IRI Rule Changes - 2012

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Perhaps the skills developed by teams surrounding the "art of the co-op" are not solely centered around the robot?

In addition to a solid drivetrain, perhaps the skills that separate good co-op teams from those who aren't as regularly able to take advantage of it include the ability to effectively strategize with the opposing alliance before the match and communicate an effective co-op plan, and repeat and execute that planning process every match, like clockwork. Knowing how best to:

1. Decide which two robots will co-op (there was a standard we used all season that worked very well for us here).
2. Decide when the teams would head for the co-op bridge.
3. Decide who would tend the bridge.
4. Decide how and where the 2nd bot gets on.
5. Communicate the balancing method - who "leads the dance".
6. Convince the opposition that you would honor the co-op contract and had the driver skills/robot capability necessary to make it work.
7. Make it clear that robots violating the co-op contract by continuing to score instead of balancing would incur your graciously professional wrath.
8. And accomplish all this within a very short amount of time.

I don't think these things were as easy to accomplish as people make them out to be, especially at events where the pool of co-op partners was filled with more robots/teams with various deficiencies. Navigating that minefield successfully at each regional/district was a learned skill.

I understand why the co-op bridge process has been removed at IRI, but let's not trivialize the efforts of those who were able to grasp what the GDC was intending for teams to accomplish at the bridge and use the system to their advantage.

This sort of thing happened before every single FRC qualification match I was the coach in, and it's been a while since I was in the booth so it can't be a new thing . To imply that the Coopertition bridge introduced Cooperation to FRC is somewhat silly.

It is a skill, but not a new skill -- it just meant you needed to talk to 6 teams instead of 3.

-John

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by JVN

This sort of thing happened before every single FRC qualification match I was the coach in, and it's been a while since I was in the booth so it can't be a new thing . To imply that the Coopertition bridge introduced Cooperation to FRC is somewhat silly.

It is a skill, but not a new skill -- it just meant you needed to talk to 6 teams instead of 3.

-John

John:

"co-op" was short for "co-op bridge" in my last post. The GDC-intended interaction with opposing teams added a unique new challenge this season to the pre-existing "art of the co-op" with alliance partners. If I was unclear, my apologies.

I believe this is the first time where such communication and interaction with opponents was so heavily promoted by the game designers and so successfully facilitated by a game dynamic.

I think a drive team interacting with 5 teams per match instead of 2 is a positive thing.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by JVN

This sort of thing happened before every single FRC qualification match I was the coach in, and it's been a while since I was in the booth so it can't be a new thing . To imply that the Coopertition bridge introduced Cooperation to FRC is somewhat silly.

It is a skill, but not a new skill -- it just meant you needed to talk to 6 teams instead of 3.

-John

While not a completely new skill, there was definitely something different about the coop bridge. Since you cannot communicate with your opponents during the match (excluding hand signals, i did my fair share of flailing) you really needed to go over every possible scenario with your coop partner. Often times this seemed repetitive, yet at the Lake Superior regional in matches when our bridge manipulator broke, or 2 of our opponents died we were still able to achieve a coop balance.

At our first regional, I really liked the coop bridge. Coop balances were rare, and many of our coop partners had not double balanced before. It was pretty cool to congratulate our opponents after we had a successful coop balance. As the year progressed, the pre match discussions began to shorten, as it became expected for teams to coop. Post match, successful coop balances began to lose their luster, and the failed ones upset all teams involved. It was at that point that the "coopertition" bridge began to lose its meaning to me, and I believe IRI would have taken it to the next level. With the expected 90%+ success rate, the successes would be virtually ignored, and a failed attempt could lead to some serious tension between teams.

[AdamHeard]

Someone should scrape this thread and analyze correlation between base orientation and objection to this change.

[GCentola]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Someone should scrape this thread and analyze correlation between base orientation and objection to this change.

*and whether or not the poster's team is attending IRI.

[mikemat]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Someone should scrape this thread and analyze correlation between base orientation and objection to this change.

