IRI - What Can Be Improved

[Lil' Lavery]

If there is a back-up alliance selection again next year, make sure that all members have to play in at least one match. Otherwise don't include it.
While many alliances did utilize all four members to a certain extent, as one of the teams that was selected but never took the field, I can tell you it wasn't much fun. Our experience may vary from the reactions of other teams in the same scenario (494 probably has less of a problem with it than we did), but it really sucks to be sitting there helplessly while watching your alliance on the field. FIRST required it when they had more members than were on the field (and still does in FTC). It allows for 32 teams to still see action in the eliminations, and still keeps the strategic element of when youre going t play each team. You don't even have to say one play per "series" (round, whatever), all you're basically saying is that they have to play once during the entire elimination rounds.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

If there is a back-up alliance selection again next year, make sure that all members have to play in at least one match. Otherwise don't include it.

I agree. I like the 2004 rules that forced the rotation of all three teams into the matches, though. I would prefer to follow that policy, obviously amended to include four teams. I like the idea of having more teams competing longer. The depth of the field at IRI should allow for high quality, robust partners to the 4th level. If that were not to be the case, then I would drop it and return to the standby pool.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

If there is a back-up alliance selection again next year, make sure that all members have to play in at least one match. Otherwise don't include it.
While many alliances did utilize all four members to a certain extent, as one of the teams that was selected but never took the field, I can tell you it wasn't much fun. Our experience may vary from the reactions of other teams in the same scenario (494 probably has less of a problem with it than we did), but it really sucks to be sitting there helplessly while watching your alliance on the field. FIRST required it when they had more members than were on the field (and still does in FTC). It allows for 32 teams to still see action in the eliminations, and still keeps the strategic element of when youre going t play each team. You don't even have to say one play per "series" (round, whatever), all you're basically saying is that they have to play once during the entire elimination rounds.

To add to that, make it so that if you're down 1-0 you should play the back-up? Or make it that if you're in the finals, the back-up has to have at least played in one match or they have to play at least once in the final round.

[Travis Hoffman]

I'd bring back the mentor matches but not have them count in the standings. Just because they don't count doesn't mean they won't be a lot of fun - I'll never forget the comedy of errors that was the 2005 Team 48 mentor team of me, human player Amanda Morrison, and copilot Karthik K....

Amanda run run runs to put tetra on robot manipulator and run run runs back to the safety pad.

Karthik drops tetra outside of the field once power is restored.

Repeat this at least 3 or 4 times.

Paul Copioli in the background mercilessly railing on our ineptitude.

Travis (upon noticing Karthik is operating the elbow in reverse) - "Hey Karthik - move the switch the other direction, dude!"

Karthik - "Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh."

Travis drives to goal - Karthik ultimately scores the tetra - hurray for perseverence - crowd goes wild!

I missed that kind of extra fun at IRI this year. But the above example also illustrates exactly why mentor matches shouldn't count!

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

While many alliances did utilize all four members to a certain extent, as one of the teams that was selected but never took the field, I can tell you it wasn't much fun.

Was it less fun than simply packing up your pit after quals? That's what you would have done during the season obviously...

I think IRI made it clear that the backup robot was simply that... a backup. If teams weren't interested in filling the backup role they could have declined. I still think it's an improvement over having the "next 8" sitting on the sidelines on the off chance they got called up (that's probably not fun either).

I like leaving the option open to the alliances to decide the best combination for each match, though I do sympathize with teams who were part of an alliance but didn't get to play. But at least they were part of the alliance and got to help strategize instead of sitting on the sidelines, right? Plus, I hate the problem that crops up when you're required to play a team even if they're broken.

[MGoelz]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah Johnson

To add to that, make it so that if you're down 1-0 you should play the back-up? Or make it that if you're in the finals, the back-up has to have at least played in one match or they have to play at least once in the final round.

So, maybe each time an alliance loses a match, there is a requirement that the next match include playing the back-up robot, and if your alliance makes it to the finals and still has not played the back-up (meaning they haven't lost), then that becomes a requirement.

Of course by doing this, you now have to consider what to do when a robot breaks and such. There would seem no point in a 4th robot, if you can't save your alliance, should something go wrong.

Basically, we need redefined rules about the use of back-ups.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Was it less fun than simply packing up your pit after quals? That's what you would have done during the season obviously...

I think IRI made it clear that the backup robot was simply that... a backup. If teams weren't interested in filling the backup role they could have declined. I still think it's an improvement over having the "next 8" sitting on the sidelines on the off chance they got called up (that's probably not fun either).

I like leaving the option open to the alliances to decide the best combination for each match, though I do sympathize with teams who were part of an alliance but didn't get to play. But at least they were part of the alliance and got to help strategize instead of sitting on the sidelines, right? Plus, I hate the problem that crops up when you're required to play a team even if they're broken.

