IRI Rule Changes - 2012

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by efoote868

The luck of the draw is something we've lived with for about 10 years, at least now you're more in control of your ranking.

And the point of IRI is to eliminate that as best as possible.

And I fail to see how you are 'in control of your ranking'. when you arent even allowed to play the full game...

[Jared Russell]

With 5 extra pounds of weight, any robot can be made "triple balance compatible".

Stingers. Brakes. Apparatuses (apparati?) to grab onto/under an adjacent robot. Each of these can be made under 5 lbs as complete systems using pretty basic methods. Team 341's stinger weighs 0.8 lbs (granted it relies on a pre-existing pneumatic system, but a simple air tank and gauge assembly doesn't add that much).

Yes, three long robots is still a difficult task. But what if one of them uses the extra 5 lbs allowance to add deployable lateral skids (casters, omniwheels, or even just some slick plastic) to facilitate being pushed up the bridge sideways?

While these rules favor robots designed with triple balancing in mind, there is enough time and weight to allow anyone who wants to triple balance at IRI, to triple balance at IRI.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

And the point of IRI is to eliminate that as best as possible.

And I fail to see how you are 'in control of your ranking'. when you arent even allowed to play the full game...

During this years game, if I had a robot that consistently scored 180 points, I would win all my matches but there is no guarantee that I would be the #1 alliance captain.

At IRI, if I have a robot that consistently scores 180 points, I will (probably) win all my matches and I will (probably) be the #1 alliance captain. I don't have to rely on my opponents for my ranking.

[Tetraman]

Removing the Coopetition points is in direct contradiction to the statement on the website.

Originally Posted by IRI Website

"We are considering some minor rules changes to the 2012 FRC game, Rebound Rumble. These changes will only be slight tweaks and will not be significant. Our intent is to make a slight change that may improve the game, but not make a change that will encourage teams to alter their robot."

Emphasis mine.

Completely removing the Co-Copertition points changes the game so drastically, teams that utilize the white bridge will find themselves without the boost they need to get them to where they want to be. In fact, it actually changes the entire dynamic of the last ~30 seconds of the game, and can in fact cause teams who have been ranked highest in normal FIRST events to drop significantly because their robot is meant to score in a way that isn't in the top basket. This also alters alliance selection in ways you can't imagine.

I don't know how much weight my argument will hold, since I'm only going to be a spectator this year, but speaking only for myself if this rule holds up I'm glad our team isn't going to IRI because we would have very little chance.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Completely removing the Co-Copertition points changes the game so drastically, teams that utilize the white bridge will find themselves without the boost they need to get them to where they want to be.

Our team has had a knack this year of storming back from some early misfortune/bad luck at events to secure Top 8 status. I think it's happened at Wisconsin, Queen City, Galileo, and MARC. The co-op bridge was essential to our ability to rise up.

People discount the importance of having good strategy and negotiation skills in working with the opposition to plan and execute a co-op. We love that aspect of the game.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I cannot possibly fathom how a rule that so obviously favors one design over another and ties a team's fate even MORE into the "random" match schedule can be permitted to fly. It's not like we longbots can chop our frames down....
... gives wides a decided advantage in scoring points and winning matches, and removes any co-op recourse needed for longs to still keep pace with them in the standings. I would have accepted #2 by itself, but #2 and #3 combined? I cannot view this as anything but a forced competitive disadvantage for my team and others like us before I even arrive at the venue, and that is a very unfortunate reality.

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

This is a whole new game. Old strategies for elims are out. A triple balance is high risk and so is a triple defensive play.

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Completely removing the Co-Copertition points changes the game so drastically, teams that utilize the white bridge will find themselves without the boost they need to get them to where they want to be.

I vehemently disagree.

