IRI Rule Changes - 2012

[DampRobot]

I'll be very interested to see what comes of the elimination of coop points. I always felt like they just added too much noise that tended to mask what teams were really playing the game well.

[jblay]

I'm interested to see if some long robots will become triple balance defense specialists, I suspect many teams that realize that they wont be able to triple balance in most alliance setups will start practicing blocking the triple balance for the qualification rounds.....These matches are going to be awesome.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by 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-

Oh the carnage that would take place at that bridge....tipping of bots already on the bridge, etc. But a test of bridge tender might would be fun - kinda like arm wrestling.

Here's a thought - do what you said, but only allow one and only one robot up on the co-op for 10. Here's the kicker - first one up and balanced gets the 10 points, but they have to STAY there the remainder of the match. Tipping the bridge once this balance is completed is a tech foul, as is leaving the bridge once balanced.

If one alliance goes for the triple, the other is free and clear to get the center bridge, while his partners can keep scoring and double late to try and negate the triple. If both alliances say forget the triple, they can contest for the center bridge, but he who gets there first, wins.

[M. Mellott]

I too am opposed to this change. The Rules Update section of the IRI website states they would consider "minor rule changes...but not make a change that will encourage teams to alter their robot", then turn around and do the exact opposite?!?

I understand there will always be rule changes at IRI, but it looks like teams with long-bots are being "encouraged" to take a look at robot modifications instead of running what got us invited to IRI in the first place.

[D.Allred]

[quote=Travis Hoffman;1175271 No Long alliance captain in their right mind would assemble such a group in the elims (would they?). QUOTE]

Great question. You'll have to ask 987, the Curie champions.

Travis, I agree with your point in principle since qualification pairings of 3 longs eliminates the 40 point choice. However, that doesn't mean the 3 other randomly paired robots will be successful with a triple.

As a fan of the game, I am wanting to see a shooting alliance out gun a triple balance alliance.

[Bjenks548]

I see 3 ways 3 longs can triple balance...
1) The center robot gets pushed up sideways
2) 3 robots in long configuration
3 (the fun one)) Robot 1 balances the bridge and turns 90. Robot 2 pulls the bridge down to their side and climbs on. Robot 2 uses a stinger to level out the bridge. Robot 3 from the other side lowers the bridge and climbs on.

Needs:
1) 1 robot with low traction and 1 with high torque
2) 2 robots that can hang very, very, very far off (averaging 19" on the bridge assuming the center one is max and bumpers are not stacking)
3)1 robot with a stinger and 1 robot with a very powerfull bridge lowering device

548 also has a trick that we never used in the season, but I might get to pull out if we can't do any of these 3...

Not saying I like these rules, but they're not going to change so make the best of them!

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by M. Mellott

I understand there will always be rule changes at IRI, but it looks like teams with long-bots are being "encouraged" to take a look at robot modifications instead of running what got us invited to IRI in the first place.

Or.. deal with the consequences.

Jane

[Joe Ross]

I simulated a match schedule for IRI, using the team list and robot stats from this post. There are 34 long robots, 31 wide robots, 2 Mecanum robots, 4 Swerve robots, and 2 Square robots. I assume that a triple balance can occur if there are no more then 1 Long robot on an alliance (although there have been notable exceptions, I think this is a safe assumption for randomly selection qualification matches). I did not try to look at stingers or overhang, as the data is less reliable

There were 110 alliances where a triple balance is possible and 86 where it is not. I then looked at two long robots and two wide robots who's members participated in this thread. I looked at whether or not that team's alliance could triple, as well as what the opponent could do, and whether that put the team at an advantage or disadvantage).

