Chezy Champs rule change ideas

#1

Hi all,

I’m starting this thread to discuss realistic rule change ideas for Chezy Champs, which Team 254 is hosting in September. This is not the place in which to throw around radical, game-changing ideas – that thread is here.

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
  • Significantly alter game dynamics or point values
  • Require non-trivial changes to the field

Here are the ideas we’ve been working with so far:

  1. Change the rocket RP definition to still require L1, L2, and L3 to be completed, but the levels can be split between the two rockets. Rationale: Takes absolute control of whether a team earns the RP away from a defending opponent.
  2. Eliminate R6 and G6 (throwing of hatch panels). Rationale: Violations provide no strategic advantage and any safety considerations are covered by other rules.
  3. Eliminate G12 (hab zone height limit). Rationale: Violations provide no strategic advantage and any field damage or safety considerations are covered by other rules.

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

22 Likes
2019 IRI Registration / Application Link is OPEN!
#2

Match G9 and G10 trigger conditions: Bumpers fully across the line for both. Keep the exceptions in place.

19 Likes
#3

Based on the recent Hab 3 scoring controversy and it being called 2 different ways I would like to see a clarification on how that will be called.

9 Likes
#4

Make null panels removable so they can be replaced with hatches it probably would not change gameplay that much but could allow for more flexible gameplay

5 Likes
#5

Award a rocket completion bonus (10 pts) in elims or change the values to be +1 and +2, points for each lvl 2 and lvl 3 of the rocket. This keeps the rocket valuable in elims and doesnt change the optimal robot design from quals (rocket bot) to elims (low bot or lvl 1/2 bot)

11 Likes
#6

I’d be interested in a new definition for L3 climbs that is more intuitive to spectators (i.e. allows 1310’s climb), and easier for referees to gauge. Haven’t thought of a good one yet, though.

6 Likes
#7

I think that would fall under significantly changing game dynamics or point values.

1 Like
#8

Reword the rule that prevents grabbing two cargo. If a team accidentally grabs 2 from the depot and spits them out right away it shouldn’t incur a foul. Only if they are actively controlling them and using it as a strategic advantage.

19 Likes
#9

Because Chezy Champs will have a super high level of competition I would expect almost every alliance to get the climb rp. I think boosting the points required to get the rp to 18 or even to 21 would make it more valuable and not as trivial.

16 Likes
#10

Change G5 such that a rocket RP is only awarded if the total number of game pieces descored plus the greater number of game pieces in a single rocket is 12 or more. Keep the foul as usual.

Also change G16 to just a Tech Foul, with no RP. Or maybe Foul plus 2-3 “game piece credit” as described for G5.

I really didn’t like how often these penalties significantly affected the rankings in favor of alliances who were paired against a sloppy defender.

1 Like
#11

One of the things that was apparent this year were teams ranking high because of the climb RP alone. Where teams that have rocket completion capability ranked lower because of heavy defense. I like the idea of making the climb harder to balance the rankings a bit. However I am torn if the completion of the rocket becomes easier through the suggestion of the completion can be split between the two rockets.

3 Likes
#12

Perhaps, The support clause in climbing (is supported by that HAB level or higher and alliance station) is the only rule necessary for a robot to be support for another robot. In other words, a Robot that has its bumpers below a HAB level but is fully supported by that HAB can support other Robots, and those other robot’s/robots’ climbs would be scored. This would solve 1310’s climb.

1 Like
#13

With size restrictions as they are, I think eliminating the rule against controlling more than one cargo at a time would be fun. If teams redesign their robots to hold 6 cargo after the match starts, all the better!

#14

This might be too big of a change for chezy champs but I think the way the rocket rp should work is by the number of rocket ship bays completed. I think the optimal way to do this would be to require 8 rocket ship bays to be completed and you have to complete at least 2 bays on each level to get the rp. Along with this I would change G5 and G16 to award 1 rocket ship bay to the opposing alliance. I increased the number of bays from 6 to 8 because chezy champs will likely have a fairly high level of competition.

#15

I would like this. That said, I would make a specific note under the “Unsafe Conditions” in S1 that “throwing hatch panels out of the field is a violation of this rule”. Just to be on the safe side.

3 Likes
#16

Came here to say this. Changing the point value to something like 18 changes nothing about design, but certainly incentivizes making sure the alliance is capable or achieving HAB points in some way (which I think should be in affect for way more events than Chezy). Though we will have a large collection of powerful teams at the event, all who will achieve if not exceed requirements for RP, I think this change will still correct what many of us seem to see as a “broken” aspect of the game. Hopefully a fix here will help model a strong rule change for other events.

2 Likes
#17

We’re leaning towards making the hab climb RP threshold 18 (but it’ll be configurable in Cheesy Arena so that other events can change it).

A possible solution to the 1310 issue would be that if a robot meets the climb criteria (as written) at any point before the end of the match, they get the climb so long as they subsequently meet the bumper height criterion (but not necessarily the support one) when scores are counted at the end of the match. That may be easier for referees as well since they don’t have to check for “supported” if a robot was witnessed to have climbed up on its own first.

4 Likes
#18

Hatch panels in loading stations can be refilled during the auto/sandstorm period. Not only does this give the option for teams to have 2.5 hatch panel autos, but it also makes it so that the human players don’t have to sprint over to the loading station at the end of auto to refill it if a robot is waiting right at the start of teleop.

24 Likes
#19

The problem is that somebody then has a direct line of sight to the robot which makes scoring during sandstorm much easier and could allow you to score during sandstorm without a camera.

#20

I didn’t think about that, but it is definitely true. At the same time, I’m not sure what kind of information you can get from having someone other than your driver look around the sandstorm while competing at the level of CC.