2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I would also, if possible, change the requirements for damaging a defense to 3 crossings instead of two.

I was so caught up in boulders/tower strength I didn't even think of this, but I really like it. It seems like it adds that extra amount of difficulty without being excessively hard or fundamentally changing gameplay.

The only issue I see is that I doubt it will be able to be changed in the scoring system (as there was no reason to build variable defense strength into the system) so that will add some difficulty in scoring. Potentially. I'm no expert.

And of course now this means that there's another crossing for teams to get mad about when refs "miss" it

[mr.roboto2826]

Allow boulders to be able to be shot/launched/moved out of your own courtyard into the neutral zone or opponents courtyard. Penalize any scored boulders however. This would open up some new defensive and offensive strategies to play stronghold.

[Lij2015]

Just remove the drawbridge entirely, but if that's too much I completely understand.

You should allow defenses to be crossed multiple times in auto and give you the same amount of pointd(I.e. first crossing 10, 2ND crossing 10) because at the moment defenses are effectively worthless at high levels of play as an effective elims alliance is breaching literally every match.

This would make auto a bit more interesting as now you have placed an interesting deal on the field of do you shoot and cross once or just cross twice? However it does have the chance to greatly overpower two ball autos, which to be honest are already doing a fine job at being pretty effective.

[JB987]

Allow teams to shoot from the neutral zone...

[CJ_Elliott]

Human players able to throw balls for a score in the last 20 seconds

[Chris is me]

Replace the drawbridge and sally port with clear polycarbonate.

I know this will cost money, but it's worth it. If a team I'm with ends up competing, I would honestly donate to a Fix The IRI Drawbridge Fund to help make this happen. The drawbridge is just such a crummy field object and it really ruins the flow of the game when it is out there. It would just make a subset of IRI matches worse to watch and play in.

I would get rid of the penalties for driving through a defense when there's a ball stuck in it. If this means teams bulldoze an extra ball or two over a defense than they otherwise would have, whatever, it's worth it. Not a huge deal.

I would not remove protected zones or anything like that. That's completely unfair to the hundreds of teams that designed outer works shots. I don't know why everyone is so bothered that they can't hit shooting teams this year - it didn't seem to bother anyone in 2012 or 2013...

To draw penalties in the secret passage, the robot drawing the penalty has to be also within the secret passage. I'm not sure if this is how the rules are currently written or not, but it's being called as "offensive robot in secret passage + any contact at all = penalty".

[Jim Schaddelee]

Originally Posted by An Outlier

Change the wording so that Robots shooting from the Outer Works are no longer protected.

This would help with the easy-to-capture towers problem, because defense could actually do something!

I think the IRI is for the best of the best. I may be wrong but I think making the game easier to play defense seems like no improvement. Any mid level team with a decent drive system should be capable of this. If anything their should be a premium on skilled tasks, shooting long shots ,climbing and autonomous. I rather see more offense by adding more balls and get rid of ball hoarding.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by Hallry

Get rid of audience defense selection.

FMS automatically generates the audience selection and there's no way around it. The easiest way to get rid of it would be to randomly select between the two.

If they really wanted to, they could develop a whole new system, ignoring the print-outs and field reset lights, but, as someone who is planning an off-season of their own, I don't think it's worth the effort.

Originally Posted by efoote868

The low bar can only be weakened once the other 4 defenses are damaged.

I like this idea. We might take it for Mayhem in Merrimack!

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Dan Petrovic

FMS automatically generates the audience selection and there's no way around it. The easiest way to get rid of it would be to randomly select between the two.

If they really wanted to, they could develop a whole new system, ignoring the print-outs and field reset lights, but, as someone who is planning an off-season of their own, I don't think it's worth the effort.

Does the FMS know the difference between defenses placed on the field? If I put a rough terrain in place of a rock wall, would it scream at me?

