Chezy Champs 2022 rule change ideas

[Pat_Fairbank]

Hi all,

I’m starting this thread to discuss rule change ideas for Chezy Champs, which Team 254 is hosting in September.

To align with Chezy Champs’ philosophy, potential rule changes should:

• Fix “broken” aspects of gameplay with minimally-invasive adjustments
• Reduce burden on referees by eliminating inconsequential rules or establishing less equivocal criteria
• Reduce team frustration

Potential rule changes should not:

• Make teams wish they’d designed a different robot
• Make it feel like a different game
• Require non-trivial changes to the field

Here are the potential, draft changes we’ve been contemplating so far:

1. Raise the number of CARGO per alliance from 11 to 15 by making an additional preload available to each robot and staging one additional ALLIANCE colored CARGO in the TERMINAL closest to that ALLIANCE AREA. Rationale: Remove artificial constraints on CARGO scoring throughput at the highest levels of play.
2. Eliminate the QUINTET; no change in CARGO BONUS ranking point threshold based on AUTO CARGO scoring. Rationale: Scoring more CARGO in AUTO is its own reward and the QUINTET did not have much impact during the regular season.
3. Raise the CARGO BONUS ranking point threshold to 30. Rationale: The current threshold of 20 is too easy, especially with more CARGO being made available in proposal (1).
4. Raise the HANGAR BONUS ranking point threshold to 20. Rationale: Require at least a TRAVERSAL RUNG plus a MID RUNG, or two HIGH RUNGS.
5. Introduce a 5th “joker” ranking point for achieving either 40 scored CARGO or 40 HANGAR points (the term is borrowed from automotive racing). One RP is awarded if either or both conditions are met. Rationale: Leads to rankings that better reflect the strength of teams and alliances.
6. Eliminate intake penalties (G204) that are not “match-affecting” (specific wording TBD). Rationale: Remove a significant source of randomness in match scores and relieve some of the burden on REFEREES.
7. Allow HUMAN PLAYERS to enter CARGO during TELEOP in all of the same ways as they can during AUTO. Rationale: The TELEOP restrictions do not make a significant difference to match play and impose an additional burden on REFEREES.
8. Run the playoff tournament as a round-robin of six alliances of four teams each, followed by a best-of-three final. Details TBD, but the tiebreakers would likely be head-to-head followed by total match points.

Thoughts or ideas? Particularly interested in hearing from referees about rules they wish they could have called differently.

[Pompano]

@Pat_Fairbank

Allow HUMAN PLAYERS to enter CARGO during TELEOP in all of the same ways as they can during AUTO

Does this also include human player scoring during tele-op as well?

[Guy_With_Dog]

I think these are some great additional changes! Specifically the “Joker” and Round Robin!

@Pat_Fairbank

Eliminate intake penalties that are not “match-affecting” (specific wording TBD). Rationale: Remove a significant source of randomness in match scores and relieve some of the burden on REFEREES.

By this do you mean no G204 when intaking a ball? Or do you mean intaking more than 2 balls at a time?

[s-neff]

@Guy_With_Dog

By this do you mean no G204 when intaking a ball? Or do you mean intaking more than 2 balls at a time?

I definitely read this proposal as dealing with G204 contact, rather than anything about ball quantities, very good question to clarify.

Increasing the leniency on gaining advantage from controlling 3+ balls would make me wish we’d built different. If anything I’d want to tighten the 2 balls rule, but with some allowance for non-match-affecting?

[Billfred]

Like what I see. Some thoughts:

• More balls, more fun.
• Don’t forget the three-way tie scenario if you’re rolling your own round-robin tiebreakers.
• What if the joker criteria floated at set stopping points (say, lunch or the end of the first day)? You’ll know every alliance hangar score and cargo number to that point. Make it so the top 25.4% of scores (or some less-cute number) gets the bonus.

[MikLast]

@Pat_Fairbank

Raise the number of CARGO per alliance from 11 to 15 by making an additional preload available to each robot and staging one additional ALLIANCE colored CARGO in the TERMINAL closest to that ALLIANCE AREA. Rationale: Remove artificial constraints on CARGO scoring throughput at the highest levels of play.

@Pat_Fairbank

Raise the CARGO BONUS ranking point threshold to 30. Rationale: The current threshold of 20 is too easy, especially with more CARGO being made available in proposal (1).

It feels like #1 isint needed, considering the scoring constraint wasnt really there to begin with if 70+ 85% of CMP matches got the ball RP? It also feels like a really weird justification for #3 if half of the rationale is that the current threshold with the current ball amount is already known to be too easy…

[nuclearnerd]

Some good ideas here. I’d eliminate the cargo bonus RP entirely myself. No one has articulated to me what it’s purpose is - certainly not to “balance the rankings”. People have done analyses that show that rankings wouldn’t change significantly no matter where you put the threshold. So why raise it?

[nuclearnerd]

@Pat_Fairbank

Allow HUMAN PLAYERS to enter CARGO during TELEOP in all of the same ways as they can during AUTO

I’m actually looking forward to human player shots during teleop.

