Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

[548swimmer]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

I'm still advocating penalizing a team for harmful actions, but I don't believe that the entire alliance should be penalized for a lapse of a judgement of a driver who got caught up in the heat of competition.

I agree. If one of my alliance members were to damage another robot, we would have no way to stop them. We also were not responsible (during seeding rounds) for picking them. There should be a penalty during the qualifying rounds for the offending robot, though not for the other 2 alliance members. During elimination, whatever team picked the offending team, as well as the offending team should be disqualified.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by 548swimmer

There should be a penalty during the qualifying rounds for the offending robot, though not for the other 2 alliance members.

According to the rules (which I would hope the FMS algorithms were written from), during qualifiers it is only the offending robot will get the red card and have its seeding score dropped <T11>.

I also feel sorry for the MARC staff who would have to manually calculate the seeding for all the teams if the seeding system is being changed

[Craig Roys]

Many rule changes are being suggested just for the sake of change and not because there is a fundamental flaw in the game. I'll repeat what I said in the other thread that piggy-backs what Jack Jones has been saying; teams built their robots to play under a certain set of rules and point values - changing them for no good reason is unfair. Many teams decided that it wasn't worth trying to hang for only 2 pts - why should they be punished now for that decision? If the point value had origianlly be higher, many of those teams would have put effort into a hanging mechanism.

Fundamentally, the game is fine the way it is and should not be changed in a major way. Are there rules that should be looked at because it caused many teams problems such as the "crossing back over the line" penalty in 2008? Maybe, and that's what this thread should be discussing...not completely changing the game; which, by the way, was pretty fun to play and watch.

Just my $0.02

[Wayne TenBrink]

I there are any changes at this point, they should be be ones that don't favor or detract from any existing robot design features.

I like the idea of having two "special" (gold?) balls that are worth extra points. It would affect game tactics and strategy, but wouldn't require any hardware alterations.

I would also support a different seeding algorithm. Is this still open for discussion or is it locked in by the field management software? I would prefer to see the winners earn their score plus loser's score, with a guaranteed minimum (10 pts?) instead of a 5 point bonus. Loser earns their own score. This would discourage 6v0 without banning it, reward high scoring close matches, reward victory in all cases, remove some sting from a high losing score, and reward alliances for their own effort.

If there are no changes, that would be fine too. I don't think there are any "fundamental flaws" in the game. (Although I agree that hanging should have been worth more from the beginning. We removed our half-baked hanging device and used the weight savings to optimize our center of gravity for bump climbing. It wasn't worth the effort and "opportunity cost" to fix it for only 2 points).

Edit: NO RED CARDS FOR LOOKING LIKE A FOOL DURING THE MENTOR MATCHES!

[sgreco]

I've seen a lot of posts asking for bonus points for scoring in autonomous. I'm not sure if I'm the only person who thinks this, but it's just as easy if not easier to score in autonomous as it is in teleop. The condition of the field is the same in autonomous every time (pretty much), but during a teleop, the position of the ball can vary, there's defense, shooting from an angle etc...

The point I'm making is that scoring in autonomous is a chance to score without defense, it's not an action that deserves to be given extra-points.

Not fundementally changing the game is a good thing. Teams built their robots a certain way for a reason. I wouldn't give extrapoints for hanging either.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

I would also support a different seeding algorithm. Is this still open for discussion or is it locked in by the field management software?

I believe offseason events get a near-full version of the FMS this year (doesn't have wireless encryption), including the seeding system. However, it would be possible to write an alternate seeder independent of the FMS that calculates based on our own algorithm

[the programmer]

i think a good ranking system would be the winner gets 10 + their score, in a tie you get 5 + your own score, in a loss you just get your own score

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

I believe offseason events get a near-full version of the FMS this year (doesn't have wireless encryption), including the seeding system. However, it would be possible to write an alternate seeder independent of the FMS that calculates based on our own algorithm

I can confirm that off-season events (useing the first field at least) will be useing FMS-Delta which included everything expect encryption (Seeding, Pit Screens, Audience screen with all the graphics etc.). Unless the even planners choose to use FMS Light (which I heard is going to be released shortly for the 2010 edtion) this should be the case.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Lighten the expansion rules slightly. If a team goes to hang earlier than 20 seconds let them instead of possibly penalizing them if they aren't completely in contact with the tower. Obviously, if a team expands in the middle of the wrong zone they aren't hanging and should still be penalized.