All these changes do is alter the method that teams are ranked at the end of the qualification matches. Scoring for the Elimination matches are exactly the same as they have been for the entire season. I would contend that we (the IRI committee) changed this game less than previous seasons. Point values in the finals are the same. Hybrid mode values are the same. No rules regarding robot interaction have changed. The only thing that has changed is that we removed a method for ranking that was a robot task that was not ever used in the finals.

Andy B.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by efoote868

During this years game, if I had a robot that consistently scored 180 points, I would win all my matches but there is no guarantee that I would be the #1 alliance captain.

At IRI, if I have a robot that consistently scores 180 points, I will (probably) win all my matches and I will (probably) be the #1 alliance captain. I don't have to rely on my opponents for my ranking.

But we've seen the robots and what theyre capable of. We know no one scores 180 points. Most robots at IRI will score similarly, and so we'll see matches determined by the end game (As if thats something new...). But our end game isn't really fair anymore.

we shall see how it pans out though...Hopefully we'll have several overzealous wide robots...

[lemiant]

How exactly did all you long bots who feel screwed plan on playing in elims?

[BJC]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

And the point of IRI is to eliminate that as best as possible.

And I fail to see how you are 'in control of your ranking'. when you arent even allowed to play the full game...

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post but you are most defiantly more in control of your final rank now than when co-op points make up half of your ranking points. There are two scenarios:

1: With the system that we have been playing with all season half of one’s ranking points were directly determined by how good your opponents were at balancing on the co-op bridge. This meant that no matter how good you were, you could still loose valuable ranking points if your opponent could not balance the bridge with you. So, even if you have the best robot in the world, if none of your opponents are able to balance the co-op bridge with you then you are not ranked first.

2: Now all of your ranking points are determined by how good YOU are at playing the game. If you win, you move up. If you win all your matches and have a high hybrid score you’re in first place. While your partners have a great deal of impact on one’s likelihood of winning the respective match the fact remains that if your robot is better than all three of the opponent’s robots combined it doesn’t matter who your partners are, you will win. So, while you don’t have control over your partners or opponents, every team has control over how good their robot is at playing the game and every team had the opportunity during the build season to build a robot that could beat any other combination of three robots.

Originally Posted by Tetraman

/Snip

I don't know how much weight my argument will hold, since I'm only going to be a spectator this year, but speaking only for myself if this rule holds up I'm glad our team isn't going to IRI because we would have very little chance.

The point of qualifications is to see who is the best. If the system worked perfectly the best 8 robots would be 1-8 every time. The Co-op bridge allowed an avenue for teams who were not the best to seed higher than teams who were better than them. Some people liked it because the powerhouse teams didn't always seed 1-8. You say your team would have no chance if they went to IRI without the co-op bridge. That may be true with your current robot, however, every team has the opportunity right now to work on their robot to their heart's content. If your team was going there would be nothing stopping you from making your robot more competitve so that you could rank higher.

Of course, these are only my opinions. Feel free to disagree with me, its certainly an interesting topic with several points of view.

Regards, Bryan

[Tetraman]

I don't know exactly how to put into words how that change feels to me. It's almost catering to a certain robot design and leaving every other robot out there that has won events in the traditional game out in the cold because they didn't design their robot perfectly enough to play IRI.

If these rules were in place at the beginning of the FIRST season, you'd find very few long-bots at all, since being able to balance 3 robots at any time is worthwhile enough to design a small robot from the get-go. Additionally, you'd find fewer teams that go for only the 2-point basket, as that 1 point less each score isn't worth it when obtaining the maximum score is so critical.

There is only one reason I would like to think this change was made for, determining for the GDC whether or not the Coopertition points would make a difference. If that's the reason I say go for it. But otherwise it looks like the only way to make top 8 is to go undefeated, which even in the event where "the best teams should win" doesn't stack up, as FIRST has always been "The best alliance should win".

What ever happened to the Money Ball? It was a very well received component.

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

I vehemently disagree.