Team        NoTriple  Triple  Adv     DA  Neutral
48 (long)     4          4      2      1    5
234 (wide)    2          6      2      2    4
744 (long)    5          3      1      4    3
3940 (wide)   2          6      2      1    5

Here's the raw data in case someone wants to expand the analysis

Match	Red 1	Red 2	Red 3	Blue 1	Blue 2	Blue 3								
1	3947	781	3193	1538	829	2590		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
2	2949	3138	868	27	1741	68		Wide	Long	Square	vs	Long	Mecanum	Wide
3	340	1676	48	772	1718	2168		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Long
4	3310	67	269	71	1592	341		Long	Wide	wide	vs	Swerve	Wide	Wide
5	1023	118	1732	192	461	973		Wide	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Long	Swerve
6	33	359	744	25	330	2194		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Wide
7	125	624	2826	3098	3357	1730		Long	long	Long	vs	Wide	Wide	Wide
8	379	1902	1714	573	3322	1640		Long	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Swerve
9	907	148	503	16	2614	447		Wide	Wide	Mecanum	vs	Swerve	Long	Long
10	2056	217	2054	245	469	51		Long	Long	Long	vs	Wide	Square	Wide
11	233	234	1024	399	3940	2337		Long	Wide	Wide	vs	Wide	Wide	Long
12	45	4334	292	2834	111	1114		Wide	Wide	wide	vs	Wide	Long	Long
13	269	868	2826	548	33	973		wide	Square	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Swerve
14	1592	3310	25	1902	461	1718		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Wide
15	3138	1538	573	2194	3357	1732		Long	Long	Long	vs	Wide	Wide	Wide
16	781	1741	503	772	1023	379		Long	Mecanum	Mecanum	vs	Long	Wide	Long
17	1640	48	1730	341	217	359		Swerve	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Long	Long
18	292	2168	71	2337	3322	2614		wide	Long	Swerve	vs	Long	Wide	Long
19	829	68	233	340	2054	624		Wide	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Long	long
20	2949	2590	447	245	111	3940		Wide	Wide	Long	vs	Wide	Long	Wide
21	2056	118	744	1676	2834	907		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
22	4334	234	16	27	3193	469		Wide	Wide	Swerve	vs	Long	Long	Square
23	3947	1714	330	67	3098	45		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Wide	Wide	Wide
24	548	148	192	125	399	1114		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Long
25	51	379	2614	1024	68	461		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Wide	Wide	Long
26	781	3940	2054	359	1592	973		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Swerve
27	1902	1730	71	2056	233	111		Long	Wide	Swerve	vs	Long	Long	Long
28	292	3357	469	118	1718	829		wide	Wide	Square	vs	Wide	Wide	Wide
29	3193	3098	1732	868	503	25		Long	Wide	Wide	vs	Square	Mecanum	Long
30	245	1538	16	125	1676	330		Wide	Long	Swerve	vs	Long	Long	Long
31	1640	192	45	340	744	2949		Swerve	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Long	Wide
32	1741	234	48	1714	33	2834		Mecanum	Wide	Long	vs	Wide	Wide	Wide
33	3310	3138	624	3322	148	2590		Long	Long	long	vs	Wide	Wide	Wide
34	27	2168	217	548	67	1024		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
35	399	447	341	2826	4334	1023		Wide	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
36	2337	3947	907	2194	1114	51		Long	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Long	Wide
37	772	573	125	269	2949	2056		Long	Long	Long	vs	wide	Wide	Long
38	118	2614	359	340	1714	868		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Square
39	33	2054	71	16	3138	1718		Wide	Long	Swerve	vs	Swerve	Long	Wide
40	469	233	1640	3310	2834	3098		Square	Long	Swerve	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
41	1592	1741	1538	48	624	4334		Wide	Mecanum	Long	vs	Long	long	Wide
42	25	973	27	45	447	829		Long	Swerve	Long	vs	Wide	Long	Wide
43	2194	1024	245	292	148	781		Wide	Wide	Wide	vs	wide	Wide	Long
44	3322	1023	548	573	1730	3947		Wide	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Long
45	269	2337	2590	379	192	1732		wide	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Long	Wide
46	67	3357	68	503	1114	1676		Wide	Wide	Wide	vs	Mecanum	Long	Long
47	330	772	217	2826	461	3940		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Wide
