2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

[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

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

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

To me this says that an increase to maybe 11 or 12 may be necessary but not much higher

[g_sawchuk]

I have a few suggestions for changes that would modify game play slightly in regards to strategy, but not alter it in regards to robot design.

1. Different tower strength in Qualifications and Eliminations. Based on some of the averages displayed on this thread, I feel like 10 tower strength in Qualifications, and 12 in Eliminations, would suit the game play.
2. Bonus Boulders. We all loved the can grabbing in 2015. It was the one touch of exciting in 2015. I suggest two "bonus boulders" that are placed on the center line (in the spot of two boulders regularly placed there). These boulders are worth double points in Autonomous or Teleoperated. It will introduce new strategy, and value of being close to the center line at the end of Autonomous. Should we stay put in auto? Should we try and snag it in Autonomous? Should we cross, score, and come back? That's for teams to decide.
3. End Game Bonus. It's exciting, not to mention nerve wracking, seeing if a robot will make it to the tower to lock in the capture at the end of a match. I propose a bonus on boulders scored during the last 20 seconds of the match. This could be, perhaps, 2 points extra on high goals, and 1 point extra on low goals. Should you try and score lots in the last 20 seconds? Should you play it safe and go to the batter early, and not risk trying to score for bonus points? Once again, a new strategic dynamic to consider.

All thoughts are welcome on these rough drafts of game improvement suggestions.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

To me this says that an increase to maybe 11 or 12 may be necessary but not much higher

To me this means that championship divisions are much weaker than IRI is, and any three teams at IRI should be able to easily put 10 balls into a goal as long as none of them lose communications.

Honestly IRI qualifications should either:
Leave tower strength at 10 (then captures only occur if someone fails to get on the batter or some other strange thing occurs)
Increase it to at least 12, maybe up to 16 even, depending on how challenging we want capturing to be.
12 means each robot scores 4 balls each, or 2 robots score 6 balls each.
15 means each robot scores 5 balls each, or 2 robots score 7.5 balls each.

You might be saying "But Kevin, 7.5 high goals in a match for one robot is a huge number". But you're forgetting that low goals exist.

I think teams having to switch between which goal they're scoring into, or otherwise increasing their output of ball scoring is something cool about this game. I also think captures shouldn't be a given, even if it's IRI. I like having strategy meetings in close matches be a potential choice between getting a guaranteed capture and perhaps losing the match, or playing defense, losing the capture, and winning the match.

These choices are a big part of why I had a blast in FIRST Stronghold, and I'd like to see them stay at IRI.