IRI - 2015 Rule Modification Ideas?

[Chris is me]

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

[wesbass23]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

I completely agree, it happened to my team and it is happened to many others.

[gracieboo]

Allow stacks to be able to rest on tethers or noodles, and count them as fully supported by the scoring platform so they can score.

[Citrus Dad]

How about if one robot starts a stack with a yellow tote and another robot stacks grey totes, the tote stack value is doubled. Of course this is less useful for IRI (see the quality at PNWDC and INDC), but it gives a role to the 3rd robot.

[BBray_T1296]

I know it has been said several times, but I'm just quoting this one

Originally Posted by ratdude747

-stacks higher than 6 possible, no max level

This isn't fair to the robots that are designed to cap six stacks rather than put totes beneath a stack.
Im pretty sure 1114, 254, 148 at least are incapable of capping stacks higher than 6 and I'm pretty sure most people's stabilizing systems break down if a 7th tote is introduced

The changes should be about benefiting the field as a whole, not just 3 or 4 robots.

[Aren Siekmeier]

The clearest change is to eliminate litter points aside from scoring in RCs, and perhaps penalize them crossing the step. Maybe even eliminate litter altogether, but I think removing these incentives to throw them across the field is sufficient. As mentioned, banning entry over the wall eliminates some of the best ways to score them in/on RCs. Another possibility is to allow over-the-wall entry in all of teleop (one less thing for refs to watch).

I also get the suggestion to skip rules concerning the alliance station, since this is another thing keeping refs needlessly busy. Removing the chute door is intriguing as well, but seems a bit extreme, and perhaps unsafe.

I like the limits imposed by the upside down totes and the small number of RCs, in fact I find these to be integral components of the challenge. Making sure the rules don't discourage going for the extra RCs (within the bounds of safety) will make the high level matches that require these RCs very exciting - at the very least for the first few seconds, and then also to see if the alliance can really pull off that many stacks.

Auto totes however, are kind of a pain after auto. I'd also say eliminate coopertition for the IRI and allow these as part of stacks.

Obviously removing the step entirely is never going to happen.

[Calvin Hartley]

I too will advocate keeping the upside-down totes as they are. There are teams out there who use these to their advantage. (Yes, my team is one of them. I am being bias.) Regardless of my team's use of them, I would hate to see any teams who designed with the upside-down totes in mind not be able to use them.

I think higher levels of play could use more RCs. I am thinking two, added to the step.

Some bonus for the auto totes in stacks could be good too.

[Jordans16117]

Two people in the Human player zone

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Jordans16117

Two people in the Human player zone

I worry about changes like this because it increases the value of HP loading but leaves the landfill value the same.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Let the alliance captain pick where the teams are placed at driver station. Putting captain at position 2 is a dumb rule.

Oh yes please, this is an excellent suggestion.

[JesseK]

Add a HP zone where a single HP has 3 noodles to throw onto the other side of the field. Put it at midfield to keep the HP's safe from errant robots, but also give the teams an opportunity to tactically noodle their opponents rather than fling spaghetti. Noodles on the field no point value. Noodles that have landed on an opponent's capped stack get 8 points (2 noodles-worth) and a single noodle's maximum worth is 8 points (in case it lands on multiple stacks). HP's are placed opposite each other and opposite their opponent's far scoring platform. Remove noodle throwing time restrictions.

First alliance to stack 6 + a RC/noodle gets an off-colored bonus tote through the chute door. Point value TBD, but it can't be game-breaking. Maybe it counts as the value of a capped RC if set on a 5-stack? It may incentivize these high-caliber teams to try to start stacking in autonomous rather than Canburglar.

Add a permanent "3rd robot" which sits on that "reference point" that was in the animation but I haven't seen anyone use. If an alliance doesn't have a 3rd bot on the field due to Cheesecake, they now have to contend with an obstacle of ... sandbags? Plowie with bumpers and steel spikes? ... something. Tradeoffs, you know?

These may open up Elims strategies a little, depending on what other changes are made:
QF's use an alliances best score.
SF's drop the alliance's lowest score.

[Sam Slade]

Eliminate the tether requirement for stationary / non powered ramps. Allows teams to have their ramp on the field and start near the landfill to steal cans in autonomous.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

More than anything else in this game, the biggest problem with it in my opinion is how the elims structure leaves no margin for error.

In the quarters and semi-finals, drop the lowest score from each average calculation. So, best match in quarters counts, best two in semis counts. There's some cool benefits to not having win / loss / tie before the finals, and this doesn't get rid of those, but it does get rid of the one-mistake-and-you're-out nature of elims.

By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.

Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Mike Bortfeldt

In the semifinals, average the scores of the best 2 out of 3 for each alliance to determine who goes on to the finals.

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.

Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.

Because historically alliances can overcome a bad mistake. That's why it's been best 2 of 3, not single elimination brackets.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.

Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.

Its a tough nuance of the game that has come back to bite several alliances this year. In both of our events we took an early bow out in the elimination rounds to some truly stronger alliances on the field. Our moving on the semi finals was determined by a few circumstances that we could and could not control between making one mistake in a match and our gamepad going unresponsive for 30 seconds. I know there are many, many teams in similar positions where little items that pushed elimination matchups to a third match in previous seasons didn't get the opportunity to make it up.

I wholeheartedly agree that the alliance with the best strategy should & will win an event and it all comes down to execution. The problem is this year's game leaves no room for error and even if you try your hardest in your next matches to execute perfectly its nearly impossible to overcome a bad match when the scores are averaged unless Murphy's Law conveniently strikes the other alliances on the field.