48	111	399	51	3193	744	2168		Long	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Long	Long
49	341	907	868	1902	234	624		Wide	Wide	Square	vs	Long	Wide	long
50	1640	4334	1718	3947	1024	118		Swerve	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
51	48	3098	192	2056	2614	829		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Long	Wide
52	2194	447	2054	379	125	3310		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Long
53	461	1676	27	359	148	573		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Long
54	3322	781	217	744	1732	16		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Swerve
55	973	2168	68	2834	1538	1730		Swerve	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Long	Wide
56	340	111	1023	2337	67	33		Long	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
57	1592	503	2949	2826	234	51		Wide	Mecanum	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
58	292	772	548	3193	233	341		wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Wide
59	45	71	3940	3357	1741	907		Wide	Swerve	Wide	vs	Wide	Mecanum	Wide
60	269	399	1714	3138	245	25		wide	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Long
61	1902	1114	2590	469	330	2168		Long	Long	Wide	vs	Square	Long	Long
62	2194	868	2056	16	1640	67		Wide	Square	Long	vs	Swerve	Swerve	Wide
63	1718	111	3098	148	234	217		Wide	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Wide	Long
64	461	2834	548	2054	2949	2337		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Long
65	292	340	973	503	573	3310		wide	Long	Swerve	vs	Mecanum	Long	Long
66	3947	624	379	399	71	359		Long	long	Long	vs	Wide	Swerve	Long
67	3357	48	269	27	781	330		Wide	Long	wide	vs	Long	Long	Long
68	1114	447	1732	233	1592	33		Long	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
69	1676	192	3322	2826	1741	1024		Long	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Mecanum	Wide
70	125	2590	907	68	1023	25		Long	Wide	Wide	vs	Wide	Wide	Long
71	3193	118	45	2614	245	1730		Long	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Wide
72	3138	1902	829	4334	51	772		Long	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Wide	Long
73	341	744	3940	1714	1538	469		Wide	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Long	Square
74	399	2194	2834	27	1718	503		Wide	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Mecanum
75	67	233	3322	973	2949	48		Wide	Long	Wide	vs	Swerve	Wide	Long
76	111	25	1676	781	624	548		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	long	Long
77	359	3357	1024	1023	3310	3193		Long	Wide	Wide	vs	Wide	Long	Long
78	16	51	3098	573	118	269		Swerve	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	wide
79	2614	217	1741	125	3947	1902		Long	Long	Mecanum	vs	Long	Long	Long
80	461	341	33	45	2590	2056		Long	Wide	Wide	vs	Wide	Wide	Long
81	3940	1730	330	292	192	3138		Wide	Wide	Long	vs	wide	Long	Long
82	148	744	829	1592	868	2337		Wide	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Square	Long
83	4334	1732	2054	1714	2168	907		Wide	Wide	Long	vs	Wide	Long	Wide
84	1538	379	2826	1114	340	245		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Wide
85	71	1640	234	68	772	447		Swerve	Swerve	Wide	vs	Wide	Long	Long
86	469	573	2614	399	67	781		Square	Long	Long	vs	Wide	Wide	Long
87	118	125	111	503	48	3138		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Mecanum	Long	Long
88	2590	359	1718	548	51	1741		Wide	Long	Wide	vs	Long	Wide	Mecanum
89	1902	1023	744	2054	3098	292		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Wide	wide
90	245	2168	3947	461	233	868		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Square
91	973	4334	330	2056	234	379		Swerve	Wide	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Long
92	2194	829	2949	217	1676	71		Wide	Wide	Wide	vs	Long	Long	Swerve
93	16	1024	1730	1592	772	1714		Swerve	Wide	Wide	vs	Wide	Long	Wide
94	3193	1114	624	3940	1640	269		Long	Long	long	vs	Wide	Swerve	wide
95	33	192	3310	27	907	1538		Wide	Long	Long	vs	Long	Wide	Long
96	148	2826	68	1732	45	469		Wide	Long	Wide	vs	Wide	Wide	Square
97	340	2834	25	3357	341	3322		Long	Wide	Long	vs	Wide	Wide	Wide
98	2337	781	1902	447	359	2056		Long	Long	Long	vs	Long	Long	Long