All these changes do is alter the method that teams are ranked at the end of the qualification matches. Scoring for the Elimination matches are exactly the same as they have been for the entire season. I would contend that we (the IRI committee) changed this game less than previous seasons. Point values in the finals are the same. Hybrid mode values are the same. No rules regarding robot interaction have changed. The only thing that has changed is that we removed a method for ranking that was a robot task that was not ever used in the finals.

Andy B.

The problem is that teams are given randomly generated allies in qualifying rather than in elimination matches where having the right alliance is something a team can build. If Team 0000 is forced into battle with two teams that are unable to complete at an even higher standard than normal, yes Team 0000 can move on to their next match and are still allive in the competition, but their hopes of being a seeded team are done and over in just one loss. With Co-op points, there is the opportunity, granted not much but still the opportunity, that they can bounce back and make top 8.

Originally Posted by BJC

The point of qualifications is to see who is the best. If the system worked perfectly the best 8 robots would be 1-8 every time. The Co-op bridge allowed an avenue for teams who were not the best to seed higher than teams who were better than them. Some people liked it because the powerhouse teams didn't always seed 1-8. You say your team would have no chance if they went to IRI without the co-op bridge. That may be true with your current robot, however, every team has the opportunity right now to work on their robot to their heart's content. If your team was going there would be nothing stopping you from making your robot more competitve so that you could rank higher.

Of course, these are only my opinions. Feel free to disagree with me, its certainly an interesting topic with several points of view.

I'd argue that the point of qualifications is not to see who is best. Elimination matches are to see who is best. The point of qualification matches is to earn seeding points and be ranked based on your robot's and your ever changing alliance's results. Why are we punishing teams that can make it to a top 8 but are just inferior against the other robotics teams? You have every right to turn a team down - it's part of the competition and we saw it a lot this year as "lower" power teams are passed up because other alliance captians bet their skills can be utilized on their own with their own alliance rather than with them. Again, why punish teams that can make it to a top 8? Is it just because they aren't "good enough"?

And yes, you are very right that our team can make any and all tweaks we want to better our robot and ensure a higher competition robot - that doesn't mean the finished product will be that way, or that we would have the money and resources to pull it off, or time allowed by our school to use the shop facilities during the summer.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by lemiant

How exactly did all you long bots who feel screwed plan on playing in elims?

"all you long bots" - the robot class thing that is setting up here is kinda interesting. Longs. Wides. Etc. But I digress.

Let's separate the removal of the co-op bridge into a different discussion and focus solely on Rule Change #3. That is my primary concern with these changes.

In the elims, a Long alliance captain has the right to CHOOSE an alliance that is triple-compatible with them. 4334 was chosen by two Longs on Archimedes for a singular, extremely well executed purpose. Of course, a longbot has to earn an alliance captain spot before being granted this privilege. I believe that has just become much, much harder for Longs to accomplish at IRI, given how quickly devastating a triple can be to a match outcome, and given the fact that Wide bots have a statistical advantage in being paired with two other triple compatible bots. Some wides can triple with 2 longs. Many can do 1 long/1 wide, and of course, most all can triple with 2 wides - the last case being almost trivially easy to accomplish relative to the other configurations. Longs cannot realistically triple with 2 longs, and given that 47%-ish of the robots at the event are going to be longs, you are going to see quite a few long/long/long alliances during qualifying. No Long alliance captain in their right mind would assemble such a group in the elims (would they?). They will have no choice during qualifying.

No one can choose who we will be paired with in qualifying. Making a previously elimination-only gameplay element legal in qualifying - one that is so critically dependent on the physical configurations of the three randomly-paired partners - almost guarantees that more of those in the Long class are going to experience pain relative to the Wides in the rankings. THAT is the key issue, in my mind. We all want to be alliance captains, right? We all wish to have some modicum of control over our elimination destiny, right?