Packing up our pits is what 116 did in 2005 and 2006 at IRI, and we still loved the event. And honestly, I think I might have preferred that, although other teams and team members opinions will likely vary. And while we knew that we may never actually play, having your fate in the hands of other teams is a very unsavory situation.
And I only suggested having to play a team once during the eliminations, so unless you drafted a broken team, you shouldn't have to play a broken team.

The way I would envision it is that each team only HAS to take the field once (but can play in more than one), during the entire elimination rounds. So, if you did lose your first match, your back-up would have to take the field in your second. But if you won/tied that first match, you could opt to save them for later (but you'd have to play them the next time you were on the verge of being eliminated or if you're on the verge of winning the finals and they still haven't been played).

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Here are a few things that come to mind -

Traffic in the hallway by the arena that led to the pits - things got really hectic there, and I don't know how avoidable that is because it seems to be the only really good place to put traffic through (both of the robot and human variety).

I want to second the suggestion for announcements on both sides of the aux. gym - I remember fetching teams from the practice field that only had a few matches to get up, and weren't aware of it.

[AndyB]

I would enjoy a rule that says something like, your 4th robot must play in at least one match per round.

This would make things a bit more interesting, as well as the fact that it doesn't force any alliance to play a broken robot unless that robot is the 4th.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

If there is a back-up alliance selection again next year, make sure that all members have to play in at least one match. Otherwise don't include it.

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Was it less fun than simply packing up your pit after quals? That's what you would have done during the season obviously....

Originally Posted by MGoelz

Basically, we need defined rules about the use of back-ups.

I think the IRI folks gave us well defined rules on the use of back-ups. They were clear that a back-up is not a mandatory substitute for one of the AC's earlier picks. Sean seems be saying that being a back-up was OK, but getting a robot on the elimination playing field by mandatory substitution would have been better.

You wouldn't be a competitor if you didn't want to see your robot in the game. However, I think the AC has earned the right to decide which robots to play, without restrictions.

BTW, it's not just the back-up that might be left on the sidelines by an AC pursuing their best shot at victory -- any member of the alliance might suffer the same fate. As I recall, 469 sat out in favor of the high-scoring 148, and that was the alliance captain's prerogative.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Gabrielov

Traffic in the hallway by the arena that led to the pits - things got really hectic there, and I don't know how avoidable that is because it seems to be the only really good place to put traffic through (both of the robot and human variety).

I thought you did an excellent job managing that traffic.

Maybe it could have been partially alleviated by locating the T-Shirt and Raffle Ticket table somewhere else?

[edit] sorry for the double post.[/edit]

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Packing up our pits is what 116 did in 2005 and 2006 at IRI, and we still loved the event. And honestly, I think I might have preferred that, although other teams and team members opinions will likely vary. And while we knew that we may never actually play, having your fate in the hands of other teams is a very unsavory situation.
And I only suggested having to play a team once during the eliminations, so unless you drafted a broken team, you shouldn't have to play a broken team.

The way I would envision it is that each team only HAS to take the field once (but can play in more than one), during the entire elimination rounds. So, if you did lose your first match, your back-up would have to take the field in your second. But if you won/tied that first match, you could opt to save them for later (but you'd have to play them the next time you were on the verge of being eliminated or if you're on the verge of winning the finals and they still haven't been played).

But if you lose the first round, and are forced to play your backup in the second round, odds are that you're at even more of a disadvantage than before (unless you look at select alliances like 48's or 968's where they took full advantage of the backup bot)

Originally Posted by Richard

BTW, it's not just the back-up that might be left on the sidelines by an AC pursuing their best shot at victory -- any member of the alliance might suffer the same fate. As I recall, 469 sat out in favor of the high-scoring 148, and that was the alliance captain's prerogative.

Very true. 177 was 968's second pick, and didn't play once.

[Jim Zondag]

Possibly a Practice field. 910 Brought a protable goal with a small piece of carpet and I saw a number of teams using it. Depending on the game design, This may not always be something teams could easily bring themselves. Also, More Latex balloons to put Karthik in

[Chris Marra]

It would be ideal, though perhaps not feasible, to extend pits farther into the practice gym so there is more room for queuing inside of the competition venue, since I know it got very tight and some teams' pit spaces were severely affected by the number of teams there.

As others mentioned, queuing through the same hallway and doorway as spectators used was also a little frantic. If it were possible to use the other exit from the practice gym, go around the outside, and come into the competition gym around where 1577's pit was on the wall opposite of the regular entrance, this would be a lot more ideal to clearly separate spectator's and robots.

Also, even though I know it was more of a fault than something to improve on, when 10 additional matches appeared on the ranking monitors that made it seem like teams had mere minutes to strategize and get their robots onto the field, I know our team freaked out, and even more-so when the field crew had no idea what was going on. I know noone is to blame for this, but it was a confusing situation, so I suppose it can be improved?

Finally, a new match scheduling algorithm .

[Josh Murphy]

It seemed like they were queing 5 matches prior to your match, which should be cut down to 3.