IRI Rule Changes - 2012

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

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.

I will chime in a bit in Bryan's defense (although I will agree that he does offer 'relentless' advice ) :
Bryan is very passionate about FRC and our team. Part of the reason he comes off the way he does is because during his time on the Killer Bees, we went through a very difficult period in our team history. The economic challenges which hit our sponsoring companies and this region of our country effectively removed about 90% of our team income in the fall of 2008. This very easily could have destroyed us. Instead of allowing this to happen, we decided that we had to change our approach to almost everything we do. Before this, in retrospect, we were lazy. Now we set goals and targets for everthing we want to do and then figure out how to achieve the results we desire. The results of our efforts over the last 4 years have been amazing (these were Bryan's 4 years on the team, so it is all he knows) and these results have come as the outcome of relentless commitment to success. This is a year-round effort for us. A lot of this drive has come from me and a few other leaders on my team, and I do push this pretty hard, so not surprisingly, it rubs off on some of our students.

All I can say is that if I had 40 students as determined as Bryan, I cannot imagine how much more we could accomplish. (BTW, my company just hired him ). Despite near going bankrupt in the recent past, today our team has more money, more mentors, more students, more ability and more measurable success than we ever had in the past. Our plan is simple:
1. Decide what you want.
2. Determine what resources you have.
3. Define what you will do.
4. Repeat incrementaly until you can achieve your goals.

All of this is a bit off topic for this IRI Rules thread, other than to say that if you want or need to make changes to be competitive at the IRI, the is key to commit to acting on this desire, and then make a plan to do it.

[Jacob.B]

Back to the thread...
I think these rule changes are for the bettter. Like it was said above many teams now can change there robot with 5 pound allowance to make a long bot triple balance. Yet, with the elimination of co-op balance and the addition of triple balances during eliminations, the good triple balancing bots to move up in the rankings and the now top bots to shift or move down. A powershift is in the makings for IRI and I'm ready to see the outcome.

[OZ_341]

While I do think these rule changes play to the strengths of teams that can triple balance, the decision to go for a triple balance in a qualifying match has to be calculated very carefully.
Our triple balances at the MAR Championship and on Curie were the result of very carefully selected partnerships.
Going for a triple with an untested partnership in a qualifying match, could result in zero bridge points and cost you the match.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

While I do think these rule changes play to the strengths of teams that can triple balance, the decision to go for a triple balance in a qualifying match has to be calculated very carefully.
Our triple balances at the MAR Championship and on Curie were the result of very carefully selected partnerships.
Going for a triple with an untested partnership in a qualifying match, could result in zero bridge points and cost you the match.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (see what I did there?)! It's eaaassssy to triple, Wides. You know you want to try the triples...destiny is calling your name. Fortune and glory!

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

...
Going for a triple with an untested partnership in a qualifying match, could result in zero bridge points and cost you the match.

Which is exactly why, in most cases, teams will just balance two and keep one scoring. The end game just got a whole lot less exciting.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by BJC

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.

To actually make your point clearer, Co-Op Bridges are more like Slam Dunks. If some teams gained an advantage in the standings due to the number of Slam Dunks they earned, three-point shooting teams would be upset.

However, the argument doesn't hold up.

At the beginning of the FIRST season, teams built their robots to a specific set of rules - one of those rules included additional points to those teams who can co-op with their opponent on the white bridge. These were the official rules of Rebound Rumble. They were part of the game. And so a season went on where the white bridge was involved. Then came IRI, who had a bunch of teams sign up first, and then announced that the white bridge's effect on the game is going to be completely removed.

At the beginning of college basketball season, teams build their roster to a specific set of rules - one of those rules included that any shot made inside the 3-point line would be worth 2 points. Theres were the official rules of Basketball. They were part of the game. And so a season went on where the 2-point shots were involved. Then came the NCAA tournament, who slotted 68 teams first, and then announced that Slam Dunks would earn 3 points rather than 2.

Some basketball teams build themselves around defense and rebounding, or transition shooting, or they could "live or die by the 3-point shot". Coaches recruit students that work in a particular system too, and mold players to be as effective as possible. The best teams are almost always those who can do everything about the game in the best possible way, and sometimes those fringe teams who excel in one or two aspects of the game make it to the top too. Now those teams who rely on 3-point shooting find themselves at a huge disadvantage going into the tournament because they could have earned the same amount of points by just dunking the ball with less risk than going long. (see what I did there?) However, they had no idea that their initial build was going to be hurt due to a change in the rules once they were accepted into the tournament. Thankfully they have a few weeks to learn some new maneuvers and alter their roster, but in the end all of the fundamentals of the game have been severely altered for them and they start the tournament at a disadvantage against those teams who have studied the art of the slam dunk all season long.

Originally Posted by BJC

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:

Thank you so much. It means a lot.

[LeelandS]

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.

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.

Justin,

I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on some others.

First, I agree with you that Rebound Rumble was an amazing game to play. Challenging, inventive and exciting. Along those lines, I certainly agree these changes are quite drastic. I would never have imagined that IRI would remove the coop bridge. But they have. And here is where I disagree with you.

Secondly, I don't think a team that specializes in one thing is deserving of a #1 Seed finish. I believe the #1 seed should be the best robot for the game. If that means they specialize in one thing and dominate the field for it, then they'll take the #1 seed spot. But I think that's a different discussion we can have elsewhere.