I think the reason for the correlation is the long guys chose long because they felt the benefits outweighed the drawbacks in the game as it was presented at the beginning of the season. The wide bot teams went down the opposite road, choosing to take the potential maneuverability and stability penalties in favor of a better chance of triple balancing. But now, we are playing a game that the robots are, effectively, not designned to play. Instead of only needing to triple with an alliance of your choosing, which could be tailored to fit its captains robot, you get a random alliance for all of your qualification matches. Many teams would probably have built a different robot to play these rules than the ones they came to competition with.

[pfreivald]

We're not attending octocanum.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by GCentola

*and whether or not the poster's team is attending IRI.

Does any of the below really surprise anyone?

Folks are welcome to correct any of these, or diversify the lists. I skimmed through very quickly.

This is in reference to #3 rule change only.

<Snip edited list in post below>

I also know of one other longbot team attending who is not in favor of #3 but does not believe the net disadvantage toward longs will be that large. I'm tending to agree with that person, but I am of the mind that any unfairness at all is blar and wish it would not be present. We, too, will abide by whatever rules are ultimately the law of the land.

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Does any of the below really surprise anyone?

Folks are welcome to correct any of these.

This is in reference to #3 rule change only.

PRO #3 (or NOT-CON - neutrality in posting infers pro. Being on the planning committee infers pro - makes sense, right?):

• 33 (W)
• 67 (W)
• 68 (W)
• 234 (W)
• 341 (W)
• 829 (W)
• 868 (SQ)
• 907 (W)
• 3940 (W)
• 4334 (W)

CON #3 (or ain't no big thang we'll beat it anyway, or triples are overrated, or we should add 10 points to the coop bridge as an option, or.... ):

• 48 (L)
• 340 (L)
• 359 (L)
• 461 (L)
• 548 (L)
• 744 (L)
• 772 (L)
• 2056 (L)
• 2168 (L)
• 2337 (L)
• 3193 (L)
• 3310 (L)

I also know of one other longbot team attending who is not in favor of #3 but does not believe the net disadvantage toward longs will be that large. I'm tending to agree with that person, but I am of the mind that any unfairness at all is blar.

This is an interesting list. Your addition of "ain't no big thing, we'll beat it" and "triples are overrated" to opposing the change is really inaccurate though. Go back, read Tyler's post. Him and anyone with similar opinions are definitely in the pro (or at least neutral) camp

[GCentola]

Originally Posted by mikemat

I think the reason for the correlation is the long guys chose long because they felt the benefits outweighed the drawbacks in the game as it was presented at the beginning of the season. The wide bot teams went down the opposite road, choosing to take the potential maneuverability and stability penalties in favor of a better chance of triple balancing. But now, we are playing a game that the robots are, effectively, not designned to play. Instead of needing to triple with an alliance of your choosing, which could be tailored to fit its captains robot, you get a random alliance. Many teams would probably have built a different robot to play these rules than the ones they came to competition with.

You don't need to be an alliance captain to do well. No, seeding may change some. Honestly, the teams at IRI know are there because they know how to win and awould be smart enough to coop nearly every match anyway so I don't know how much the rankings will actually be affected. The robots that win their matches will seed accordingly and strategically select partners for the elimination rounds. If you are a long robot, and you don't think you can play the new qualification style, then so be it. If you can shoot well, if you can balance with a planned alliance, if you can prove that your team would be a valued member of the winning alliance, then you will get picked, and you wil probably do well. If we consider 359 last year, they were not the alliance captain. They had an outstanding robot and were pciked as a backup team for the (if I recall correctly, please correct me if I am wrong) 4th seeded alliance. They got to play, and they helped the alliance win. You may not seed 1st, but that doesn't mean you can't do well. My team won't be attending so my words not may hold much value here. I still think Holtzman said it best.

Originally Posted by lemiant

Go back, read Tyler's post. Him and anyone with similar opinions are definitely in the pro (or at least neutral) camp

Second, I think there are two debates going on here. Debate #1: For/Against. Debate #2: We hate it/Stop whining.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by lemiant

This is an interesting list. Your addition of "ain't no big thing, we'll beat it" and "triples are overrated" to opposing the change is really inaccurate though. Go back, read Tyler's post. Him and anyone with similar opinions are definitely in the pro (or at least neutral) camp

Hey I'm padding the stats to start.

