks applied. I thought it had the highest potential for doing a good sort on teams. Here is how I would do it for the IRI:

Winners seeding points: Winner score + Loser score + Constant
Loser seeding points: 2xLoser score
Tie score: 2xTie Score for all

What about the Co-Op bridge?
Co-Op is worth 10 pts. for a single balance to both sides. Co-Op is worth 25 points for a balance with 1 red and 1 blue member.

I personally think this carries the right balance for teams. The Co-Op gets doubled for both sides of the field. If the other alliance stands you up at the bridge, you can still get substantial points for it.
Close matches will have close qualifying scores. High scoring matches will provide high qualifying scores. There is a general dissincentive for reducing your opposing alliances score (this dissincentive is adjustable by moving the value of the Winning constant up or down).
This system also eliminates the incentive for 6v0 which was controversial in 2010.

I would award the Co-Opertition award to the highest Co-Op score that is not an alliance captain (possibly alliance captain or higher seed than the lowest seeding alliance captian).

I also think that this can serve as a future scoring model for future first games if they want to continue with the "Co-Opertition" aspect. It must be mutually beneficial to both sides, it must be more valuable if both sides participate. It must have some value if only 1 side participates (this should reduce hurt feelings of getting stood up to the prom).

This style of play would work for many first games. Having a common central goal. As it ties into both teams points, with my ranking system, the common goal is a doubler for both teams. This give it equal precedence for the Loosing side (loosers get 2L), and higher precedence for the higher scoring side (winners get W+L, therefore Co-Op scoring is 2x the value of W only scoring).
Co-Op points could be added in real-time to both scores, or Co-Op could be a seperate entity doubled up for each side at the end of the match.

For this years game, I would put the "winning constant" around 25 points. This should be a high enough value for teams to go for the win.

This is apretty big tear-up to the seeding algorithm this year, but I think it would be oworth trying out at a high caliber event.

I like the idea, however I think it punishes defensive quite seriously. I saw multiple teams at the events that I went to with great defensive robots that shut down the competition.

The argument "If they have good defense then their ranking won't matter because any good scouting team would note their abilities." doesn't cut it either. This algorithm hurts any alliance that tries to play defense during qualifications. This may cause any potentially great defensive robots from showing their abilities off for fearing of losing valuable points.

It also brings up whether or not you want to play defense to win. For example, In a match against Team 548 Robostangs, we were forced to play defense against them to keep them off the fender, simply because we knew they could out score us. This algorithm would have me thinking twice about play defense for the win because It limits the amount of points you could obtain.

Purely Theoretical:

Option 1:: Play defense
Your score(red) - 60
Opponents score(blue) - 40
Reasoning: You play defense against the opposing alliance, starving balls and attempting to force penalties. Your score is lowered slightly due to losing a robot that could be scoring, while your opponents score is lowered severely.

Option 2:: No Defense
You score(red) - 65
Opponents score(blue) - 70
Reasoning: With no defense played against them your opponents outscore you, however you gain additional points due to having a 3rd scoring robot.

In option 1, the Winning alliance would recieve 60 + 40 + constant (let's use 25) Which totals to 125. The losing alliance receives 40 x 2 which equals 80.

In option 2 the winning alliance receives 70 + 65 + 25 which equals 160 points, with the losing alliance receiving 65 x 2 which equals 130.

As you can see, even though red lost in option 2, they obtained more points then if they had won. This is purely hypothetical and reflects no matches I've watched. I like the algorithm, I just figured that someone needed to play the devils advocate to get some discussion started.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

As a person that enjoys watching both offensive throw-downs and defensive struggles, I am adamantly against any system that instinctively punishes defensive play. A team should not be punished for figuring out a new way to defeat the opposing alliance.

That is the main flaw with any system that adheres to match points to assign ranking points; it inherently favors one style of gameplay over the other, which is an unfair bias. In reality, a 76-75 match is just as exciting as a 12-11 match, but one is favored over the other in a score-based ranking system.

This is my primary complaint with the mentioned system. The Coop bridge does not have this problem because it is independent of the score outcome i.e. independent of the gameplay style.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

I was talking to Justin a little while ago. They are still undecided, but i sure hope they are

We weren't asked to do it again so I don't believe we are. It's something that we enjoyed doing last year and would be interested in doing it again in the future.

[dodar]

Well the only reason I asked was because Chris did say something about a webcast and a discussion.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by dodar

Well the only reason I asked was because Chris did say something about a webcast and a discussion.

we are trying to work out a webcast, but it will be after the team list is released and it will be more of a discussion on the teams instead of an announcement of the teams.

[Gregor]

When will the rule changes be posted?

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by Gregor01

When will the rule changes be posted?

I assume after MARC (June 22nd and 23rd I believe). Last year many of the rule changes for the two competitions were the same, so the IRI people might be waiting to see how they work at MARC.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Gregor01

When will the rule changes be posted?

The IRI sules committee is still in deep discussion on options for the 2012 game. We are using mind-maps, poll results, simulations,analytical models and even rock-scissor-paper to help make these decisions.

We will target June 18-ish for an annoucement.