IRI Rule Changes - 2012

[Cory]

[quote=D.Allred;1175294]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

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!

Unrelated scenario anyways. They had no choice. 233 would have been stupid to pass up 987. Neither of them had a dingus and therefore were never going to triple even if they had picked a wide bot.

Normally you have more control over constructing an alliance that can triple balance.

[LeelandS]

I'm a little hesitant to jump in here, since I'm not competing at IRI this year, but here's my two cents.

I don't quite understand where all the complaining in coming from.

On the point of removing coopertition points, coop points were just a method of ranking. I don't see them as an integral part of the game, ESPECIALLY at the level of play IRI will exhibit. Let's be honest. At least 90% of matches would have had a coop anyway. Having the coop points would have crucified the handful of unlucky teams who missed out. The coop bridge did add an element of strategy that I rather enjoyed, but I don't see it as a huge loss for the game.

For the triple balance in qualifications, I actually really like that. I didn't see the point in not giving a triple bonus in qualification matches, so I like this change. Many people that are complaining about this are teams that don't have confidence that their ability to compete with this in play. Tyler hit the nail on the head. I hate to be so course, but if you don't think you can triple balance, I strongly suggest you find a way to win without triple balancing. It's not "favor towards one type of robot." It's an element of the game that has always existed, and is now being expanded. Like Tyler said, 2056 is going to put in a bajillion balls in those last 30 seconds of play, undefended with 18 balls to work with. You need a lead of 21 points with a double balance to cancel out the triple. That's 7 balls in the high hoop, if the alliances are relatively even in scoring (otherwise, you'd just get hosed down anyway and lose to a wash of doubles). That's definitely doable for a large majority of the teams at IRI.

If you're worried about these things, I suggest you stop worrying about the rules, and start working on how you're going to turn them in your favor.

[jblay]

Originally Posted by Cory

Unrelated scenario anyways. They had no choice. 233 would have been stupid to pass up 987. Neither of them had a dingus and therefore were never going to triple even if they had picked a wide bot.

Normally you have more control over constructing an alliance that can triple balance.

To be fair, 233 could have gone with 1986 but I thought at the time they made the right call and the elimination rounds showed that they did.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

On the point of removing coopertition points, coop points were just a method of ranking. I don't see them as an integral part of the game, ESPECIALLY at the level of play IRI will exhibit. Let's be honest. At least 90% of matches would have had a coop anyway. Having the coop points would have crucified the handful of unlucky teams who missed out. The coop bridge did add an element of strategy that I rather enjoyed, but I don't see it as a huge loss for the game.

As FIRST constructed the game, the co-opertition points were part of the method for earning your ranking (and the associated privileges of picking, etc.). I think it's fair to say that most teams optimized their robots to seed high under the original rules—and for many of those, that involved taking advantage of the middle bridge to succeed in qualifications.

Where once there was a qualification game and a distinct elimination game, the IRI rule changes basically amount to playing the elimination game all the time. I'd say that for some teams, that will be a big deal, and that for a select few, it won't matter. That changes the implicit balance of power and gives the strategists something different to think about and the builders something new to build. Was it the intention of the IRI committee to give the teams a new challenge with a short implementation window? If so, they succeeded. (Of course, with FRC, you're told in advance that this is going to happen...with IRI, it seems to have taken us by surprise.)

I don't think I'd have made such a big a change to the way the competition works, but since I don't have a robot there, I'm merely interested to see what happens.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by BJC

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.

Team 0000 is not a good team with a subpar robot. It shoots good 3s and balances great, but lets pretend it's actually 20th in actual standings. Yet throughout qualifications this team was able to scrape up a ton of co-op points and make it to 3rd seed. The only reason this team was able to make it to the 3rd seed was due to the co-op points. And because team 0000 made it to 3rd seed using the rules of the game, they have the right to pick their alliance like all the other powerhouse teams that rocked the event.

So the question is, is having this subpar team 0000 in 3rd seed a mistake? Would having this team as 3rd seed be ruining the statement that "Only the best teams at the regional should be seeded"?

No. Using the rules of the game this team was able to make it to 3rd seed. Other seeded teams will refuse this 3rd seed left and right, as no one believes (or knows) that they can ever stand a chance winning with this 3rd seeded team, but still even after 4th-8th reject them they still get the right to pick yet again until they form an alliance to compete in the elimination matches.

This is my point - by removing the co-op points you alienate a group of robots who were able to reach a top seed because of those points. In effect, you are punishing those subpar teams from having the luck to gather points and end up in the top seed all for the sake of maintaining an ethos that "only the best robots at the event should be a top seeded team."

Granted the best robots at the event should be top seed, but in the same way one team maintained a top seed by scoring an amazing amount of points (as part of the game) another robot should be allowed to place top seed because of their skill with wrangling up enough co-op points (as part of the game).

Originally Posted by BJC

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.

