IRI - 2015 Rule Modification Ideas?

[Scott Kozutsky]

The things I would do that wouldn't drastically change the game are:
-let roots shoot noodles over the step and back. It's the only real defense equivalent and preventing robots from playing that aspect of the game was just a bad decision.
-Add a 5th recycling bin to the middle step for elims matches. Where the Co-op stacks usually go.
-Yellow totes can be used as gray totes during the rest of the match.
-Gray totes can be used as yellow totes for auto (must be obtained from the field, I wana see autonomous landfill stackers, multiple stacked sets can all generate points)
-bonus points for ending supported by the scoring steps.

[Jared Russell]

By the time we get to IRI, I'd rather see alliances stretch themselves to set high scores than prove that they can consistently do the same thing three times in a row. I'm in favor of dropping the worst match.

[Chris is me]

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.

If FIRST robots were perfect, the control system was perfect, the field was perfect, I'd be inclined to agree. The most consistent alliance should be rewarded. However, that really isn't the case. Unexplained disconnects, while uncommon, still do happen. Control system glitches, particularly since this is a brand new control system, aren't uncommon. And while not all of these hiccups are unpreventable hiccups, there's really no worse feeling in this game than being doomed for the entire rest of your elimination bracket by making one mistake.

It's also worth noting that this emphasis on absolute consistency is a new thing this year. In the past, you could lose a match (the equivalent to making a mistake this year) and still move on. The 2013 World Champions did this in every single matchup, yet I don't think anyone would say that alliance was inconsistent. They had some hiccups, made some strategy adjustments, and persevered. I really don't think this was ever a bad thing.

You're not punishing the "best" alliances by doing this - you're changing what "best" means. "Best" now has a little less emphasis on consistency and a little more emphasis on raising the score as high as possible. This encourages alliances to take risks, to "go big or go home" so to speak, and it makes the eliminations more exciting. Perhaps most importantly, in the quarterfinals at IRI, you won't automatically lose the tournament in the quarters if one of your matches happens to be against a faster can grabbing alliance.

We've all been to regionals where by the last matches, the final alliances are all but a foregone conclusion, and the best alliances can play conservatively to advance. These matches are boring. We've all been to regionals where one of the best alliances gets an unexplained comms issue for 30 seconds, knocking them out of the tournament. We've all been to regionals where the only thing several alliances could do is watch other matches and hope more than anything else that the other alliances mess up. I think we've all experienced the loud cheers when an alliance messes up, as it has drastic consequences. Among the other benefits, this proposal would drastically reduce the impact of a single mistake, make every match more exciting, and hopefully cut back on that incentive to cheer for mistakes.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

If FIRST robots were perfect, the control system was perfect, the field was perfect, I'd be inclined to agree. The most consistent alliance should be rewarded. However, that really isn't the case. Unexplained disconnects, while uncommon, still do happen. Control system glitches, particularly since this is a brand new control system, aren't uncommon. And while not all of these hiccups are unpreventable hiccups, there's really no worse feeling in this game than being doomed for the entire rest of your elimination bracket by making one mistake.

It's also worth noting that this emphasis on absolute consistency is a new thing this year. In the past, you could lose a match (the equivalent to making a mistake this year) and still move on. The 2013 World Champions did this in every single matchup, yet I don't think anyone would say that alliance was inconsistent. They had some hiccups, made some strategy adjustments, and persevered. I really don't think this was ever a bad thing.

You're not punishing the "best" alliances by doing this - you're changing what "best" means. "Best" now has a little less emphasis on consistency and a little more emphasis on raising the score as high as possible. This encourages alliances to take risks, to "go big or go home" so to speak, and it makes the eliminations more exciting. Perhaps most importantly, in the quarterfinals at IRI, you won't automatically lose the tournament in the quarters if one of your matches happens to be against a faster can grabbing alliance.

We've all been to regionals where by the last matches, the final alliances are all but a foregone conclusion, and the best alliances can play conservatively to advance. These matches are boring. We've all been to regionals where one of the best alliances gets an unexplained comms issue for 30 seconds, knocking them out of the tournament. We've all been to regionals where the only thing several alliances could do is watch other matches and hope more than anything else that the other alliances mess up. I think we've all experienced the loud cheers when an alliance messes up, as it has drastic consequences. Among the other benefits, this proposal would drastically reduce the impact of a single mistake, make every match more exciting, and hopefully cut back on that incentive to cheer for mistakes.

The only downside that I could see to dropping the lowest is if an alliance has 2 great matches and decides to sit there for the last match because it reduces the risk of something happening and one of the robots breaking down. Nobody wants to see an alliance sit there for an entire match.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

The only downside that I could see to dropping the lowest is if an alliance has 2 great matches and decides to sit there for the last match because it reduces the risk of something happening and one of the robots breaking down. Nobody wants to see an alliance sit there for an entire match.

With a relatively low risk of damage this year, I think teams would more likely use that time to prototype a higher risk, higher reward strategy to try out later on.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

With a relatively low risk of damage this year, I think teams would more likely use that time to prototype a higher risk, higher reward strategy to try out later on.

