2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

[EricLeifermann]

This might not be possible as FMS might need to be changed but....

Get rid of RP for breaching in quals and replace it with the 20 points you get in elims.

Breaching should happen in every match, especially at IRI, and having it give an RP was an OP move by FIRST. Giving it the 20 point bonus still puts a emphasis on making sure the breach happpens.

[Gregor]

Given that there were still missed crossings on Einstein, something should be done to fix that..

[Chris is me]

Get rid of any and all tiebreakers. Replay every tie in elims.

[FarmerJohn]

Eliminate the portcullis (already being done), drawbridge, and sally port. No more major visibility problems, no more problems with teams missing boulders they can't see. In return require all 5 defenses be knocked out for a breach, and as others have said give breaching a point value reward instead of ranking points.

No audience selection - just let the teams choose all of them.

[marshall]

Go back to explaining fouls.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by marshall

Go back to explaining fouls.

Seconded.

[orangemoore]

Ties in eliminations are decided by another match not tiebreakers.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

Eliminate the portcullis (already being done), drawbridge, and sally port. No more major visibility problems, no more problems with teams missing boulders they can't see. In return require all 5 defenses be knocked out for a breach, and as others have said give breaching a point value reward instead of ranking points.

No audience selection - just let the teams choose all of them.

You can't really get rid of both the drawbridge and the sally port, unless you plan to do away with the defense categories altogether and have teams put any defense in any slot. Aside from that, I for one, happen to like the portcullis.

Originally Posted by orangemoore

Ties in eliminations are decided by another match not tiebreakers.

This. So much this.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

This might not be possible as FMS might need to be changed but....

Get rid of RP for breaching in quals and replace it with the 20 points you get in elims.

Breaching should happen in every match, especially at IRI, and having it give an RP was an OP move by FIRST. Giving it the 20 point bonus still puts a emphasis on making sure the breach happpens.

I'd take this a bit further and replace the extra RPs for breaches and captures with their elimination point bonuses. I don't see a reason we should be playing a slightly different game between qualifications and elims.

In addition, remove the batter requirement for captures. I'm assuming tower strength will be raised for IRI and putting that many balls in the tower is an impressive effort in itself. Removing this requirement will remove the chances of a weaker 3rd robot losing the alliance 25pts by not being able to make it back to the batter on time, and opens up more strategic flexibility within the last 30s of the match.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by Knufire

I'd take this a bit further and replace the extra RPs for breaches and captures with their elimination point bonuses. I don't see a reason we should be playing a slightly different game between qualifications and elims.

I agree with this one, at least in part. Focusing on the capture, for a team trying to rank very high, losing the one RP due to a single alliance member's mistake can be very defeating. I think teams should at least be allowed to make up for their alliance member's mistakes by outscoring their opponents above the 25pt bonus (and not spending a bunch of time pushing their own partner around, despite how awesome it was to watch).

For the breach, the importance is less, as one robot could theoretically achieve a breach alone, but if we are changing the capture, we might as well change the breach over to elims style too. The FMS might even let us do that already, though I am not sure where the play-style change made by the Scorekeeper, and if it necessitates actually running an elims bracket.

[Kris Verdeyen]

When I breach, your secret passage is no longer protected. I can get returning boulders with impunity, and cross back to the neutral zone without negotiating a defense.

This has the following advantages:
- it encourages faster breaching.
- it encourages higher scores
- it gets rid of some penalties
- it fits the theme

This can be combined with many of the other permutations mentioned (forcing three crossings, crossing all five for a breach, doing away with ranking points, etc).

You might also remove the one defender limit when the walls fall, if you want to force teams to be more strategic about it.

Look at it like this - whatever you do by forcing additional crossings is still going to be easy for IRI teams to do in two minutes. Anything that's reasonable enough to be implemented will still happen every match, it will just take longer and we'll end up with less scoring. This wil make fast breaching more important while still keeping the focus for the audience on robots shooting balls.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Knufire

In addition, remove the batter requirement for captures. I'm assuming tower strength will be raised for IRI and putting that many balls in the tower is an impressive effort in itself. Removing this requirement will remove the chances of a weaker 3rd robot losing the alliance 25pts by not being able to make it back to the batter on time, and opens up more strategic flexibility within the last 30s of the match.

I think the batter requirement makes the end game so much more exciting. 330's second self-righting wouldn't have been that exciting for the 5 point challenge nor would 1678's and 1405's near misses at challenging be as heart-breaking.

[rich2202]

Tactical Flashlights must be on a switch for safety purposes. Accidental shining of flashlight near person (spectators included) is a technical foul, quickly escalating E&R with a red card foul.

[ollien]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Tactical Flashlights must be on a switch for safety purposes. Accidental shining of flashlight near person (spectators included) is a technical foul, quickly escalating E&R with a red card foul.

Would this include LED rings?

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by ollien

Would this include LED rings?

While bright, the LED rings do not focus the light into a tight beam.

That said, there were some teams with LED rings that would be better called round LED panels. Maybe LED rings with more than 20 (?) LED lights.