30 as a raised cargo threshold likely isn’t enough if you’re also raising the number of cargo offered. I would expect with the extra cargo 30 to still be hit most of the time - especially at an event like chezy. Either need to raise it more or not include the extra cargo.
Not a huge fan of changing the number of cargo though - removes some of the ball control/defensive styles of play. Also artificially devalues climbs. I thought this game had a pretty good balance outside of RPs.
Love the joker RP idea. Reward teams for being “top of class” at either aspect of scoring.
I think that change was specifically referring to teams rolling balls through the bottom of the terminal, it was illegal but it was very inconsistently called at all levels of play
Video review would be interesting to see at CC. It’s definitely not trivial to just add it (properly at least) but it would definitely be a good case study for video review at a very high level of play.
I think adding more cargo does “make it feel like a different game”, the ball scarcity at a high level added an additional level of depth. I do think the 11 could be redistributed to make for a more interesting auto. Intaking the opponent’s cargo and pooping it in auto was a fun twist but was relatively low impact.
I haven’t written our rule for TRI but my current thought is that G204 will have a carve out for offensive robots, while still stopping defensive use of extensions into frame perimeters.
Refs are already having to determine who initiates contact.
With the default being to not call G204 unless the refs determine the robot is playing defense or something like that. Basically reduce G204 but still penalize defensive robots for ramming an offensive robot in their frame perimeter even if there is no damage.
@EricH has a pretty good suggestion for revamping timeouts. Would really like to see it tried at an off-season event. Maybe he can share it here.
Also, if there is a video review system adopted and the outcome of a match is affected, I recommend a replay of the match rather than just changing the recorded outcome.
I mentioned this in another thread somewhere, but my rational is the match may have been played differently if the call was made correctly during the match. A replay seems the fairest way to handle it.
I also assume that reviews would only happen during playoff rounds, would be limited in some way, etc.
I don’t see how any changes to hanger points / rp meet this criteria. If the triple climb was an extra ranking point, we’d have probably built something else.
If the hangar RP needed 20 points you’re making anyone who counted on a high climb wish they built a traversal.
I would vote for eliminating the “taxi points” in Auto as it is kinda like the Quintet in its impact on a match. I know it wont necessarily be an issue with Chezy Arena but I know from talking to refs that there were definitely times the FMS had issues remembering the taxi points and that put burden on the ref to remember it if it didnt stick. I do like the other proposed changes, they will definitely make for an enjoyable match to watch, especially the joker rp.
I think bumpers breaking the hanger zone plane increases the chance a ref has to make the hard decision whether a robot on the ground is supporting a climbed robot. Instead I think “parking” should be scored as bumpers contacting the launchpad at the end of the match.
i would tend to disagree a little bit i think that a big part of the issue with champs was just that the field was really close in terms of skill so schedule luck’s deviation in the offensive production in your teamates over the course of your shedule was bigger than the actual differences in offensive production between the teams
Two issues with that:
a. Any change to the rankings might be significant. In Carver, for example, 604 was #1 and made it to Einstein, 870 was #2 and was eliminated in QF. According to this analysis they would have been flipped, meaning they would’ve had different alliances and would have played against different opponents. Who can tell how Carver’s bracket (and as a result, Einstein’s bracket) would have changed because of that? I can’t, but it seems reasonable to assume we would have seen some major differences.
b. This analysis is done after the fact, and you can see it drastically reduces the number of RPs awarded. If the game was actually played under this new RP limit, teams might have changed their strategy to adapt to it, for better or for worse. A lot of matches might have then ended differently than they actually did. You might have even seen alliances end up with 0 RPs instead of the 4 they actually scored, because the new threshold would have made them stay out shooting a little longer, screwing up a climb because of the extra time pressure and losing by a hair as a result. Extreme example, I know, but not unreasonable. This means rankings would probably have changed more (perhaps much more) than this analysis shows.
3 RP win
2 RP tie
1 RP where your alliance scores above the Average alliance score of CMP qualifications (All-Star Score RP)
2 RP when losing within 10 points (Close Shave RP)
Winners that pour on the points get 4 RP
Ties with high scores get 3 RP
Close, high scoring losses get 3 RP
Less desirable match results (getting blown out, low match scores) get fewer RP.
The event will attract teams that are great competitors. They want to score a lot of points and win as many matches as possible. These rank points do not require a change of play based on thresholds and match time, but instead encourage teams to pour on as many points as possible until t=0. Playing defense is not really devalued. High scoring alliances that lose close matches do not get penalized by a competitive schedule. With second order sort being match points, the best alliances will still rank near the top.
As a counter point, FIRST did specifically state in the game manual that they reserved the right to change the RP point requirements. Choosing to assume that it wouldn’t change is a strategic choice by the team. I don’t see this specific instance a rule change at all, but rather a choose to invoke a rule that FIRST just happened to not.