Thats great. Our team does that too with mixed and minimal results. I's just how it ends up. Any chance you could PM me some of your team's pointers and tips for getting in contact with area business, how to get more parents involved and making presentations, as well as all other sorts of info like that? We could use some new directions to take if your team can do it and we can't measure up.

[akoscielski3]

I am a little worried because we are long. but like Holtzman said, you wont have defense during the time they are trying to triple, that will give you the possibility to score more. Since we have our time to score a lot lower than ever we should be getting atleast 20 points in those 40 seconds.

I dont mind the rule changes, but i would have chosen rule #2 or #3. not both.
I dont think that this will change the rankings as much as people are thinking.

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As FIRST constructed the game, the co-opertition points were part of the method for earning your ranking (and the associated privileges of picking, etc.). I think it's fair to say that most teams optimized their robots to seed high under the original rules—and for many of those, that involved taking advantage of the middle bridge to succeed in qualifications.

Where once there was a qualification game and a distinct elimination game, the IRI rule changes basically amount to playing the elimination game all the time. I'd say that for some teams, that will be a big deal, and that for a select few, it won't matter. That changes the implicit balance of power and gives the strategists something different to think about and the builders something new to build. Was it the intention of the IRI committee to give the teams a new challenge with a short implementation window? If so, they succeeded. (Of course, with FRC, you're told in advance that this is going to happen...with IRI, it seems to have taken us by surprise.)

I don't think I'd have made such a big a change to the way the competition works, but since I don't have a robot there, I'm merely interested to see what happens.

I definitely understand why changing the coop points can be major. And were this any other competition, I would agree. But what I'm trying to say is, having the coop bridge in play would be less of a reward for the teams that do it, and more of a punishment for the teams that don't.

When considering the quality of teams going to IRI, I have no doubt that a coop would be attempted every match. And at least 90% of the time, it will work. But for that 10% who couldn't get it right for whatever reason (malfunction, bad luck, etc.) it will be a crippling factor in ranking. Thus, the majority of teams who successfully coop will have an inherent advantage over those that didn't right off the bat. Even if it's just a single failed coop balance, it could cripple a team who otherwise won every match and cooped.

I always thought the coop points added an interesting aspect to the game. In Tetraman's scenario, Team 0000 got seeded high for cooperating every match. And of course, people are complaining that team 000 should never had gotten the third seed. The problem I see, is teams who are complaining don't coop themselves sometimes, or don't make it their priority. If the "top teams" cooped each time and won the matches they normally would, then the top 8 would consist of the best robots fit to be in it. FIRST added coopertition to the seeding this year, and those who didn't play to it payed the price.

In a game where every "good" robot coops, there would be no confusion over why someone is in the top 8 when they shouldn't.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

Tyler hit the nail on the head. I hate to be so course, but if you don't think you can triple balance, I strongly suggest you find a way to win without triple balancing. It's not "favor towards one type of robot." It's an element of the game that has always existed, and is now being expanded.

I haven't formulated a value judgement on Rule 3 yet, but I disagree that it's always been a element of the game. Ok, maybe the element was, but the molecule wasn't. Triple balancing with one alliance of your selection (or gracious acceptance) has always been a element molecule of the game. Triple balancing with 8 (8, right?) random alliances was not. By my view, 1 by selection to 8 by random is not an expansion, it's an inherently different thing. In fact, they're inherently different strategic design issues.

That's not to say I disagree triple balancing with 8 randomly assigned alliances will likely be harder for everyone--even those geometrically/CoG capable of accomplishing it. Nor do I disagree that many teams there, long and wide, are quite capable of doing amazing things on offense during that time. I'm not sure I consider this change a "slight tweak", though.


As confirmation, does the lack of relevant comment mean that the refs will call triple balance defense the same way it was at Worlds?

[AdamHeard]

People keep mentioning the mediocre yet solid team that seeds high via the co-op bridge and how this change will unfairly punish them, I disagree with this point.

Lets assume normal FRC 2012 rules for IRI, then it would likely have the highest percentage of successful co-ops of any event, meaning win-loss would ultimately be the tie breaker.

The robots that had the strategy of focusing on co-op and merely being capable in other aspects of the game would actually likely do very poorly at IRI as aren't contributing much point value to the rest of the match. All year we've heard "cooperating is just as important as winning", at IRI it would have been "winning is just as important as cooperating".

What people have more credibility in being upset in is the triples being allowed in qualifying matches, but even that I don't think is something to be upset with.

It is going to be HARD to triple with a random qualifying alliance of robots that all have the physical capability to do so, so the success rate there would likely be lower than in elims. In elims teams were able to do it quicker due to better planning and repeated practice, in quals more time must be taken to perform the triple; as Tyler on 2056 already said, that is a LARGE amount of time for a competent scorer (which most random qualifying alliances at IRI will have) to score completely undefended with access to every ball on the field.