[TheRealJamesOo]

Yes to all of those please

[Pat_Fairbank]

Updated to clarify that this is just in reference to G204. The goal would be to not call penalties when there is no damage or only cosmetic damage (e.g. detaching a loosely velcroed sponsor panel).

[Caleb_Sykes]

Add a dummy cable protector to the non-scoring table side of the field to achieve better red/blue field symmetry.

[Zook]

Here me out…
I think ditching the Cargo RP and adding a winning losing margin RP could work.
If you lose by 10pt or fewer you get an RP for keeping it close. Will you keep it close by getting that extra level of Hangar climb? Or will you scramble around shooting cargo until the buzzer to keep the score close?

Will some teams get an RP for losing 10 to 16? Yes. Will that screw up the rankings much? Probably not. Its the off season. Lets have fun.

For context, I love this RP bonus in Major League Rugby. However, in MLR a win gets 4RP, draw is 2, and there’s a 1RP bonus for scoring 4 or more tries (touchdowns).

[bovlb]

@Pat_Fairbank

Allow HUMAN PLAYERS to enter CARGO during TELEOP in all of the same ways as they can during AUTO. Rationale: The TELEOP restrictions do not make a significant difference to match play and impose an additional burden on REFEREES.

If human players can shoot for the hub at any time, then this includes while they’re sharing the space with the other human player. This adds a new burden on referees to watch for interference.

But if you’re going to expand the role of human players, do it properly by changing 6.7 so that cargo leaving the field is passed to the terminal on the same side.

[Eugene_Fang]

@Pat_Fairbank

followed by a best-of-three final

Id love to see the top 4 alliances advancing to a best of three semifinal and then final. Single round robin can have fluke matches, so it’d be cool to see more teams moving on. Though it does make the maximum number of matches 24 (compared to 21 in a normal 8 team bracket).

[Ben_Martin]

Don’t install the low bar. Maybe instead give 4 points for bumpers breaking the plane of the hangar zone at the end of the match.

[AllenGregoryIV]

@Pat_Fairbank

staging one additional ALLIANCE colored CARGO in the TERMINAL closest to that ALLIANCE AREA.

Since this ball would already likely change auton paths for a lot teams, is this the best place for the additional ball?

Would a ball in the hangar or in some other area that would make the left side autos more complicated be better. Or is the goal to potentially have multiple alliance robots interacting with the right side and terminal balls?

[Pat_Fairbank]

Blockquote

@bovlb

But if you’re going to expand the role of human players, do it properly by changing 6.7 so that cargo leaving the field is passed to the terminal on the same side.

The idea isn’t actually to expand the role of the human player, just make the referees’ job easier in recognition of the fact that the HP role is small. The expected value of funneling balls to the human player for them to subsequently take a shot is so low that I wouldn’t anticipate this rule change to alter any team’s strategy at Chezy Champs.

[Pat_Fairbank]

@AllenGregoryIV

Since this ball would already likely change auton paths for a lot teams, is this the best place for the additional ball?

Would a ball in the hangar or in some other area that would make the left side autos more complicated be better. Or is the goal to potentially have multiple alliance robots interacting with the right side and terminal balls?

The goal is really just to increase the number of balls in play without making teams feel pressure to significantly alter their design or autonomous coding to stay competitive. As such I suppose we could entertain staging the extra ball on the other side where unused preloads go, or stick to 14 balls instead of 15.

[R.C]

Pat

My vote would be either of the three

-14 balls
-15 balls with one on other side
-15 balls with human player throw/chuck in auto only.

I like the more balls and 30/40 rp (5th rp option)

[Owen_Busler]

Preface: I reffed about 520 matches this year and called a lot of non “match affecting” G204s. I am moving to CA this summer and would be down to ref CC/help amend the CC version of the rules final wording.

@Pat_Fairbank

Eliminate intake penalties (G204) that are not “match-affecting” (specific wording TBD). Rationale: Remove a significant source of randomness in match scores and relieve some of the burden on REFEREES.

Will you also be updating G205?

@Pat_Fairbank

(e.g. detaching a loosely velcroed sponsor panel).

Would be a G205 for damage inside a frame perimeter with an extension outside your frame perimeter. Now that I think about it, I dont see how you could ever call G204 if you add the “match affecting” clause. For it to be match affecting I feel there would HAVE to be some sort of damage, in which case G205 takes precedent. Something to think about when rewording G204/removing G204/adding the “match affecting” clause to G205.

@bovlb

This adds a new burden on referees to watch for interference.

I really hope this doesnt come up, just dont be a jerk?

@Ben_Martin

Don’t install the low bar. Maybe instead give 4 points for bumpers breaking the plane of the hangar zone at the end of the match.

This would be easy to score as a ref, just give “low bar” climb for bumper breaking hanger zone.

Overall, I think these are great rule changes to make the game more about the robots playing, lightening the job of the refs, and only penalizing actions which really matter.