IRI Rule Changes - 2012

[R.C.]

In terms of the 40 extra points, wouldn't 30 make the triple balance more reasonable in quals?

Even if there was 3 long vs a 3 wide alliance. A good alliance in a quals match can triple between 10-20 seconds easily. In that time any decent robot can score 3-4 extra balls?

Just a thought,

-RC

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by R.C.

In terms of the 40 extra points, wouldn't 30 make the triple balance more reasonable in quals?

Even if there was 3 long vs a 3 wide alliance. A good alliance in a quals match can triple between 10-20 seconds easily. In that time any decent robot can score 3-4 extra balls?

Just a thought,

-RC

I was thinking the same thing. But then again why not just do double balance and have that robot score 3 balls?

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

The rule changes have been thought out and discussed, ...

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.

Accepted without question; trust and respect your judgement and integrity.

I think that you have introduced an element which has a high probability of increasing the impact of referee's judgement and random pairings upon the seeding results of the qualification matches. Neither of which supports an emphasis on robot performance.

I agree with folks who see the addition of points for triples in qual's as a significant change.

It will definitely be a different game in qual's than has been played through the season.

[Travis Hoffman]

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. <snip> Any team is capable of doing that if they have the drive.

Bryan - I wanted to comment on this point briefly. I do not believe Evan was referencing an example of a team who was experiencing a major funding catastrophe. He was describing a very logical reality that teams of all kinds face as they attempt to operate during the summer.

Some very stable teams don't have the leeway to budget for unplanned robot upgrade projects (especially during the summer), nor do they have full time summer access to their schools/shops where they can enter the building any time they want. Some amount of advanced planning and scheduling with school officials is required. There are certain union and administrative realities that block some teams from gaining access when the primary school team leader is away on vacation.

More importantly, most teams in such situations have little to no realistic recourse to alter those realities in the less than one month they have between now and the IRI competition.

We are going into battle at IRI with the robot we had at MARC, because we have already developed and tested triple compatible systems for the machine. It can do what it can do, which is a lot, including tripling with many teams in many configurations (including 67 and a standard widebot, apparently - alas...MARC practice only). Short of inventing a shrink ray, there is nothing more we can do to enhance its triple compatibility given the realities of our summer budget and school access. I imagine many others are in a similar or worse situation.

[GaryVoshol]

Chris, Andy and Stu,

No comment on the rule changes. (I'm not playing, so I don't have a dog in the fight.)

How much are you planning on altering FMS? At MARC we couldn't run FMS Elimination matches because we had 4 on the alliance, so had to run them like practice matches so we could put in team numbers. We found that the head ref panel did not give an option for a triple balance as it was not considered an Elimination match. The scores had to be manually adjusted in any match with a triple balance.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Chris, Andy and Stu,

No comment on the rule changes. (I'm not playing, so I don't have a dog in the fight.)

How much are you planning on altering FMS? At MARC we couldn't run FMS Elimination matches because we had 4 on the alliance, so had to run them like practice matches so we could put in team numbers. We found that the head ref panel did not give an option for a triple balance as it was not considered an Elimination match. The scores had to be manually adjusted in any match with a triple balance.

Our FTA is saying that we can add points at the end of each match if we wish to count the triple balance. We don't think that we need a software change.

Andy

[Chi Meson]

I support revisiting the change and tweaking the tweak.

I really like the option of making the center bridge worth 10 points, but just during eliminations.

Without coop points (I'm not sorry to see them go!) the elims are all about finding the top 8 best all-round robots.

I'd say that a robot that can collect and score 3 balls in the final 20 seconds and then get up on the bridge for a 3-second solo-balance is a special robot indeed!

[GCentola]

Originally Posted by Chi Meson

Without coop points (I'm not sorry to see them go!) the elims are all about finding the top 8 best all-around robots

I would agree, as I fail to see the problem with this. Shouldn't the top 8 best robots be the top 8 seeds and pick their strategically-determined alliances accordingly? Most of the robots at IRI are high caliber, and if they can prove their worth, will play in eliminations. You don't always need to be an alliance captain to do well.

Second, I think Holtzman said it perfectly. 2056 is long, but if they go undefended, they have a great chance at winning IRI. Travis, 48 has a great robot as always in addition to great strategy. Effectively countering a triple by means of a 21 point lead and a double seems entirely likely. People seem to be complaining about the luck of the draw schedule-at IRI, you can usually trust your partners. Once again: Stop Whining.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Team 0000 is not a good team with a subpar robot. It shoots good 3s and balances great, but lets pretend it's actually 20the 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).


Thats great. Our team does that too with mixed and minimal results. It'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.