[Nick Lawrence]

I'm not entirely sure how much of an 'arms race' this would cause, but I think it would be cool to see the wording of G13 to be changed to the following:

Originally Posted by G13

During AUTO, ROBOTS may not enter the volume above the AUTO LINE nearest to their COURTYARD.

Violation: FOUL. If contact is made with an opponent ROBOT completely beyond the AUTO LINE nearest to the offending ROBOT'S COURTYARD (either direct contact or transitive contact through a BOULDER), an additional FOUL is assessed and the opponent ROBOT is immediately awarded the CROSSING of the closest DEFENSE from the point
of contact.

Bolded sections are changes that I am proposing. The intent of this change would be to encourage teams who have been sitting on 2 ball autonomous modes all season to run them with less fear of drawing fouls, but I can see this possibly becoming an arms race of sorts for folks to spend time working on 2 ball autos. It also intends to make a situation where two robots attempting to collect the same boulder to be a no-call situation. Thoughts?

-Nick

[JesseK]

These changes are aimed to speed up the potential pace of the game to a level beyond WCMP's and DCMP's. Let's assume all IRI teams are at least capable of crossing at least 8 of the 9 defenses. Let's also assume teams are very capable of boulder scoring, either high or low.

Allow selection of both defenses from the same category. If done, also remove the 'tunnel' that the HP's have to throw a ball into in order to get a ball on the field. (Seriously, no where in literature or history did a catapult have to re-cross yonder mountain to get another rock...)

Allow the low bar to be placed anywhere. We need to keep those autonomous programmers on their toes (muahahaha).

I agree - get rid of the audience selection. Or implement a more scientific method for determining which one is chosen - something like decibel-seconds, for example.

Set tower strength to 8. Add 'fiery' boulder that, when scored high or low, gives the opponents a tech foul. There are only 2 fiery boulders on the field, and they both start behind the glass (1 per side). I can give a part number for the ball - it's bright orange, is the same size (verified w/ measurements) and is only slightly stiffer than the usual game piece. Sure, it needs 2 extra people to specifically watch the balls - but it's IRI, I'm sure there are people who would love field-side seats.

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Does the FMS know the difference between defenses placed on the field? If I put a rough terrain in place of a rock wall, would it scream at me?

Nope. FMS only know what's entered by the defense coordinator and the current audience selection. That's how it sets the outer works lights for the field resetters. It can not differentiate between the different defenses physically placed on the field.

However, if FMS is posting data (I haven't heard if this will be enabled for offseason builds, although it usually isn't), then the published defenses used in a match will be wrong.

[Billfred]

-Playoffs tower strength is set to the average number of boulders scored across all alliances in the IRI qualification rounds, minimum 10. I don't think any of us can predict how loony the play will be there, so let's just admit we don't know.
-No penalty for crossing the midline during autonomous, if the bumpers don't cross the far black line. (This should facilitate boulder-grabbing strategies without removing the overall protection intended.)
-Teams can get credit for more than one crossing in autonomous.
-Leave the drawbridge and sallyport alone. It's IRI, it's supposed to be hard. Bring a pole if you're that worried.
-Remove or greatly increase the height limit on poles, subject to some safety vetting (say, a get-through-the-doorway test and a pelted-with-boulders test). It's IRI, it's supposed to have something ridiculous on the field (and this might beat Suzy-Q).

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by Dan Petrovic

FMS automatically generates the audience selection and there's no way around it. The easiest way to get rid of it would be to randomly select between the two.

You know I heard the TSA has a really expensive iPad app to pick left or right... Might help.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Billfred

-Remove or greatly increase the height limit on poles, subject to some safety vetting (say, a get-through-the-doorway test and a pelted-with-boulders test). It's IRI, it's supposed to have something ridiculous on the field (and this might beat Suzy-Q).

Interesting.

Though perhaps they could also ban all poles, suspend a camera above the field, then send the feed to 6 separate monitors at the 6 driver's stations?