2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Change a challenge to only require 2 robots. Stop penalizing alliances a RP just because another of their robots doesn't show up to the field (happened to us 3 times this year).

Seems like the teams at IRI are good enough and have worked on their robot enough to show up to the field anytime they have a match.

[seans341]

Ranking should go back to W-L-T. Let the breach and capture award their playoff point bonuses during qualifications. All else should remain the same.

[Richard Wallace]

• Tower strength 11.
  
• No tiebreakers: 1 pt each in quals, replay in playoffs.
  
• Not sure about changes that would require FMS modifications, such as replacing breach and/or capture RPs in quals with the bonuses they earn in playoffs; is this easy to implement? If so then IRI should use playoff scoring in qualifications (exception: yellow/red cards in quals are still for individual teams).

[pfreivald]

If I were in charge of making Stronghold a top-tier-robot-only game, I would:

Keep the tower strength at 10, as at Championship.

Keep all the defenses. (Heck, if we can design for the drawbridge, anyone can--and if they didn't, that's really their problem, isn't it?)

Get rid of crowd selection and choose the random defense with a coin flip. (I might just be grumpy that they institutionalized a built-in penalty for having a small team.)

Change it so that any boulder that has contacted the carpet of a secret passage must be carried over the outer works to be scored (as if it had come from the neutral zone--so no more scarfing up boulders from your opponent's secret passage and immediately scoring them, though loose boulders in the courtyard are still fair game).

Change a breach to all five defenses.

I would be adamantly against changing the breach/capture QPs--robots were designed with those parameters in mind, and it would be too significant of a change at this point. As others have said, it adds both tactical decision-making and end-game excitement.

[JesseK]

Tiny change:
Spray paint the batter shields to match the color of the alliance.

Removes a massive annoyance for the drivers. Lets the audience watch great driving. Also maintains the challenge of fitting onto the batter for a scale.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Tiny change:
Spray paint the batter shields to match the color of the alliance.

Removes a massive annoyance for the drivers. Lets the audience watch great driving. Also maintains the challenge of fitting onto the batter for a scale.

I like this change a lot.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Change it so that any boulder that has contacted the carpet of a secret passage must be carried over the outer works to be scored (as if it had come from the neutral zone--so no more scarfing up boulders from your opponent's secret passage and immediately scoring them, though loose boulders in the courtyard are still fair game).

The other ones could be debated, but this one should not happen. If a human player blows the roll-in, and the drivers are willing to risk the penalties of going into the secret passage, then they should be able to reap the benefits.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Billfred

The other ones could be debated, but this one should not happen. If a human player blows the roll-in, and the drivers are willing to risk the penalties of going into the secret passage, then they should be able to reap the benefits.

I didn't figure everyone would like all of my suggestions.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Change it so that any boulder that has contacted the carpet of a secret passage must be carried over the outer works to be scored (as if it had come from the neutral zone--so no more scarfing up boulders from your opponent's secret passage and immediately scoring them, though loose boulders in the courtyard are still fair game).

Originally Posted by Billfred

The other ones could be debated, but this one should not happen. If a human player blows the roll-in, and the drivers are willing to risk the penalties of going into the secret passage, then they should be able to reap the benefits.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I didn't figure everyone would like all of my suggestions.

I'm with Billfred on this one. Your other suggestions are reasonable and should be debated. But this one is just legalized hoarding. It would change the game fundamentally, because alliances would not need to guard their SPs. Entrance to the SP would become a chokepoint, with a high potential for fouls. The result would be less shooting and more damage to robots. I think this area is one that the GDC considered carefully, from the viewpoint of match flow, and I think they got it right.

[pwnageNick]

Okay I know I'm super late to this, but I had kicked around the idea with a few people of changing what was needed for a capture in quals (I don't think it's needed in elims, but perhaps)

You would still have to get whatever the tower strength is with boulders

You either have (a) all 3 robots either parked on the batter OR (b) at least one robot parked on the batter and a second robot must be hanging fully above the low goal.

I thought this would help solve the problem of being stuck with a dead partner in a qual match and also give a bit more value for hanging. Maybe I'm biased but this seems like a good thing I think.

Just my $0.02. I think this would help the rankings not be quite as dependent on match schedule luck.

[Lij2015]

If you give the spy bot 3 boulders that can do whatever they want with, but only let them use them in the last 30 seconds that would make for some actually interesting human player strategy.

Or allowing multiple boulders to be held in the last 30 seconds as well, could add an interesting twist.

[djperry1009]

Originally Posted by Lij2015

Or allowing multiple boulders to be held in the last 30 seconds as well, could add an interesting twist.

I too think this is an interesting idea, however, I do not know any teams with multiple ball-manipulation capabilities because the game this year did not allow for it. This would screw many teams over and I don't think changing the game that much at this point is worth the extra bit of excitement. Keep up the ideas though!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by djperry1009

I too think this is an interesting idea, however, I do not know any teams with multiple ball-manipulation capabilities because the game this year did not allow for it. This would screw many teams over and I don't think changing the game that much at this point is worth the extra bit of excitement. Keep up the ideas though!

I'd go out on a limb and figure that any team with an intake separate from their shooter could handle two (one in the intake, and one in the shooter). Just don't try to have two ready to shoot (973 in Ventura--Adam didn't look too happy after that match, something about a jammed shooter, a foul, and a tech foul when they crossed a defense--at least it looked accidental, but still!)