IRI Rule Changes

[jagen31]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Make autonomous actually autonomous.

I mean, the Kinect and webcam driving made for cool interaction during "auton", but they were both just different ways to drive the robot in auton.

Even the hybrid auton of 2008 didn't allow for that much driving in auton.

Don't get me wrong, I love how teams took the Q&A ruling and used it to their advantage, but I feel this will probably be changed in future years (unless it will no longer be a true autonomous period).

I agree. I spent the majority of build season writing and testing vision code in opencv (first time using it, great library.) We got to the competition and had an issue with exposure and an issue with communication. So, I spent the entire rest of the competition writing a calibration routine to reduce the effects of lighting, adjusted the camera's exposure, and wrote a hysteresis threshold to add precision to the image analyzer. (I actually ported the whole thing to JavaCV because I'm more adept at java and so is the rest of my team)

Well, all that work (done with the help of a mentor who works in image analysis) was scrapped for 254's driver side CheesyVision. Because of a communication error.

I mean, its fine that its within the rules but just frustrating when you spent time trying to make a truly autonomous robot using technology that applies to an increasingly popular real world field, and such a simple yet entirely legal solution comes along.

[Nemo]

Dreaming about significant game changes is fun. I think it would be best, however, to take an opportunity to pore through all of the rules that made the refereeing so difficult and find places to simplify life a bit. Maybe IRI can create a model for FRC penalty rules that could influence future official game rules.

[kylelanman]

Not really a rule change as much as just pointing out a loop hole that I haven't seen posted about anywhere.

G5
For ROBOTS starting in the white ZONE, the TEAM may preload one (1) of their ALLIANCE’s BALLS such that the BALL is touching their ROBOT.

For ROBOTS starting in their GOALIE ZONE the TEAM may decide if the BALL is: staged between the TRUSS and the ZONE LINE and not contacting an ALLIANCE partner, or removed from the FIELD for the MATCH.

If a ROBOT does not report to a MATCH, its ALLIANCE may decide if the BALL is: staged between the TRUSS and the ZONE LINE and not contacting an ALLIANCE partner, or removed from the FIELD for the MATCH.

Violation: If the situation is not corrected before the start of the MATCH, TECHNICAL FOUL per BALL improperly staged.

Any robot that is not currently playing in the match is a ROBOT.
A MATCH is indicative of any match regardless of if the robot is suppose to be in it.

Given the 4 team alliances in elims each alliance should be allowed to place up to 4 auto balls on the field at the very minimum with the rule as it is now. I'm envisioning a particular blue robot being able to pull a 4 ball auto off with the help of some "corny vision" or was it "cheesy vision"???

That would make for some exciting autonomous periods.

[neshera]

More referees.
Or current number of referees, and additional people with a new/distinct role: scorekeeper

[JTEarley]

If an alliance tries to throw the ball over the truss to the human player, truss points are only given if the ball stays inbounds or is caught by the human player.

This would keep teams from blindly launching over the truss out of bounds for a quick 10 points and move the ball forward.

[Lil' Lavery]

Partial credit for missed catches. Give out 5 points if a trussed ball contact an alliance partner before hitting the ground, regardless of whether or not that robot gains possession.

[Chris is me]

I really don't think lots of teams were intending to blindly throw the ball out of bounds and hoping for truss points and the volunteers placing the ball in their favor. I think almost every team intended for the HP to receive the ball but had to play around relentless defense. Adding yet *another* rule punishing teams for the actions of defenders is not how I would want to improve the game.

[Jean Tenca]

I've seen multiple comments about allowing more balls during auto. I think it would be fun if more matches looked like this: http://youtu.be/ZJhH6ZNl5mA

This video was taken during a practice field match at CMP with our friends 1318 (Issaquah Robotics Society) and 494 (Martians)

[bigbeezy]

Just gotta say based on all of the ideas shown here by people who've seen and played the game I give props to the GDC for being able to come up with a game from scratch year after year with never fully seeing the game played.

I would agree with the rule of sending out of bounds balls to return to 1st HP if not past the truss. It made no sense to me that you would get the ball advanced for missing.

Also G11 should be called if the ball doesn't hit the truss, pole, or HP. Shooting the ball way over the head of the HP only to have a field person quickly hand the ball (or sometimes a different ball) to the HP anyway made no incentive for teams to actually be accurate with their truss shot.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by ScourgeDragon

I've seen multiple comments about allowing more balls during auto. I think it would be fun if more matches looked like this: http://youtu.be/ZJhH6ZNl5mA

This video was taken during a practice field match at CMP with our friends 1318 (Issaquah Robotics Society) and 494 (Martians)

As a capable Goalie Bot. I say yes please!

[Jean Tenca]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

As a capable Goalie Bot. I say yes please!

You already were a nightmare against 3 balls in auto. With this rule change playing against you would be catastrophic haha

[Tungrus]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I really don't think lots of teams were intending to blindly throw the ball out of bounds and hoping for truss points and the volunteers placing the ball in their favor. I think almost every team intended for the HP to receive the ball but had to play around relentless defense. Adding yet *another* rule punishing teams for the actions of defenders is not how I would want to improve the game.

Many a times the ball was going everywhere but to HP. If a robot is defended, the team can decide whether to risk a penalty, its no different than shooting into a goal. When shooting into a goal, if opponent robot defends and the ball does not make it into the goal, it will land either into field or outside (in few instances back into robot). When it lands outside alliance is auto-penalized in terms of time. So if you are not confident that you can shoot to HP and he/she can reach out or catch the ball expect some penalty. Got to pay the price for scaring refs and field setup crew.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by neshera

More referees.
Or current number of referees, and additional people with a new/distinct role: scorekeeper

Are you saying the 9 referees used at each field at Championship weren't enough?

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by JesseK

We've also thrown around the idea of a "safe catching zone" on the white lines where a robot cannot be touched if their partner is trussing. Still working on the details for that one. The rationale is that several teams in our area spent many hours on a catcher, so we want to find a way for the catch to be valuable at our event.

Easier rule change:

Truss catch = 20 to 25 points
Catching on one bounce = 5 points

[PayneTrain]

I really don't know why you don't make autonomous "smoke 'em if ya got em", especially at a place like IRI. How much of a risk are you willing to take in autonomous? 6? 9? 12?

I do also like the idea of changing the high goals to endzone field goal posts like JVN suggested. The ability for anyone to become a "finisher" can make this game a very fun kind of chaotic.