I don't know, a stack of totes with a can falling on top of a robot doesn't seem very low risk to me. I doubt we would see robots sitting still at a place like IRI though, teams are going to have to push it to their limits to move on.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I don't know, a stack of totes with a can falling on top of a robot doesn't seem very low risk to me. I doubt we would see robots sitting still at a place like IRI though, teams are going to have to push it to their limits to move on.

The risk of getting hit with totes--for robots designed by the best teams in the World who've known the risk all season--is pretty low relative to forgoing the opportunity to basically experiment freely in the middle of the hardest elim run of the year. No alliance is going to sit still during Einstein practice matches either. (Yes, I remember that the field is brand new in that case, but we tried some sorta goofy things regardless.)

[AllenGregoryIV]

Off-season rule changes should make the game more enjoyable without punishing any robot designs.

Changing the field configuration

• Upside down totes - we haven't seen any robots work the upside down totes but it's possible we will it at champs. They are an interesting element to the game. Flipping them moves the landfill dimensions for pulling RCs from the step. So I vote leave the upside down totes.
• RCs on the step - any reconfiguration of the RCs will change how teams pull them from the step. I'm not in favor of changing or adding RCs to the step. If you add a center RC, the teams built to pull from the center (examples 610, 2848) would have to redesign. Plus a lot of work is being put into the can burgler race, that should be rewarded somewhat in the off-season.
• Allowing RCs to be entered on to the field from driver station - some teams are naturally built for this, others are not. Also what happens the first time an RC falls on a driver? Leave them on the field.
• Additional RCs on the field - I like this idea, give every team one more RC to setup during autonomous wherever they would like not in the auto zone. This pushes the score ceiling a little bit with out dramatically affecting game play.

I have more comments I'll post later about other rule change ideas.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Off-season rule changes should make the game more enjoyable without punishing any robot designs.

Changing the field configuration

• Allowing RCs to be entered on to the field from driver station - some teams are naturally built for this, others are not.

We're built for it. We'd be due some karma after the Longbot Massacre of 2012.

But in general, I do not like offseason rule changes that GREATLY favor a particular robot design over another.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

The only downside that I could see to dropping the lowest is if an alliance has 2 great matches and decides to sit there for the last match because it reduces the risk of something happening and one of the robots breaking down. Nobody wants to see an alliance sit there for an entire match.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

With a relatively low risk of damage this year, I think teams would more likely use that time to prototype a higher risk, higher reward strategy to try out later on.

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I don't know, a stack of totes with a can falling on top of a robot doesn't seem very low risk to me. I doubt we would see robots sitting still at a place like IRI though, teams are going to have to push it to their limits to move on.

Then change the round robin to W-L-T. I don't think there are any overt reasons this is a bad move? I could be overlooking something, but you won't get a lot of variables in a round robin WLT. 3-0/2-1/1-2/0-3 and 2-1/2-1/1-2/1-2 are the only non-tie results you could get from that, right?

[Lil' Lavery]

Remove all totes from the center step. Divide center step into a number (~10) of equal sized zones. Recycling containers will be placed in these zones on the step randomly (using a random number generator) after robots are placed on the field.

Originally Posted by mklinker

During eliminations first alliance with three golden totes on the step earns a 30 point bonus.

This is a cool idea.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Then change the round robin to W-L-T. I don't think there are any overt reasons this is a bad move? I could be overlooking something, but you won't get a lot of variables in a round robin WLT. 3-0/2-1/1-2/0-3 and 2-1/2-1/1-2/1-2 are the only non-tie results you could get from that, right?

You can also get 3-0/1-2/1-2/1-2 and 2-1/2-1/2-1/0-3

[Spoam]

Originally Posted by mklinker

During eliminations first alliance with three golden totes on the step earns a 30 point bonus.

I feel like this devolves into making 3-tote auto de facto worth 50 points. Getting 3 totes on the step is essentially only feasible quickly by teams who have 3 tote, and it's possible that not every elimination alliance will have such a robot, nor will every 3-tote capable robot effectively, quickly or at all be able to transport 3 totes to the step. Changing this to become a 50 point deficit affects the strategic analysis of a lot of teams, unfairly disadvantaging teams that chose to forsake coop/3 tote capability in the main season by making up those points elsewhere. I wouldn't consider it a minor change.

[Gary Dillard]

How about replace noodle throwing with RC throwing? 4 points plus you can take out a couple of stacks and robots at the sametime.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Then change the round robin to W-L-T. I don't think there are any overt reasons this is a bad move? I could be overlooking something, but you won't get a lot of variables in a round robin WLT. 3-0/2-1/1-2/0-3 and 2-1/2-1/1-2/1-2 are the only non-tie results you could get from that, right?

It just becomes a completely different game at that point. I still think in a nearly zero interaction game, who happens to be playing a match at the same time as you shouldn't matter. You have very little way to influence their score. What is gained by going to WLT? Then the best scoring teams won't always advance...