[Joon Park]

Personally, having been on a team that used Co-op Bridges to place well during qualifications, I'm not a big fan of the fact that they are no longer valid. I've always thought that FIRST did a great job this year with Co-op points and integrated coopertition into the game as was never done before. The unpredictability of the seeding was a very exciting aspect of Rebound Rumble, and I believe it was largely due to the coopertition points.

That said, I do see the rationale of wanting more triple balances to occur (hence the rule change to allow it during quals). Yes, I certainly do think allowing triple balance during quals is a great idea. However, I don't think the coopertition points should be discontinued.

Hence, my ideal rule change would be allowing triple balance during quals and still keeping coopertition.

[Travis Hoffman]

[quote=D.Allred;1175283]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman;1175271 No Long alliance captain in their right mind would assemble such a group in the elims (would they?). QUOTE

Great question. You'll have to ask 987, the Curie champions.

I would, but they won't be at IRI. We always knew they were kinda crazy out there.

[Grim Tuesday]

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with these rule changes, specifically number two. Whether people like it or not, the Co-Op bridges are an integral part of Rebound Rumble. I can see the argument that changing the bridges amounts to no more than the change in Minibots last year. However, there is one fundamental difference.

When changing over the minibots last year, that was in in-game change. Nothing changed but the scoring. Removing the Co-Op bridge changes the rankings and changes how robots should accomplish the same task. With the minibot change, it was still advantageous to have the fastest minibot. With the bridge change, the task has changed from double balancing reliably to triple balancing every match, and as many have pointed out, this negatively affects a demographic of robots.

When we are given the challenge at the beginning of the season, we have to consider all the factors. The Coopertition bridge and associated ranking points were part of that challenge and if a team didn't plan for them, they were punished

I don't see how this change reduces chance in the tournament--I feel that it increases it greatly. The match schedule and what robots you are paired with are out of your hands. That is a given. With the Coopertition bridge in place, you always took two robots and balanced them on the bridge. At IRI, this would have been a given, since in any matchup, there are surely two robots who could do this. This is a bit boring, but it is fair. In the new system, you are thrown in with teams who may or may not be able to triple balance. In alliance selection, this is a careful selection process. Now it is thrown to chance. There is little doubt in my mind that in any given game, the two alliances will have different abilities to triple balance thus making chance a greater factor in the game than before.

As an experiment, this has merit. I'm sure many (including the myself) have wondered what Rebound Rumble would be like without the Coopertition bridge.

It will no doubt make the games more fun to watch, but at what cost? The game being played at IRI will not be Rebound Rumble.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

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...

Substituted 180 with some other arbitrarily high number.

[D.Allred]

[quote=Travis Hoffman;1175289]

Originally Posted by D.Allred

I would, but they won't be at IRI. We always knew they were kinda crazy out there.

Oops. I made a mistake. The Pink Team was captain. 987 was their first pick with 207 on defense. In either case, it was a great shoot out!

[BJC]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

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.

I would argue that the entire competition (hence the name) is about winning. That begins with your first qualification match and hopefully ends in the finals. Because statistically 70% of #1 seeded alliances win their respective competitions everyone is trying to get there. This is where I lost you, I don’t really understand how eliminating noise in the qualification system is punishing anyone. If you could better articulate yourself on this point I would appreciate it.

I don’t really want to get into the already widely discussed topic of money and resources in this thread when it has been discussed so many times before. All it really comes down to is hard work. I’ll provide an example and leave it at that. In 2010, team 33 lost its primary sponsor in the Chrysler Foundation when they filed for bankruptcy. That summer our team contacted many companies providing letters, robot demonstrations, and presentations on how their money impacts our students. Everyone worked together, including the parents, to make sure that we would have the money to compete at the level we normally do. We acquired over 10 new sponsors which more than covered the absence of Chrysler. Any team is capable of doing that if they have the drive.

-------
Oh, and because the topic of conversation seems to have shifted towards triple balancing in qualifications. I have to say that I agree that it is not a good rule modification. While the rule does not greatly affect my team I know I would be upset if I built a long robot and this change was made. So while I understand if the rule stays, I hope that a solution can be agreed upon that does not so heavily disadvantage long robots.

Regards, Bryan

[Holtzman]

We're long. We're not worried. There will be many matches where all 3 of our opponents devote 40 seconds to attempting to triple and fail. We will continue to score undefended while our partners double.

I believe Arnold said it best.