Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?

[NickE]

Originally Posted by AustinSchuh

This isn't quite a rule change, but more of a design change. I think it would be really helpful to paint the post in the middle of the trailer the same color as the bumpers. I know I have trouble figuring out which team is on which alliance using the vision target colors or finding the bottom of the trailer and looking at that. Most of the time the trailer is stuck in a pile of robots, and you just can't see it.

Would it be possible that a robot would confuse the red for the pink of the vision targets?

Originally Posted by BrendanB

In a way, it is kinda hard because I believe that teams that can score in autonomous don't get enough recognition/reward for doing so. There should be at least some reward/bonus for doing so.

I don't believe that it changes the designs that get advantages, as they have gone out and done some really hard programming. Plus, it doesn't encourage human player scoring as that is what most HP's do already. If you look at some matches in which robots score in autonomous, they many times have more points than their opposing alliances HP scores.

Autonomous in Lunacy was designed so that there are more strategies than just scoring. You can load up from a human player, ram and try to pin a robot, score or just spin around in circles to avoid being scored on.

A reward for scoring in autonomous is great for the teams that score in autonomous, but acts as more of a punishment for the teams who have determined that it is strategically better to complete another task during the autonomous period.

I realize that it is extremely hard to program a camera tracking autonomous. However, this is what strategy the team decided would benefit them the most. Some strategies are more challenging than others. The team does not need to be rewarded with bonus points for choosing one strategy over another.

[Enigma's puzzle]

What if they could have the option to pull the trailer off, if and only if the human player involved had to forfeit all of there moon rocks to the crater floor, because i think it is an unfair advantage to only have 2 trailers to score on, and shoot with 3 people.

They would still be able to use empty cells or super cells depending on there placement.

[Chris is me]

Pulling off trailers with no partner is a horrible idea.

First of all, there are a finite number of balls you can fit in 1 / 2 trailers. Once they're full, the opponent can't score.

Secondly, imagine, say, Wildstang versus 3 dumpers. WildStang gets 3 targets, and the three dumpers get one target. How is that fair?

[AustinSchuh]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Secondly, imagine, say, Wildstang versus 3 dumpers. Wildstang gets 3 targets, and the three dumpers get one target. How is that fair?

It might be close, but the 3 robots would be smart to pin Wildstang in the corner, and then trade off scoring on them for the rest of the match, never letting them get a dump in.

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

In a way, it is kinda hard because I believe that teams that can score in autonomous don't get enough recognition/reward for doing so. There should be at least some reward/bonus for doing so.

I don't believe that it changes the designs that get advantages, as they have gone out and done some really hard programming. Plus, it doesn't encourage human player scoring as that is what most HP's do already. If you look at some matches in which robots score in autonomous, they many times have more points than their opposing alliances HP scores.

My $0.02

Teams certainly get recognized for scoring in autonomous. That is why Team RUSH picked More Martians in Curie. The reward is the fact that you already scored when the game starts. If you decide that that is a viable strategy, good job executing it. Seeing as how teams already see it as a viable strategy (otherwise they would not have pursued autonomous scoring), is there any reason to make it more beneficial?

As for the X marks the spot idea, I dislike it. The first reason is that, as I understand it, the X will leave you in a spot unable to do anything productive in autonomous. Also, being encouraged to hold still somewhere is just going to make it easier to have human players to score on you. From my point of view the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of parking on one of these Xs. Depending on where they are placed, this also encourages toploading, because it is possible you can stop on one to topload.

I simply see no benfit to either rule change. If you look at past rule changes at events like IRI, they often augment existing challenges in the game, not create new ones like the X. Also, the last time they changed autonomous was in 2007 when they added a 15 point bonus for scoring a Keeper. However, this was already the only goal that year, so it was what teams attempted to do throughout build season. It wasn't encouraging or discouraging any other common behavior during autonomous, like how adding a bonus to scoring would discourage loading.

[EricH]

Shaun, BattleCry often tweaks the rules in this fashion. They're usually the only ones to do something of the sort. If it's really good, then someone else gets to it.

[ShaunT]

I was merely using my experiences at IRI as an example. I have never attended BattleCry, so I wouldn't know what rule changes they usually use. If IRI uses the same ruleset they do, then you can assume I referred to that competition as well.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ShaunT

I was merely using my experiences at IRI as an example. I have never attended BattleCry, so I wouldn't know what rule changes they usually use. If IRI uses the same ruleset they do, then you can assume I referred to that competition as well.