The main point I disagree with you on is the removing of the coop bridge being unfair to some team and that those teams are "SOL". I agree that it is a change that teams will have to account for, but no one is "SOL". It's down to a "Win-Loss" situation, so those teams will need to play Rebound Rumble. Make baskets and balance on alliance bridges. If teams weren't prepared to do that... Well, I don't know what to say. Maybe IRI isn't a great place for them. Maybe that itself is not a fair statement, but I don't see how the removal of the coop points leaves anyone at an unfair disadvantage. This isn't regional competition. This is an event where the best of the best play off.

Drawing a loose tangent that will probably be torn apart by others, take the change in minibot points last year to 20-20-15-15 (I think that was it...). Say you have a team that put up 3 or 4 tubes, which is "good" for regional levels, but a minibot that broke speed records. They were good in teleop, but astounding in the end game. At IRI, their tube scoring ability would be "just okay", and with the new minibot spread, their end game was FAR less valuable. It's the same thing. A game change hurts teams who planned for the minibot to be a game changer. You find ways to adapt. You find ways to succeed. If the lack of coop points is truly what cripples a team, I feel that they may not be ready for IRI.

[Bjenks548]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

Which is exactly why, in most cases, teams will just balance two and keep one scoring. The end game just got a whole lot less exciting.

That definatly depends on the score, where the basketballs are, and what your opponents are doing on the bridge.

If it's your only chance of winning, and with no coop to help your standings in a loss... It will be attempted in quite a few matches

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

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.

In the same vein, you should expect a high percentage robots that score in the 2-point and 3-point hoops. Most teams can do it and teams would be hesitant to score in the 1-point hoop because it would hurt their overall score and ranking and reputation. So if no one uses the 1-point hoop, it becomes irrelevant to gameplay. Removing the 1-point hoop probably has even less of an impact on rankings.

Do we remove the 1-point hoop?

Not disrespecting the decision that was made, but arguing that I believe it is the wrong one.

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

At the beginning of college basketball season, teams build their roster to a specific set of rules - one of those rules included that any shot made inside the 3-point line would be worth 2 points. Theres were the official rules of Basketball. They were part of the game. And so a season went on where the 2-point shots were involved. Then came the NCAA tournament, who slotted 68 teams first, and then announced that Slam Dunks would earn 3 points rather than 2.

I have a slight issue with this ongoing analogy. It seems to me that people repeatedly are associating IRI with the NBA official tournaments. IRI isn't an official FIRST event. They are not required to play by the same rules. They can make these changes because it's an offseason event... Street ball has different rules than the NCAA tournaments doesn't it? I think that IRI is essentially some really high class street ball.

Also, if coaches are allowed to modify their roster for play in the "off season" with these modified rules, then they should go ahead and do so. Some coaches may not have the resources to hire new plays (read: modify their robots) but thats part of the game...

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

At the beginning of the FIRST season, teams built their robots to a specific set of rules - one of those rules included additional points to those teams who can co-op with their opponent on the white bridge.

What did any team do in their design process that was specifically pointed at performing a Coop balance? I have seen very few teams that do anything other than drive on the bridge and hope it balances.

If you looked back at the beginning of the season, most teams didn't even attempt a coop balance.

We designed and built our robot primarily for balancing, and I still wouldn't say if was specifically for a Coop balance. It was more designed for effective triple balancing.

I see nothing in these rule changes that, at this point in the season, changes the design of any robot. Most teams have already added some type of balance assist mechanism to triple balance.

You could say that if we could have tripled in quals during the season, then more teams would have built wide instead of long. I would disagree with that statement, since triple balancing was always a possibility in elims, where it is most important to win. Teams either valued it highly or didn't in their design process. The possibility of completing a triple in quals is even lower than the possibility of doing it in eliminations.

I think these rule modifications change some strategy options...but not designs.

I am excited to play this IRI version of Rebound Rumble... I think there will be a lot of excitement, successful triples, failed triples, extreme scoring bursts, etc...

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

...I feel that they may not be ready for IRI.

While the competition invites many elite teams in FIRST to participate, I think the general population has to take care not to elevate IRI onto so high a pedestal as to become elitIST in describing it.

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

While the competition invites many elite teams in FIRST to participate, I think the general population has to take care not to elevate IRI onto so high a pedestal as to become elitIST in describing it.

I certainly wasn't trying to play IRI as an elitist event, though rereading, that's what it seemed to come out as. And if that's what it came out as, it doesn't matter I meant. I'm sorry I unintentionally played IRI up as "elitist".

At the same time, IRI is definitely not a place for the weak of heart. I will never refer to a team as "too weak for IRI", but if asked personally (not that anyone should put stock in anything I say) if a team is ready to COMPETE at IRI, there are teams I would say no to. Attending and learning is one thing, competing is another. There are teams who, competitively, are not ready for IRI.

I didn't mean to refer to IRI as an elitist event. IRI is an amazing event and it's not like some high-society snooty country club where the commoners aren't allowed. But it is an ELITE event, where the elite go to play.

[Tetraman]

Again I say I do not disrespect the rule alteration, I think it's a bad idea, even as an exhibition event.

I believe it alters the game too much and will make a loss or two in qualifying an insurmountable feat to overcome, especially if you put the triple balance in play and teams will be ranked by points after the are ranked by standings. In this particular FIRST game, I think it's a bad idea.

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Again I say I do not disrespect the rule alteration, I think it's a bad idea, even as an exhibition event.

I believe it alters the game too much and will make a loss or two in qualifying an insurmountable feat to overcome, especially if you put the triple balance in play and teams will be ranked by points after the are ranked by standings. In this particular FIRST game, I think it's a bad idea.

Along that thought pattern, what happens to the teams in the handful of matches where a coop is failed (expecting IRI to have a very high coop percentage). Losing with no coop would be twice the insurmountable feat to overcome.