2016 IRI Rule Change Suggestions

[Kevin_Leonard]

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.

This is a cool way to do it that feels more quantitative.

The one thing about audience selected defenses is that it does give you another piece of information to use during strategy discussions. Knowing 2/5 of the defenses prior to the match helps very much with match strategy.

[Billfred]

Change it so that any boulder that has contacted the carpet of a secret passage must be carried over the outer works to be scored (as if it had come from the neutral zone–so no more scarfing up boulders from your opponent’s secret passage and immediately scoring them, though loose boulders in the courtyard are still fair game).

The other ones could be debated, but this one should not happen. If a human player blows the roll-in, and the drivers are willing to risk the penalties of going into the secret passage, then they should be able to reap the benefits.

[pfreivald]

The other ones could be debated, but this one should not happen. If a human player blows the roll-in, and the drivers are willing to risk the penalties of going into the secret passage, then they should be able to reap the benefits.

I didn’t figure everyone would like all of my suggestions.

[Richard_Wallace]

Change it so that any boulder that has contacted the carpet of a secret passage must be carried over the outer works to be scored (as if it had come from the neutral zone–so no more scarfing up boulders from your opponent’s secret passage and immediately scoring them, though loose boulders in the courtyard are still fair game).

The other ones could be debated, but this one should not happen. If a human player blows the roll-in, and the drivers are willing to risk the penalties of going into the secret passage, then they should be able to reap the benefits.

I didn’t figure everyone would like all of my suggestions.

I’m with Billfred on this one. Your other suggestions are reasonable and should be debated. But this one is just legalized hoarding. It would change the game fundamentally, because alliances would not need to guard their SPs. Entrance to the SP would become a chokepoint, with a high potential for fouls. The result would be less shooting and more damage to robots. I think this area is one that the GDC considered carefully, from the viewpoint of match flow, and I think they got it right.

[Nick_Coussens]

Okay I know I’m super late to this, but I had kicked around the idea with a few people of changing what was needed for a capture in quals (I don’t think it’s needed in elims, but perhaps)

You would still have to get whatever the tower strength is with boulders

You either have (a) all 3 robots either parked on the batter OR (b) at least one robot parked on the batter and a second robot must be hanging fully above the low goal.

I thought this would help solve the problem of being stuck with a dead partner in a qual match and also give a bit more value for hanging. Maybe I’m biased but this seems like a good thing I think.

Just my $0.02. I think this would help the rankings not be quite as dependent on match schedule luck.

[Lij2015]

If you give the spy bot 3 boulders that can do whatever they want with, but only let them use them in the last 30 seconds that would make for some actually interesting human player strategy.

Or allowing multiple boulders to be held in the last 30 seconds as well, could add an interesting twist.

[djperry1009]

Or allowing multiple boulders to be held in the last 30 seconds as well, could add an interesting twist.

I too think this is an interesting idea, however, I do not know any teams with multiple ball-manipulation capabilities because the game this year did not allow for it. This would screw many teams over and I don’t think changing the game that much at this point is worth the extra bit of excitement. Keep up the ideas though!

[EricH]

I too think this is an interesting idea, however, I do not know any teams with multiple ball-manipulation capabilities because the game this year did not allow for it. This would screw many teams over and I don’t think changing the game that much at this point is worth the extra bit of excitement. Keep up the ideas though!

I’d go out on a limb and figure that any team with an intake separate from their shooter could handle two (one in the intake, and one in the shooter). Just don’t try to have two ready to shoot (973 in Ventura–Adam didn’t look too happy after that match, something about a jammed shooter, a foul, and a tech foul when they crossed a defense–at least it looked accidental, but still!)

[Anthony_Galea]

Whatever you do, please do not get rid of the Category C defenses completely. Many teams (including mine) use it as a safe way to get out of the courtyard, which is a valid strategy.

Second note: if IRI’s rule changes are about trying to increase scores, and if they are to standardize the defenses (which I would recommend to make field reset much easier), I would recommend choosing the ones with the highest damage rate per category, if its possible to find that out (I don’t know what those are).

[ZamericaZ]

Whatever you do, please do not get rid of the Category C defenses completely. Many teams (including mine) use it as a safe way to get out of the courtyard, which is a valid strategy.

Second note: if IRI’s rule changes are about trying to increase scores, and if they are to standardize the defenses (which I would recommend to make field reset much easier), I would recommend choosing the ones with the highest damage rate per category, if its possible to find that out (I don’t know what those are).

I also agree about not removing category C defenses for this same reason, as well most tall bots are designed to be able to solo them so i think it’d also be unfair to those teams.

http://www.thebluealliance.com/insights/2016 the damage rates can all be found there