Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

[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.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by jmiller48167

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.

No, it was never called to my knowledge.

[StevenB]

I'd like to chime in, having seen some rule modifications at BattleCry this weekend.

BC had a large box in the middle zone around each tower, in which robots were allowed to expand to finale volume. I think this eliminated a few unnecessary penalties, but didn't have any major effects. As XaulZan11 jokingly alluded, no one (I hope!) is going to rebuild their robot to violate the spirit of the rule just because the letter has changed.

Incursion penalties for driving over balls were rarely called at BC, although this was due to the referee's choice, not a specifically announced rule modification. In general I felt that this was a good thing, since accidentally driving over balls was common.

I would suggest that penalties not be called for robots which exceed the allowable volume because a chain falls off or other part of the robot breaks and drags around outside the frame perimeter. In my opinion, the penalty just adds insult to injury and doesn't improve game play.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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 think this is a solution without a problem. There were a lot of wide shots on goal that left the field of play without ever touching a field element or another robot. I don't recall seeing intentional O/B shots that presented a safety issue. It would be tough for referees to discern the difference between some intentional and unintentional O/B kicks. Returning balls to the opponents' home zone would have made sense if it was in the original rules, but I don't think it meets the "fundamental flaw" standard to change it now.