Was any thought given to a delay between auto and teleop for fuel to be counted? That seems like a simple fix for one of the major annoyances about this game.
Iād like to see it changed, not sure how easy it is to do with the FMS.
40 kpa RP/20 point bonus should be raised to 50 kpa in my opinion if the goal is to make IRI harder
this could have been so awsome.
And I was hoping theyād replace fuel balls with frisbees 
Very few California teams actually come. Itās a rather long trip for them.It will be surprising how may of the teams from the winning alliance come. They have a big event on their schedule two weeks after.
Rather than rewriting the rule, perhaps modifying how the rule has been applied would be more effective.
For example, apply one Tech Foul per incident of a G13 violation instead of one Tech Foul per contact. An incident would be bounded by the initial contact in violation of G13 and the offending robotās opportunity to clear the zone. Once the G13 violation incident has been initiated, the situation is then treated as a pinning occurrence. The pinning count would begin at the time of the initial G13 violation. The zone owner must, as with pinning, back off six feet and afford the offending robot the opportunity to clear the retrieval zone and the associated launch pad. And the zone owner must continue into the retrieval zone to acquire a gear or fuel. The requirement to attempt the acquisition of a game piece is suspended at the 30 second mark.
In the event that a robot becomes, for what ever reason, inoperable in their opponentās retrieval zone, Tech Fouls would accumulate as they do with the current application of the rule.
FoC should be fun to watch. Per manual section 10.13 and rules T25-T26, FoC teams could also compete at IRI, if they have the time. Chezy Champs will be easier to attend for many of them, since it is a September event (or was last year; I donāt know about 2017 CC.)
I think theyāve all been around the same date.
True. How about contact initiated outside and ending inside is 5 points (Foul), contact initiated inside remains a tech foul (25 points)? You donāt get off scot-free, but thereās a reduced penalty.
Sort of like how the āfuel launched outside launchpadā is applied: One per ātrigger pullā? I like that idea as well. In this case, one per attempt to retrieve a gear, assuming that the victim has a chance to escape between attempts. Not sure applying pinning is necessarily the right call here, but if warranted definitely count it.
(And HP egging on driveteam to apply hits becomes automatic C08ā¦ or should be. Yes, Iāve seen that. Not sayinā which team.)
I started drafting the rule changes for our Texas Robotics Invitational.
Here is how Iām currently attempting to fix G13. Thoughts?
G13. A ROBOT with any part inside its opponentās RETRIEVAL ZONE may not contact an opposing ROBOT. If an opposing ROBOT pushes a team into its RETRIEVAL ZONE with no intention of obtaining a gear (such as pushing them completely through the zone without stopping or if they already are in possession of a gear) there will be no violation.
Violation: FOUL, if the contact prevents a team from obtaining a gear TECH FOUL. Repeated contact with a robot is not immediately another violation of this rule, Referees may determine how many fouls are warranted for repeated violations. Defensive teams should not intentionally stay in an opponentās RETRIEVAL ZONE this action will warrant multiple TECH FOULS and may be escalated to a RED CARD. Teams should avoid pushing disabled robots into their RETRIEVAL ZONE if this action appears to be intentional referees will call C08.
The added complication to this rule is to allow referees to determine the effect at which a team interferes with a team loading a gear. Just a bumping a team that is already positioned at the loading zone without causing them to move, would only be a foul. A team preventing an opponent entirely from getting to their loading zone would be a TECH FOUL.
No problem for Chezy Arena I suspect.
DISCLAIMER: This post is based off of my knowledge of FMS as an official scorekeeper. While I have been and this year may be an IRI scorekeeper, this post has NO relation to the ideas, intents, or motives of IRI or FIRST
Question: Can a pause between autonomus and teleop be implemented in Steamworks FMS?
Answer: Yes and No. AFAIK there is no setting for this in FMS, at least before and in the version run at STL champs (in my case, Tesla and Einstein). However, there are options for match period lenghts (auto and teleop), mainly used for running field test matches (and sometimes used to make non-4/8 alliance offseason playoffs with byes work better). So, if one was dead serious about adding a pause, once could lengthen Auto by 5 seconds and then add a rule requiring no robot activity during the last 5 seconds of auto, which would require code changes to all robots, possibly by a patch and play bit of code given to all teams.
Good robust solution? Heck no. But yes, it could be ādoneā, technically at least.
The climb score should be reduced. Right now an alliance of three bots can move in auto to their climbing position, not move at all in teleop, climb and score 205 points. Meanwhile a single robot with two dead/absent alliance mates can run a 1 gear auto, put up 3 rotors and climb and score only 185 points. Why should the stationary alliance win in this situation? Cutting the climb score so that the single bot can win is important for balance.
This is one on the many reasons that Chezy Arena (Cheezy Poof FMS system) exists. Anyone from 254 that is familiar with it around to weigh in?
Most events canāt just switch to Chezy Arena. There is a learning curve for training Volunteers and people run it and a hardware cost. Could they and will they implement this in Chezy Arena, likely, will all these improvements be ready by IRI I donāt know but itās hard to rely on that.
Iāll be suprised if we see a fully implemented version of Chezy Arena this year. The field electronics are significantly more complicated this year than in previous years due to the number of sensors and moving parts. I can only imagine itād be prohibitively expensive for most offseasons when compared to the cost of renting an FMS
254 has a great wiki about Cheesy Arena. If the Wiki still holds true, then you can rent a road case from 254 with all the required infrastructure for scorekeeping, streaming, field sounds, and the Audience Display. Based on m inferences from the wiki, the rest of the field electronics, such as the SCCs for each alliance and airship/boiler controllers are still used just like last year.
The thought of using the pinning rule is to force a disengagement and discourage the repeated accumulation of Tech Fouls. If the robot which pushed their opponent into the retrieval zone and created the foul does not continue with the attempt to acquire game piece(s), then it should become a C08.
What about:
G13. A ROBOT with any part inside its opponentās RETRIEVAL ZONE may not contact an opposing ROBOT. If an opposing ROBOT in possession of a gear pushes a team into its RETRIEVAL ZONE there will be no violation. If an opposing ROBOT not in possession of a gear contacts a team in its RETRIEVAL ZONE and does not obtain/attempt to obtain a gear within 20 seconds of contact there will be no violation.
Violation: FOUL, if the contact is extended and prevents a team from obtaining a gear TECH FOUL. Repeated contact with a robot is not immediately another violation of this rule, Referees may determine how many fouls are warranted for repeated violations. Defensive teams should not intentionally stay in an opponentās RETRIEVAL ZONE this action will warrant multiple TECH FOULS and may be escalated to a RED CARD. Teams should avoid pushing disabled robots into their RETRIEVAL ZONE if this action appears to be intentional referees will call C08.