If a new rule makes it more likely that a Wide with similar basket scoring ability to a Long is going to advance higher than the Long in the standings, I cannot see how anyone can view that as a legitimately fair situation.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

No one can choose who we will be paired with in qualifying. Making a previously elimination-only gameplay element legal in qualifying - one that is so critically dependent on the physical configurations of the three randomly-paired partners - almost guarantees that more of those in the Long class are going to experience pain relative to the Wides in the rankings. THAT is the key issue, in my mind. We all want to be alliance captains, right? We all wish to have some modicum of control over our elimination destiny, right?

I can see what Travis means here.

Andy, when you say "All these changes do is alter the method that teams are ranked at the end of the qualification matches."

I read that as a "all it merely does," but long bots at IRI will need to be top 8 seed to get the alliance they want to win because teams will want a triple balance alliance for elims and more than likely may not pick a long bot.

Just like any other competition, your fair chance of being top 8 is cut down, and as we all know, top 8 is the only way to secure a spot in elims and with the teams you want.

I believe the ruling was first made to act as a handicap for teams who had built a long bot and so that they wouldn't be highly disadvantaged in qualifications, but if this is taken away, it is sort of like shooting a long bot in the foot (the wheel?) and makes it that much harder for them to control what happens to them once alliance selection rolls around. These are teams who walk into an event and think "alright so if I can seed high enough, I can probably pick an alliance to triple with in elims."

Sorry for the possibly incoherent response, I've got the flu! I just felt that Travis needed to be backed up here a bit.

+$0.02

[pfreivald]

I agree with Travis. Robots are designed not just to "win the game" but to play the system of seeding followed by an eliminations tournament. There is a fundamental difference between designing a robot to *nail* a two-robot balance and designing one to triple-balance with the right partners. Changing a rule that directly favors one type of robot build over others for seeding purposes is, IMO, unreasonable.

(Note that I have nothing personally vested in this -- we're not going to IRI.)

[Duke461]

Proposal:

Just as you ask the CD Community for rule modifications and suggestions, perhaps, upon completing a tentative/finalized list of rule changes, you could present those rule changes in a thread?

In other words, this thread would now become "IRI Tentative Rules Changes-2012-Open Forum"

I completely understand that there is a committee of sorts in place to handle and make these rule changes to the best of their abilities, but you're not in a situation like FIRST's GDC where you have to keep everything a secret—we already know the game and we have already made our robots. Your rule changes won't, or at least shouldn't, affect our game designs. IRI is simply meant to improve the quality of the match, not the committee's subjectively desired quality in terms of robot design.

I'm not asking you to hand over the decisions to us, or to allow us to vote in a poll. I'm simply requesting you rewrite the original post like so:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule changes / refinements for the 2012 IRI are pretty simple.

1. +5 pounds allowed. Honor system, unless the referees question you.

2. No Co-Op points. Ranking based on win-loss and the existing tie-breakers.

3. Alliances may balance 3 on their alliance bridge during qualifications. Three robots balanced is worth 40 points.

All other rules will be per the 2012 FRC rules as interpreted by the referee crew.

The CD Community may now proceed in a moderated, mature, and rational open forum discussion regarding the tentative rules. In no way is the GDC of IRI required to listen to or follow the suggestions/concerns posted below. However, we will do our best to rationally look through each post, and if deemed mature, rational, and well written, we will consider a discussion for further modification of the rule(s). In roughly a week, we will post a finalized rule update to IRI, which may or may not be affected by the posts on this thread. Remember, just because your rule suggestion/complaint is not adhered to, that does not mean we did not take it into consideration or discussion. We try our best to make IRI the best competition possible, and nothing less. None of our decisions are an attempt to thwart certain robots or certain teams. With this being said, please proceed to post any concerns you have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just my thoughts.
-Duke

[Clinton Bolinger]

Personally, I think that if you make a robot(s) on the co-op bridge be worth 10 points during the qualification rounds it would be a good compromise.

That way the triple balance only gives you a 10 point advantage for completing it.

-Clinton-