Take a closer look at flipping. It is kinda silly that a team is allowed to ram and flip another team at will but if they go near the tower in the last 20 seconds it is a yellow card.

Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.

Call balls that are kicked outside of bounds. In soccer intentionally outing a ball is a penalty (as far as I recall) 1pt penalty per ball. As long as the ball first contacts another robot or game element it is ok but if it just flies clear out and hits a ref/volunteer/grandmother in the face that is a safety hazard. Place the balls back into play in the defensive zone of the robot that booted them out. Yes, this discourages teams that just blast the ball but it also encourages safety.

I too would like to see more points for hanging/suspension but it is not fair to teams who designed and built their machines for the REAL game.

[548swimmer]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.

I like the concept, but what if my robot flips over blocking one goal? Then the other robot that came in could block the remaining goal, eliminating scoring potential.

What if you allowed a second robot into the defensive zone only to right the flipped robot. Once the robot was righted, the alliance would have 10 seconds to figure out which robot will stay in the zone, and act on it.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by 548swimmer

I like the concept, but what if my robot flips over blocking one goal? Then the other robot that came in could block the remaining goal, eliminating scoring potential.

What if you allowed a second robot into the defensive zone only to right the flipped robot. Once the robot was righted, the alliance would have 10 seconds to figure out which robot will stay in the zone, and act on it.

Well, then the other team would have a pretty big interest in NOT flipping you wouldn't they?

[548swimmer]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Well, then the other team would have a pretty big interest in NOT flipping you wouldn't they?

True, and that would accomplish the goal of reducing unnecessary ramming/flipping. I know that if we try hard enough, and have our elevator on, we can flip ourselves. I'm not sure if there are many other teams out there who can do that, but it may be an issue.

I do like the idea of less ramming, it would keep the driver's more focused on playing the actual game.

Which I just lost....

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Take a closer look at flipping. It is kinda silly that a team is allowed to ram and flip another team at will but if they go near the tower in the last 20 seconds it is a yellow card.

Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.

We have had more problems scoring against robots tipped near a goal than against robots defending against us.

Teams really need to take into account CoG when designing and building, their is no reason to add a rule that benefits teams that designed poorly and have robots prone to flipping without the ability to right themselves.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

We have had more problems scoring against robots tipped near a goal than against robots defending against us.

Teams really need to take into account CoG when designing and building, their is no reason to add a rule that benefits teams that designed poorly and have robots prone to flipping without the ability to right themselves.

I agree, if a robot is tippy it is one thing. If a robot is rammed repeatedly it is an entirely different thing. I know 397 has no CG issues (it is ~5 inches off the ground and we never flipped) but that didn't stop people from trying. At one point in time we were vertical and another team kept pushing. THAT is trying to tip. Being hit once and rolling over because your CG is 25" in the air is another thing entirely and it is clear to any observer when a team is being way too aggressive.

Edit to Wayne:Rule G19 clearly states that the penalty and a yellow card are to be called for any ball outed from the field intentionally. I merely replaced the yellow card with giving the opponent a better chance to score the ball.

[jmiller48167]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Rule G19 clearly states that the penalty and a yellow card are to be called for any ball outed from the field intentionally. I merely replaced the yellow card with giving the opponent a better chance to score the ball.

In the 6 events I attended I don't recall this ever being called. Do you have a specific event where it was enforced.

I think it should be enforced due to being hit while sitting field side for reset.