IRI typically does not use the BattleCry ruleset. The IRI rule tweaks are mainly the "this rule is highly unliked, so we'll change it slightly to make it better" variety. The BC tweaks are more "here's a new element for the game, deal with it."

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by AustinSchuh

It might be close, but the 3 robots would be smart to pin Wildstang in the corner, and then trade off scoring on them for the rest of the match, never letting them get a dump in.

I picked Wildstang mostly because they're hard to pin. Replace Wildstang with ThunderChickens and their godly "oh it doesn't matter if I'm pinned I CAN SHOOT OVER YOU" turret and then you get the same argument, really.

[AustinSchuh]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Replace Wildstang with ThunderChickens and their godly "oh it doesn't matter if I'm pinned I CAN SHOOT OVER YOU" turret and then you get the same argument, really.

But then 217 would then be limited to about 20 balls, and 20 balls isn't incredibly hard for the other alliance to collect and score without any defense. Having a nice turret doesn't allow them to reload when pinned, and it would probably take a bit more than 20 balls on their part to secure a win.

[Tetraman]

Step 1: Attach trailer 1 to trailer 2.
Step 2: Attach trailer 2 to trailer 3.
Step 3: Attach trailer 3 to a chosen alliance robot.
Step 4: Enjoy.

[Enigma's puzzle]

Originally Posted by ShaunT

Teams certainly get recognized for scoring in autonomous. That is why Team RUSH picked More Martians in Curie. The reward is the fact that you already scored when the game starts. If you decide that that is a viable strategy, good job executing it. Seeing as how teams already see it as a viable strategy (otherwise they would not have pursued autonomous scoring), is there any reason to make it more beneficial?
.

Have you considered that team 70 was picked also because they were fitting into Rush's strategy (It is pretty incredible how well they plan this out) and they have also worked together often both being Michigan teams. In fact we were alliance mates with those 2 outstanding teams at Lansing.

It adds a WOW factor that gets you remembered but your consistency in competition gets picked.


I really like that multiple trailer idea, what a way to add a new dynamic to the game.

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle

Have you considered that team 70 was picked also because they were fitting into Rush's strategy (It is pretty incredible how well they plan this out) and they have also worked together often both being Michigan teams. In fact we were alliance mates with those 2 outstanding teams at Lansing.

It adds a WOW factor that gets you remembered but your consistency in competition gets picked.


I really like that multiple trailer idea, what a way to add a new dynamic to the game.

Our scout was talking to one of their team members about their selection, and when the Martians came up the their ability to score in autonomous ON TOP OF their other qualifications (as in, it was a tiebreaker) got them picked. This is just what I heard, if someone from Rush wants to correct me of course I wouldn't argue with them.

[PaW]

Originally Posted by ShaunT

Teams certainly get recognized for scoring in autonomous. That is why Team RUSH picked More Martians in Curie. The reward is the fact that you already scored when the game starts. If you decide that that is a viable strategy, good job executing it. Seeing as how teams already see it as a viable strategy (otherwise they would not have pursued autonomous scoring), is there any reason to make it more beneficial?

Robot scoring in autonomous was kind of a double-edged sword for us. On the occasions when it DID happen, we cheered like mad and the announcers got all excited. But then, tele-op started and we would have to wander around the playfield looking for missed moonrocks to pick up. As the competitions progressed to the point where the human players were more accurate or more conservative in shooting, we would die the slow death from moonrock starvation.

In the end, the kids enjoyed the programming challenge of being able to make the robot do something interesting during autonomous.

[Siri]

At PARC XII, we voted to place one super cell in the middle of the field at the beginning of each match, in addition to those at the alliance stations. To me, this was the best of both worlds. Autonomous was much more interesting (there was actually a goal besides avoiding human players), and it made starting in the center position more beneficial. It also gave robots more of an opportunity to score a super cell and added interest and peril throughout the match, while still keeping the major super cell threat in the last 20 seconds. It creates an interesting strategy element by making running empty cells more important to the alliance that's scored on. Highly recommended, though you may want to measure and mark where exactly on the field it goes to preclude later discussions.