2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

[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.

[EmileH]

Originally Posted by rich2202

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.

What about requiring switches for focused beams that produce more than x lux of light at 6 feet?

[Tom Line]

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.

These lights are not classified as lasers. They are not focused enough and your blink reflex is fast enough that they do not create a safety issue.

We are using a small cree LED flashlight. Is that tactical? We had a fun discussion with a volunteer at worlds after passing 2 district inspections, a state champ inspection, and the world champ inspection when he told us our light was too bright. We pointed out that the field lights AND the pinpoint spots being used were much brighter than our flashlight, and asked him to have those turned off as well.

[EricH]

Might have been suggested already, but ditch the requirement that has one defense from each group on the field.

That alone will likely put the Group C's and the Portcullis out of play.

[Travis Hoffman]

I apologize if such lunacy were suggested already, but since it seems many are considering breaching to be an afterthought, and greater visibility is desired...

Remove all defenses entirely. Bare carpet. Leave the secret passages. Field resetters, rejoice. Cycle times would greatly decrease - more matches per team.

2016? Meet 2014. Declare a safe shooting zone where the defenses used to be. Meet 2012.

Increase tower strengths to 15...or 20.

[b.arci]

Originally Posted by S1LK0124

Both alliances score 4 RP

Just a friendly reminder: It's not possible to award a total of 8 ranking points. Only one alliance can get the 2 RP for a win.

Originally Posted by Gsquared

I think making the tower health double and adding more weight to high goals would be a lot cooler. I also think allowing two balls to be controlled at once would mean a lot less undeserved penalties.

Do you mean high goals should be worth more? Based on CMP, high goal shooting bots already have a distinct advantage over low goal bots. No need to further the gap IMO.

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I apologize if such lunacy were suggested already, but since it seems many are considering breaching to be an afterthought, and greater visibility is desired...

Remove all defenses entirely. Bare carpet. Leave the secret passages. Field resetters, rejoice. Cycle times would greatly decrease - more matches per team.

2016? Meet 2014. Declare a safe shooting zone where the defenses used to be. Meet 2012.

Increase tower strengths to 15...or 20.

Wouldn't this completely change the idea and strategy behind the game? I love the concept, and it would be cool to play, but maybe at a less "important" offseason.

[S1LK0124]

That's true. However that was just a hypothetical situation to help explain the concept.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by EricH

Might have been suggested already, but ditch the requirement that has one defense from each group on the field.

That alone will likely put the Group C's and the Portcullis out of play.

Well unless they build their own Portcullis it is out of play anyway. So if they do build their own defense please please please tell teams ahead of time what it will be with accurate schematics so teams can know if they can successfully cross it.


One thing I would love to know before we (or the Planning Committee) goes to insane with changing tower strength, is what percentage of qualification matches at champs had a tower brought down to 0 (or atleast had 10 balls scored) and what percentage had captures, cause this would help to see if captures were not happening because of tower strength or failure to get back to the batter.

Also I don't know if it is possible to do away with the extra RP for breach and capture since it is so ingrained into the FMS and referee panels but if we do go to a straight win/loss with bonus points for those actions (Like they did in 2012) I would love to see if we can use the breach and capture totals as the first tie breaker.

I think it would be cool also if we make it so there is an extra two balls that start in the castles and increase the number of balls allowed back in the castle by 1 or 2 to allow for teams to be more strategic in the balls in the tower instead of just creating a 469 in 2010 situation.

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

One thing I would love to know before we (or the Planning Committee) goes to insane with changing tower strength, is what percentage of qualification matches at champs had a tower brought down to 0 (or atleast had 10 balls scored) and what percentage had captures, cause this would help to see if captures were not happening because of tower strength or failure to get back to the batter.

Some of that data (from TBA Insights)

Field - Avg # Goals Qual - Avg # Goals Elims
Arch - 8.4 - 8.9
Cars - 8.9 - 12.2
Carv - 9.1 - 13.4
Cur - 8.5 - 12.6
Gal - 7.9 - 11.7
Hop - 8.9 - 13.0
New - 9.3 - 12.9
Tes - 9.0 - 10.8
Ein - N/A - 16.3