2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

[rick.oliver]

My first choice would be to change nothing.

If you want to simplify the game for volunteers, replace the defense selection with a randomized selection of the defenses which applies to both alliances for a complete "round" of matches during qualification. Then, in elimination matches, allow the alliances to select their defenses. Keep the audience selection in both qualification and elimination.

To increase the game difficulty:

- Require that all five defenses are defeated to earn the breach points.
- Increase the defense strengths to 3 or 4.
- Increase the Tower strength to 12.
- During elimination matches, require one (or two) scale(s) plus challenge(s) to earn the capture.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

- During elimination matches, require one (or two) scale(s) plus challenge(s) to earn the capture.

I imagine a lot more teams would have designed in a scaling mechanism if they knew at the beginning of season that it would strictly be a must for an Elims alliance. While I like the spirit of the change, this one puts a heck of a lot more stock into scaling robots than a normal change would.

[CalTran]

Also, somewhat related to a rules change, and may be a nonissue:
Will IRI be using the vinyl flaps that FIRST adopted ~Week 2 or will the low bar fabric made out of bumper material be reinstated?

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I imagine a lot more teams would have designed in a scaling mechanism if they knew at the beginning of season that it would strictly be a must for an Elims alliance. While I like the spirit of the change, this one puts a heck of a lot more stock into scaling robots than a normal change would.

Fair point, but this is off-season and teams have time to make functional improvements. Still, my first choice would be to change nothing.

[NotInControl]

I vote to Increase the Autonomous time from 15 seconds to 20 seconds. I guess you can leave the Teleop Period the same.

The reason for this change, while subtle will make a huge impact in autonomous. Robots whom currently have a 2-ball auto can spend the time to make them more accurate (more time to visually line up) instead of firing rapidly just to run back and get the second ball.

Also this opens the door for other robots/teams whom may have had slower mechanisms or systems which did not support 2 balls in 15 seconds or under, but the extra 5 seconds may now allow them to accomplish the task.

I think off-season events are all about pushing the limits, and this change may help make that 80-point auto a reality at IRI.

Obviously this would potentially extend every match 5 seconds, unless it was reduced in Teleop? Is that a big deal? Over 100 matches that would only be ~+8 minutes.

Plus side, this change should be simple to integrate, and does not negatively effect any current design or team. Should only be a positive addition if implemented

[ratdude747]

Here's an idea I had over dinner.

Make audience selection done via some sort of app or website. I'll preface that unless I have a work conflict, I'll be volunteering to scorekeep at IRI, so any resulting scorekeeper burdens I acknowledge and accept

The idea is that since IRI is an often watched livestream, for an audience selection to really reflect the audience, the livestream viewers should also have a say. In addition, this gives a more quantitative result to choose from. Finally, it frees up a little bit of cycle time (not that it's enough to care about).

Here's how it would work: When the selection is "scheduled" the MC announces the selection. AV shows the defense screen (which scorekeepers can do w/o making a selection at that time). Then the next match proceeds, during which people (including livestream viewers) vote on the defense. After the score is announced for the match, the selection's result is announced and entered into FMS (possibly the app's result screen shown by AV). While that puts the actual selection one match later than normal, as long as the choice is made before prestarting the first match using that selection, FMS is happy.

[Chris is me]

Replace the drawbridge and sally port with clear polycarbonate.

I know this will cost money, but it's worth it. If a team I'm with ends up competing, I would honestly donate to a Fix The IRI Drawbridge Fund to help make this happen. The drawbridge is just such a crummy field object and it really ruins the flow of the game when it is out there. It would just make a subset of IRI matches worse to watch and play in.

I would get rid of the penalties for driving through a defense when there's a ball stuck in it. If this means teams bulldoze an extra ball or two over a defense than they otherwise would have, whatever, it's worth it. Not a huge deal.

I would not remove protected zones or anything like that. That's completely unfair to the hundreds of teams that designed outer works shots. I don't know why everyone is so bothered that they can't hit shooting teams this year - it didn't seem to bother anyone in 2012 or 2013...

To draw penalties in the secret passage, the robot drawing the penalty has to be also within the secret passage. I'm not sure if this is how the rules are currently written or not, but it's being called as "offensive robot in secret passage + any contact at all = penalty".

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Replace the drawbridge and sally port with clear polycarbonate.

I know this will cost money, but it's worth it. If a team I'm with ends up competing, I would honestly donate to a Fix The IRI Drawbridge Fund to help make this happen. The drawbridge is just such a crummy field object and it really ruins the flow of the game when it is out there. It would just make a subset of IRI matches worse to watch and play in.