For any team that had a shot of leading an alliance to victory as a captain at IRI (keeping in mind that it's incredibly unlikely for a sub-par captain to win over the better alliances at IRI), their seeding will be mostly unaffected.

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Siri

I haven't formulated a value judgement on Rule 3 yet, but I disagree that it's always been a element of the game. Ok, maybe the element was, but the molecule wasn't. Triple balancing with one alliance of your selection (or gracious acceptance) has always been a element molecule of the game. Triple balancing with 8 (8, right?) random alliances was not. By my view, 1 by selection to 8 by random is not an expansion, it's an inherently different thing. In fact, they're inherently different strategic design issues.

That's not to say I disagree triple balancing with 8 randomly assigned alliances will likely be harder for everyone--even those geometrically/CoG capable of accomplishing it. Nor do I disagree that many teams there, long and wide, are quite capable of doing amazing things on offense during that time. I'm not sure I consider this change a "slight tweak", though.


As confirmation, does the lack of relevant comment mean that the refs will call triple balance defense the same way it was at Worlds?

Haha! Okay, I can dig your molecule-element analogy. What I meant by saying it's always been a part of the game is the triple balance itself, though admittedly, I didn't consider tripling with an elimination alliance and tripling with a random alliance to be two different facets of the game. I was saying that the act of triple balancing in itself has been in the game since day one. It's nothing new. It's not like they're cutting off a foot from each bridge. It's the same mindset as in an elimination match. If you're confident your alliance can triple, you're gonna go for the triple. If you're not, you find some other way to keep yourselves on the map. No one is forcing teams to triple balance. Teams have been finding ways to overcome the triple balance all season. The only difference I see this making is it will be all elimination-style matches.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

The problem I see, is teams who are complaining don't coop themselves sometimes, or don't make it their priority. If the "top teams" cooped each time and won the matches they normally would, then the top 8 would consist of the best robots fit to be in it. FIRST added coopertition to the seeding this year, and those who didn't play to it payed the price.

OR... Some other alliance denied them the chance to get the coop points by refusing to coop. Those who played that way tended to do worse themselves, and quite possibly made themselves disliked by teams that were hurt by the refusal to cooperate. At one fell swoop, that whole thing is laid to rest...

...And there's a nice useless bridge in the middle of the field. (Well, useless in terms of the end game. I can think of uses for it, but for the sake of not seeing them in action, I won't post them.)

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

Haha! Okay, I can dig your molecule-element analogy. What I meant by saying it's always been a part of the game is the triple balance itself, though admittedly, I didn't consider tripling with an elimination alliance and tripling with a random alliance to be two different facets of the game.

I'm glad someone else pointed out the distinction so I didn't have to.

If you're confident your alliance can triple, you're gonna go for the triple. If you're not, you find some other way to keep yourselves on the map.

As Siri aptly asked, does one way of "keeping yourself on the map" include appropriately-applied blocking defense to disrupt the attempt? I would ask the IRI folks to clarify this as an important aspect of the game.

[Chris Fultz]

The rule changes have been thought out and discussed, and several options were considered, including "none".

We made the decisions we made with this type of thought process.

We would expect a high percentage of alliances to co-op balance. Most teams can do it, and teams would be hesitant to not do it because it would hurt their ranking, as well as be bad from a reputation standpoint. So, if everyone co-ops, then it becomes irrelevant to the rankings. This change probably has little impact on rankings.

The triple balance, and attempts at it, are very exciting. Alliances will need to determine if it is worth the reward (+40) for the risk (maybe 0, maybe robot damage), compared to an almost guaranteed double balance and more scoring from the 3rd robot. Not every alliance can triple, and even many of the "3 wide alliances" will not be able to triple. With the match schedule, alliances will not have time to go practice with each set of partners. We believe it is going to be exciting to watch the attempts.

The changes were not meant to help or hurt any robot or design. Many long robots are good at triples, many wide ones are not.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by 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.

What about the few matches where they devote 20 seconds or less to the triple and succeed? You willing to be a longbot that goes up against that with your "randomly generated" partners?

You don't think some of the teams in attendance can't execute smooth superfast triples with their uber balancing devices? How much practice is REALLY needed for 67 and two wides to say "ok boys, stick together and let's go!" and run the train right up the track with the super monkey arm pushing up from behind (I love that thing)?

Are Longs willing to "take your medicine" in such a scenario, when now one loss likely means so much in the standings?

That is why I would like to at least be given the OPTION to defend triple attempts during qualifying to give disadvantaged alliances at least SOME way to throw a wrench into the works.

Finally, let's be clear, I do not believe one bit that anyone responsible for IRI rule changes MEANT to place one group of bots ahead of another, but the disadvantage IS there, and I feel that it will impact at least a few teams in the rankings to the benefit of widebot brethren. We shall see, won't we?