IRI Rule Changes - 2012

The rule changes / refinements for the 2012 IRI are pretty simple.

  1. +5 pounds allowed. Honor system, unless the referees question you.

  2. No Co-Op points. Ranking based on win-loss and the existing tie-breakers.

  3. Alliances may balance 3 on their alliance bridge during qualifications. Three robots balanced is worth 40 points.

*4. Draft is 1 - 8, 1- 8, 8 - 1. Alliances select their own backup. Use of the back-up is at the discretion of the alliance. *

All other rules will be per the 2012 FRC rules as interpreted by the referee crew.

What was the thought process behind eliminating the co op points?

I sense a storm brewing :smiley:

Playing only to win? Yay! No arguments here.

Excitement as each alliance tries to triple.

That would be a lot more exciting! :smiley:

what is the purpose of Co-op bridge now? just gonna be a random bridge?

Same as in eliminations I’d assume. A decorative bother.

This is gonna kill our ranking, but it’ll definitely be way more fun :slight_smile:

I think the logic is that there will now be triple balances in qualification matches and with the level of play at IRI every match will just be over the top fantastic to watch and play in. It will also not force people to pick for eliminations based on assumptions on teams being able to and not being able to triple balance because it will be a scoutable thing that teams will try for in many matches. As a team with a long bot that could essentially be a wide bot for triple balances because of our weight distribution and stingers I can say that having this important feature of the game be almost unscoutable is quite frustrating.

I think this is excellent for 4334. You will be the very rare bot that most alliances will be able to triple with granted they have a stinger of some sort. I think you proved that on your path to Einstein.

I think pit scouting is going to come into play even more than normally now. Being able to tell if your alliance, or the other alliance, is able to triple is going to key in whatever strategy you are going to use.

I’m definitely looking forward to this rule change, and seeing how this change is going to affect the teams going to IRI, I think we might see a few upsets!

Love #2. #3 will make quals very interesting. With the level of competition at IRI I think it will be more exciting to see teams going for the triple than coopertating.

Though it does suck for the alliances that end up with 3 long bots.

Oh the long bots woe! Well, I guess that just extended the time of our meeting tomorrow. At least it’ll be fun to figure out haha

EXACTLY. Not a fan at all of #3. I cannot possibly fathom how a rule that so obviously favors one design over another and ties a team’s fate even MORE into the “random” match schedule can be permitted to fly. It’s not like we longbots can chop our frames down…

At least give teams who get hosed by incompatible alliance configurations another avenue of combating opponents who CAN more easily triple during qualifying. How about making balls scored in the last 30 seconds of a match worth 1-2 points more each? That would give teams an effective way of combating those who choose to triple. Can the scoring system be easily adjusted to accomodate such things?

Also, as a team who has never been “maliciously hosed” by the co-op bridge and has seen the game played as intended at every single event we’ve attended (3 regionals, Galileo, MARC), I fail to see how eliminating the co-op point concept to cater to the extremely relatively few who’ve been hosed by “alternate strategies” somehow enhances the game’s quality.

I am EXTREMELY disappointed by the combination of these rulings. I do not pay $700 for a premier offseason event to be forced into playing a game that so obviously disadvantages and discriminates against a specific robot design and so radically diverges from the original game designers’ intent. I recognize the right of the committee to make such changes, but they must also recognize the right of the paying customers (who had to pay prior to the changes’ release) to voice their concerns/criticisms/disbelief that such changes were implemented.

Are the pansy hands-off triple defense rules of the Championship also going to be in effect, such that longbots have essentially zero recourse to directly combat triples if their alliance is incompatible with the maneuver?

Of course, this could also end up being a boon for the longbots, as those overly confident in thinking they can triple (outside of 3 wides) try it without any practice whatsoever, and end up failing epicly as the little old boring double (…or single…or even no balance) earns the victory… Could be more bad comedy agony of defeat type moments than oh gee wow how epic moments during qualifying if people try to get too greedy. This rule change could also lead to more robot damage due to bridge tips and falls than many pit crews attending offseason events are prepared to deal with. Many teams travel very light.