I'd also donate to this fund. The drawbridge seems to be much harder than the sally port for many teams (since you can't just spin around/wiggle to break contact), but it's not getting much use because of how much of a hinderence it is to drivers. It's almost like there's only 8 defenses instead of 9 because of how little it's used. There's something to be said for tradeoffs, but I think it would still a challenging defense to cross even if the door was clear. The #damaged/#opportunities success rate in the quals at the DCMPs was low, which is partly due to the abysmally low denominator, but also because it's difficult.

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by Karibou

I'd also donate to this fund. The drawbridge seems to be much harder than the sally port for many teams (since you can't just spin around/wiggle to break contact), but it's not getting much use because of how much of a hinderence it is to drivers. It's almost like there's only 8 defenses instead of 9 because of how little it's used. There's something to be said for tradeoffs, but I think it would still a challenging defense to cross even if the door was clear. The #damaged/#opportunities success rate in the quals at the DCMPs was low, which is partly due to the abysmally low denominator, but also because it's difficult.

For those keeping score at home (because I love numbers) the Drawbridge was the least selected defense in Qualifications, being chosen 27.67% of the time. However the Portcullis (28.71%) and Rough Terrain (29.29%) weren't chosen with much more frequency.

In Playoffs, the Drawbridge was actually chosen with MORE frequency (28.30%) than either the Portcullis (28.17%) or Rough Terrain (20.87%)

Your mileage may vary based on region, week of competition, district vs regional vs DCMP, etc.

[Ben Martin]

At MAR CMP, according to TBA, the drawbridge went 0/34 in quals and 0/13 in playoffs. We are one of the teams guilty of putting the Drawbridge in 4, since in that spot it is worse for the opponent than for you in many cases.

Looking at NE, they had the drawbridge go 0/9 in quals and 0/17 in playoffs.

Unless you are one of the few with a very good dedicated drawbridge mechanism, at the highest levels, it's not worth your time versus scoring more boulders and just lowers everybody's scores.

[Koko Ed]

10 points for hitting a shot in the top goal from the neutral zone in the last 20 seconds (so teams don't get cute and keep "missing" to move all the balls from the neutral zone to the courtyard all game long to make it easy for robots to light up the towers).

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by P.J.

For those keeping score at home (because I love numbers) the Drawbridge was the least selected defense in Qualifications, being chosen 27.67% of the time. However the Portcullis (28.71%) and Rough Terrain (29.29%) weren't chosen with much more frequency.

I did see that too. For category A at DCMPs (which I'm using because IMO they'd be more similar in competitiveness to IRI than a regional), the portcullis and cheval seem to have similar success rates, so it makes sense to choose the one that doesn't impede vision at all. Looking at some week 6 districts and regionals, if the success rate isn't the same, the portcullis tends to have a slightly higher success rate.

For category D, I'm guessing that's because the rough terrain is incredibly easy compared to the rock wall; it gives your opponents a fast way in and out of the courtyard. I'm surprised the rough terrain wasn't used less. I'd actually like to see the rough terrain modified somehow to increase its difficulty for IRI and put it more on the same level as the rock wall, but that might be changing the game too much.

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by Karibou

For category D, I'm guessing that's because the rough terrain is incredibly easy compared to the rock wall; it gives your opponents a fast way in and out of the courtyard. I'm surprised the rough terrain wasn't used less. I'd actually like to see the rough terrain modified somehow to increase its difficulty for IRI and put it more on the same level as the rock wall, but that might be changing the game too much.

I totally agree with your assessment. Additionally, Rough Terrain use dropped to only about 24% in both Weeks 6 and 7 (and even lower to 21 and 19% in Playoffs), and I wouldn't be surprised if it drops even lower at Champs.

The question becomes what could be done to increase the difficulty of the Rough Terrain without changing the game too much?

[pandamonium]

Add a spy ball that can be placed in the courtyard in auto mode.
add an additional ranking point in quals matches that exceed 150-175 points. (there needs to be an intensive to keep playing. In the event of a blow out you don't want to see an alliance all on the tower with 20 seconds left to play.)

Stronghold is a good game so to make it better you just need more stronghold
Increasing match length for eliminations 30 seconds
Breaches need all 5 defenses
Increase tower strength

[Edxu]

Remove the limitation on robots crossing Neutral Zone plane during autonomous. This encourages teams to develop more complicated autonomous programs that reflect the level of competition that should be at IRI.

Remove the height limitation of 4'6 in your own courtyard. This makes actual courtyard defense viable, and gives cheesecaking options.

If a boulder is in the way of a robot's defense crossing (eg in the low bar), don't penalize them for pushing it through. This eliminates those awkward situations where you have to outtake your ball and take the defense ball because of a weird case in the rules.