I think I fundamentally disagree with you. I believe that every team's final rank should be resultant from how much they win (how good they are) because that is what we are competing to find out. Everyone is competing to see who is the best, so when the ranking system utilizes a metric which has nothing to do with winning it throws a tremendous amount of noise into the ranking system. If the ranking system is supposed to rank teams by how good they are why should hypothetical team 0000 be ranked over hypothetical team 9999 when 9999 worked harder during the build season, can more effectively play the game, and won more qualification matches? Now if when team 0000 is playing team 9999 and comes up with a cleaver strategy to beat 9999 that is a completely different story. Here is a comparison. In the NCAA basketball teams are ranked 1-16 for March Madness (eliminations) based on their record in the normal season (qualifications.) Now imagine the outrage if team's rank was half-based on how awesome their mascot was? Do you see the problem? The co-op bridges are like mascots.

_________________
I'll PM you tomorrow. One of our parents is a public relations guy and really guided us on how to do this. I'll publicly say this:

-A professional looking letter (not email) begins the process.
-Actually going to the company to present one's team is absolutely key to recruiting sponsors.
-Bringing a cool-looking and performing robot to demonstrate and explain is also very important.
-The absolute most important thing is to have a bunch of enthusiastic, knowledgeable students explaining what the program is about and how the robot works.
-Firm handshakes and looking people in the eyes is extremely important. Teenagers are very bad at this. All our presenters actually practiced this along with their pitch numerous times.
-A follow up letter is very important to close the deal.
-Once we have a sponsor we try very hard to keep them. Every year we make plaques for every company that sponsors us signed by every student to show our appreciation. We also invite every companies CEO's to come to our kickoff party, robot unveiling party, and end of the year picnic. Most of them don’t come, but it’s the thought that counts.

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Bryan - I wanted to comment on this point briefly. I do not believe Evan was referencing an example of a team who was experiencing a major funding catastrophe. He was describing a very logical reality that teams of all kinds face as they attempt to operate during the summer.

Some very stable teams don't have the leeway to budget for unplanned robot upgrade projects (especially during the summer), nor do they have full time summer access to their schools/shops where they can enter the building any time they want. Some amount of advanced planning and scheduling with school officials is required. There are certain union and administrative realities that block some teams from gaining access when the primary school team leader is away on vacation.

More importantly, most teams in such situations have little to no realistic recourse to alter those realities in the less than one month they have between now and the IRI competition.

We are going into battle at IRI with the robot we had at MARC, because we have already developed and tested triple compatible systems for the machine. It can do what it can do, which is a lot, including tripling with many teams in many configurations (including 67 and a standard widebot, apparently - alas...MARC practice only). Short of inventing a shrink ray, there is nothing more we can do to enhance its triple compatibility given the realities of our summer budget and school access. I imagine many others are in a similar or worse situation.

I love quotes. I’m going to toss some famous quotes at you that I believe apply to the situation.

“The great thing about working hard is that you can always work harder, the great thing about being good is that you can always be better.” -- unknown

“I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” – Thomas Jefferson

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” -- Beverly Sills

There is another in my signature. The point is that if these “stable” teams do not have the drive to find the money and/or shop space elsewhere to work during the summer, then you’re right. They won’t have a chance at IRI -- because IRI is filled with teams that have already taken that step. Ok, one more quote: “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” What I’m talking about doing does take more than a month. It may take more than a year. But it is a step that every “powerhouse” team has taken. Over the last couple years I have watch my team go from one that is all but inactive during the summer to one that participates in VRC, OCCRA, three offseason FRC competitions, is working on a drivetrain gearing optimization project, is further developing our 2011 drivetrain, and is improving our 2012 robot for IRI. There is no secret, there is only hard work.

Regards, Bryan

[smistthegreat]

I've thought about this for a while, and this is what I've come to. When I first read the update, my reaction was something along the lines of "WHAT!? That's just not fair to a robot whose random partners can't triple." Except not quite. After a little recollection of my experiences on the Curie playoff field, my decision changed. Us (1507, 34" long, with a significant overhang, with breaks), 51 (wide), and 3098 (wide with a stinger) tripled several times on the practice field. With those aids, and with that practice time, we still failed in the match we tried it. That was terribly worded, but the point I'm trying to make is that tripling, unless the alliance is W/W/W with practiced drivers, is by no means easy. And even then, the caliber of bots at IRI is such that there will be several (maybe even more) long robots that can put up 18+ points in 20 seconds while the other 5 are balancing.

I'm still not 100% sold, but I don't think this is the end of the world for long bots.

[davepowers]

Originally Posted by BJC

I love quotes. I’m going to toss some famous quotes at you that I believe apply to the situation.

“The great thing about working hard is that you can always work harder, the great thing about being good is that you can always be better.” -- unknown

“I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” – Thomas Jefferson

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” -- Beverly Sills

There is another in my signature. The point is that if these “stable” teams do not have the drive to find the money and/or shop space elsewhere to work during the summer, then you’re right. They won’t have a chance at IRI -- because IRI is filled with teams that have already taken that step. Ok, one more quote: “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” What I’m talking about doing does take more than a month. It may take more than a year. But it is a step that every “powerhouse” team has taken. Over the last couple years I have watch my team go from one that is all but inactive during the summer to one that participates in VRC, OCCRA, three offseason FRC competitions, is working on a drivetrain gearing optimization project, is further developing our 2011 drivetrain, and is improving our 2012 robot for IRI. There is no secret, there is only hard work.