Unless you are extremely careful in supervising it, you’ve also just turned your practice field into a train wreck and a likely safety hazard once the match schedules are released. Hope someone has plans to keep that area monitored and under control such that all teams have fair access to it and none dominate its usage. ORRRRR (my preference - the safe and easy and FAIR route) you flat out deny any triple practice on the practice field (before alliance selections) and require teams to have at it without any prior practice together save for any encounters at previous events.

This ruling is a double whammy against longbots - gives wides a decided advantage in scoring points and winning matches, and removes any co-op recourse needed for longs to still keep pace with them in the standings. I would have accepted #2 by itself, but #2 and #3 combined? I cannot view this as anything but a forced competitive disadvantage for my team and others like us before I even arrive at the venue, and that is a very unfortunate reality.

This is a whole new game. Old strategies for elims are out. A triple balance is high risk and so is a triple defensive play. I agree that this will probably lead to more damaged bots. With the hours of run time our bots have seen, the pits will be a busy place. Oh, the carnage. Can’t wait to watch how teams adapt to this play.

Seems to me that a triple balance would be relatively easy to defend. Just aggressively mess with the second & third bot before they get close to the bridge. Your driver would have to be disciplined enough not to be in contact with the robot when it gets to the bridge. You are really just trying to delay the balance. Mean time if you have a good scorer, it is shooting balls without opposition.

To be honest, I like the changes. It’ll mean elimination style play in every match, which will make IRI more competitive. It also means no one will be stranded at the co-op bridge, and everyone won’t suffer if one driver makes a small mistake (like driving over the side of the bridge).

The long bot situation is unfortunate, but so is getting paired with two boxes on wheels. The luck of the draw is something we’ve lived with for about 10 years, at least now you’re more in control of your ranking.

And the point of IRI is to eliminate that as best as possible.

And I fail to see how you are ‘in control of your ranking’. when you arent even allowed to play the full game…

With 5 extra pounds of weight, any robot can be made “triple balance compatible”.

Stingers. Brakes. Apparatuses (apparati?) to grab onto/under an adjacent robot. Each of these can be made under 5 lbs as complete systems using pretty basic methods. Team 341’s stinger weighs 0.8 lbs (granted it relies on a pre-existing pneumatic system, but a simple air tank and gauge assembly doesn’t add that much).

Yes, three long robots is still a difficult task. But what if one of them uses the extra 5 lbs allowance to add deployable lateral skids (casters, omniwheels, or even just some slick plastic) to facilitate being pushed up the bridge sideways?

While these rules favor robots designed with triple balancing in mind, there is enough time and weight to allow anyone who wants to triple balance at IRI, to triple balance at IRI.

During this years game, if I had a robot that consistently scored 180 points, I would win all my matches but there is no guarantee that I would be the #1 alliance captain.

At IRI, if I have a robot that consistently scores 180 points, I will (probably) win all my matches and I will (probably) be the #1 alliance captain. I don’t have to rely on my opponents for my ranking.

Removing the Coopetition points is in direct contradiction to the statement on the website.

Emphasis mine.

Completely removing the Co-Copertition points changes the game so drastically, teams that utilize the white bridge will find themselves without the boost they need to get them to where they want to be. In fact, it actually changes the entire dynamic of the last ~30 seconds of the game, and can in fact cause teams who have been ranked highest in normal FIRST events to drop significantly because their robot is meant to score in a way that isn’t in the top basket. This also alters alliance selection in ways you can’t imagine.

I don’t know how much weight my argument will hold, since I’m only going to be a spectator this year, but speaking only for myself if this rule holds up I’m glad our team isn’t going to IRI because we would have very little chance.

Our team has had a knack this year of storming back from some early misfortune/bad luck at events to secure Top 8 status. I think it’s happened at Wisconsin, Queen City, Galileo, and MARC. The co-op bridge was essential to our ability to rise up.

People discount the importance of having good strategy and negotiation skills in working with the opposition to plan and execute a co-op. We love that aspect of the game.