Those who are indifferent/defiant to the presence of triples are definitely not pro. I can dig NEUTRAL. Let's refine:

#DISCLAIMER - a team number appearing below indicates a member of that team has indicated their preference for rule #3 one way or another. That does not automatically mean the entire team shares their viewpoint. It was easier to note the CD user's team number. If two members of a team indicate differing opinions, I will indicate this via their usernames. Not that this list is anything more than an informal two-minute skim of information that was already clear from reading the thread. :-)

PRO:

• 67 (W)
• 68 (W)
• 234 (W)
• 341 (W)
• 868 (SQ)
• 907 (W)
• 3940 (W)
• 4334 (W)

NEUTRAL:

• 33 (W)
• 359 (L)
• 548 (L)
• 829 (W)
• 1640 (SW)
• 2056 (L)

CON:

• 48 (L)
• 340 (L)
• 461 (L)
• 744 (L)
• 772 (L)
• 2168 (L)
• 2337 (L)
• 3193 (L)
• 3310 (L)
• Secret Unnamed Team (L)

[BJC]

Originally Posted by EricH

Do not continue from this point until you define the game and the match.

This is where the people who like the rule change and those who don't like it differ. They have different definitions of the game. Those who like it say that the rule change focuses on winning the match. What match?

First I'll look at the "2:15" match definition. In that match of the game, each match lasts 2:15, and the game is to win each match. People who see the IRI rule change as a good thing will tend to cite the number of what you might call "sub-par" teams in the top 8, fairly high in the top 8, in fact, and the relatively high number of teams who were really good but not in the top 8 as a bad thing. They tend to express the opinion that coop points ruined the game. They play by the Game section of the Manual.

Now, I'll look at another definition. In this, a "match" is about the length of a regional. A game lasts a full season. This is where the people who don't like the IRI change tend to hang out. The game they play is defined by the Game and Tournament sections of the Manual. The game changes every year. This group plays to win events.

In normal play, the two definitions are the same for about 5 hours. Saturday afternoons at a regional or district are full of teams playing to win matches to win events. But before then, there are teams who play to win matches and teams who look at their rankings, knowing that the only way to guarantee a spot in the eliminations is to be top 8. These ranking-watchers know that they can affect their rankings by scoring for their opponent--or, in extreme cases, actively preventing themselves from scoring. Teams like that understand the full game, top to bottom.

IRI is different, however. Normally, the rule change affects the game play as defined by the Game section of the Manual. This year, it affects the game play as defined by the Tournament section of the Manual. Does it penalize teams unfairly? Possibly. But not for sure. Does it take away the meta-game that was discussed during the season? Definitely. Is that meta-game important?

That question is one that each team decided during the season. In my personal opinion, it was very important to play that meta-game well during the season. At IRI, it has no value.


For many sports leagues, there is actually a meta-game. It's called seeding. If you win, you get so many points towards seeding. If you lose, you might not get any--or you might get some based on how much you scored. It is possible, in some leagues, to lose a single game--and yet come out ahead in the meta-game by scoring a lot of points in those losses, forcing your opponents to score even more to beat you.

Exactly, as I've said earlier in so many words I dislike the co-op bridge based on principle because it puts teams in situations where they have to choose between winning and ranking high and where winning does not necessarily get you a high final rank. I find that crazy. As others have said, at IRI the co-op bridge would be balanced most matches and would not really affect the outcome of the final rankings to sufficiently justify it as such a major part of the seeding system. As such, even if it did not force teams into the above there is no real reason to include it other than because that is the way it has been for the regular season. So, all other feelings aside, I am really looking forward to seeing some fantastic matches being played and extremely exciting end games at the IRI.

Hope to see you all there!
Regards, Bryan

Edit: Travis, could you please put 33 in Neutral. As I said eariler:

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.

Thank you.

[IndySam]

I didn't post pro or con just posed a question. Put us in neutral please.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by BJC

Edit: Travis, could you please put 33 in Neutral. As I said eariler:

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.

Thank you.

Definitely overlooked that one. Fixed! Thanks for the sympathy. Are you sure you don't want to change your vote to CON? Come to the dark side!

[AdamHeard]

I view this as a lesser change than the weightings of minibots last year in terms of "not playing the game we designed to play". Where was the outrage last year?