Regards, Bryan

I do believe this has to be the most motivating are influential posts I have ever read on here. Thank you for this Bryan!

-D

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Chi Meson

...

Without coop points (I'm not sorry to see them go!) the elims are all about finding the top 8 best all-round robots.

...

I think you meant to say quals.. and i'm not trying to pick on you specifically but all rules change threads have had someone say something along those lines and it bothers me.

Rebound Rumble was the game we were all given. It wasn't just scoring baskets and balancing. Each game is a strategy filled, complex game that requires teams to excel in many different areas in order to be successful. To infer that The Top 8 robots must be all around great robots takes away from what makes FIRST so addicting. If a team ranks high by specializing, they deserve it. You're devaluing teams that made decisions that they thought early on in January would make them successful. Now, in July, you're asking them to play a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT game. That's truly unfair in my opinion. Teams that chose to excel in quals by dominating and specializing in CoOp balancing are now SOL. And i'm speaking as a team that did not go that route.

IMO, the CoOp bridge was the most unique and paradigm breaking aspects to a competitive competition that I have ever seen. I thought it was awesome.

I've always thought that IRI reserves the right to make changes to fix the little things that end up being annoying through the course of the season. A lane infraction here or a contact penalty there. Not to make large, game altering changes. Rebound Rumble, as it was played all season, will go down as one of the best FRC games of all time. To change it this much was unnecessary.

Also...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=106213

In that poll, the FRC community voted 120-92 to keep the CoOp bridge at at least one point. I think that would have been a fair compromise.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by BJC

I love quotes. I’m going to toss some famous quotes at you that I believe apply to the situation.

“The great thing about working hard is that you can always work harder, the great thing about being good is that you can always be better.” -- unknown

“I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” – Thomas Jefferson

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” -- Beverly Sills

There is another in my signature. The point is that if these “stable” teams do not have the drive to find the money and/or shop space elsewhere to work during the summer, then you’re right. They won’t have a chance at IRI -- because IRI is filled with teams that have already taken that step. Ok, one more quote: “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” What I’m talking about doing does take more than a month. It may take more than a year. But it is a step that every “powerhouse” team has taken. Over the last couple years I have watch my team go from one that is all but inactive during the summer to one that participates in VRC, OCCRA, three offseason FRC competitions, is working on a drivetrain gearing optimization project, is further developing our 2011 drivetrain, and is improving our 2012 robot for IRI. There is no secret, there is only hard work.

Regards, Bryan

That's wonderful for you. Over the past few years, we've begun to transition in much the same way. This year, we are attending MARC and IRI and Rochester in the fall. We've already attended more demos in May/June than I care to recall. We are going to have team-building activities in August as well as continue work on the t-shirt cannon robot we developed LAST summer.

As I said, we are satisfied with the robot, heading into IRI. If I cared to do so, I could exfiltrate the robot and tools and visit one of our NEOFRA neighbors' facilities to work on it further. In fact, before we arranged for any summer access at the new school building last year, we worked on the bot at 379's facility. But I kinda like the notion of a break. And July is a good time to do it, since our school team leader will be away, and we already proved the bot/drive team out at MARC. We will practice a bit shortly before leaving, but that is all. I also kinda like the notion of not spending money we do not have on projects we don't need. Perhaps the United States government will someday have the same notion, but I digress.

And now I am going to shift gears a bit - there is a fine line you have to draw between offering constructive advice and encouragement to other teams from a position of an active, well-resourced program and entering the realm of the mildly condescending.

The manner in which you deliver advice can be a turnoff to your intended audience, if it is done in a relentless, in your face fashion. I personally have had to learn this more times than I care to count, and I'm still learning. Less is sometimes more.

[waialua359]

Triple balancing is over-rated and under-analyzed IMO.
With the quality of teams participating at IRI this year, you will easily see 90+ points for alliances that dont triple balance.
90+ points is good enough to win, especially if alliances employ some sort of defensive strategy that's been seen all season long, especially at CMP.

Havent we all seen enough matches this year, to NOT generalize and say that a triple is the only way to win AND that you must have a widebot to succeed?

[Chi Meson]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I think you meant to say quals.. and i'm not trying to pick on you specifically but all rules change threads have had someone say something along those lines and it bothers me
.

I did mean quals. It was late.

I can't disagree with anything you said other than in matters of degree. Strategy was a great aspect of this years game, but the coop balance was not the keystone of strategy, and as has been noted, it will be less of a real factor at IRI with so many superior robots.

My point was that if the coop points are removed, I would like to see something made Of the center bridge that would add a new and different twist for strategizing.