AW: [robocup-small] opinion on Rule changes for 2005

Sat Nov 13 11:02:01 EST 2004

I almost fully agree with Raul.

Change 1: I would even ban any motordriven dribbling devices. The
FU-Fighters did such a fast game - it was really amazing - even without
dribbler. The moved around the ball to stop it. That's the direction I'd
like the SSL to go.

Change 6: Last year we discussed about active light for recognition -
what about this idea? The LED's have all the same frequency, so the
colors would be the same, doesn't matter where we are. We could even
test in the dark (like in Lisbon) :-).

Change 4: Yes, 2 teams had bluetooth but did not use it. So why this
change?

Change 7&8: 6 Robots are ok - but let us play on the mid-size-fields -
we can share fields with them, but with smaller goals. So passes have
more advantage instead of a robot going with the ball. The robots going
forth and back use too much power. Then I would reject changing or
charging batteries in a game. So finally the robots will have to pass!
What do you think about it?

It would even be easier for TV - they don't have to move from mid-size
field to small size league.

And we have to adjust time in a way that not all robots stand still
after 2/3rd of time because of battery loss. Another side effect would
be that robots have to adjust their speed and think about battery usage!
That is more like the real soccer game.

All in all we should make the ssl more like real soccer. 

Regards 
Alexander Hofmann
Vienna Cubes

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu
[mailto:robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu] Im Auftrag von Raul Rojas
Gesendet: Samstag, 13. November 2004 15:54
An: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
Betreff: [robocup-small] opinion on Rule changes for 2005

Following the call from Sean Verret to take a stand on the rules
proposals, here is our opinion abous some proposals:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Change 1:
The dribbling distance will be set at 500mm for both active and passive
dribblers."

It is not clear what constitutes a "passive dribbler". If the intention
is to limit
the distance the ball can be pushed by a robot, I think this is wrong.
Pushing the ball
does not give full control of the ball to the robot. If the robot stops,
the ball rolls
away, the ball is loose. The intention of the 50 cm limit for motor
dribbling was to avoid giving
too much control to a robot with a motor dribbler, which even when the
robot stops or goes back, 
does not loose the ball.

Moreover: robots *with or without* dribblers are allowed now to push the
ball. Robots with 
dribbler can just turn off the dribbler after 50 cm, and can keep
pushing the ball.
The current rule does not handicap or penalize, in any form, robots with
motor dribbler,
compared to robots without motor dribbler.

More important: limiting the range of options for a robot does not
improve the
game. If the opponent does not know if a robot is going to continue or
can make
a pass, the range of options is wider and the game is more interesting.

In the extreme, with this limitation we would have ultimate frisbee,
where anyone 
with the "ball" has to stop moving and sits there just holding the ball
and waiting
for someone to help.

Oliver Purwin of the Cornell team had already argued against this
limitation, which
affects ALL teams, those with motor dribbler and those without. ANY
robot, with or
without motor dribbler, can push the ball right now.

So, please leave a wider range of options open, do not limit the range
of alternatives,
do not make this ultimate frisbee.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Change 4:

"No more bluetooth is allowed in the small-size league, and all other RF
decisions will be left to the OC based on local conditions."

Is there a reason for this? Two teams had Bluetooth last year, and I did
not hear of
problems with other teams. 

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Change 6:

"The EC/OC/TC will decide upon ALL yellows, blues, greens, cyans, and
pinks allowed to be used by robots before the competition and will make
enough of these colors available at the competition for each team to
field 6 robots."

Please NO! This proposal has been made year after year, and has always
been rejected.

If two teams agree on a set of colors that they will be using, so let
them play. Until now,
every team looks at the colors of the other team and asks for changes,
if needed. I have
never been in a game where two teams could not agree on the markers.

Limiting the range of options is specially dangerous now that we do not
have special
lighning at the venue. What happens if the lightning is a little yellow,
like in Lisbon?
Then, the colors change and everybody can be affected, if we limit and
set in advance 
"official colors".

A set of "official markers" should be only last resort, if two teams
cannot agree on the
markers to be used. If they agree on the colors, whatever colors they
use, let them play,
 they will be happier. We want interesting games, not games in which one
team cannot
play because it does not see the official colors. As Paulo from 5DPO
once wrote, the colors 
become unofficial, once the
lightning is variable and uncontrollable. Color is the light reflected
by a patch
from a *given* light source. The light source at the venue is
**uncontrollable**,
and *undefined*, we all know that.

So I propose: don't change the rule. It is not broken, do not fix it. If
you want, the TC
can have a set of "official" color patches only for the remote case that
two teams do not
reach an agreement on the colors they want to use.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Change 7:

"We will have 6 robots per team"

Why? We worked so hard to make more room available to the robots and now
we will start
clogging the field again? The current size is about just right for five
robots. What
do we gain by having six? I would like to hear a good explanation of why
this will make
the game better. I would go for more robots, only if we had more space.

Right now the field is ideal for five robots on each side.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Change 8:

"The time of game will include 12 minute halfs, 5 minute half time
breaks, each team retains its color for the duration of the match and
colors are decided along with the referee 1 hour before the match."

This change does not address the *fundamental problem* we have: game
sequences are only
seven seconds long (on average, as measured for the game Lucky vs
Fighters in Lisbon). 
Making the game longer does not make if more interesting, it only
compensates for lost time.
I made a proposal to speed up the game restarts, which is having a
slight slope on the
periphery of the field and let the ball roll back, when it goes out.
That's the
best idea I can come up, other than reintroduce the band. Please think
that without faster
restarts, the small-size league is becoming even less interesting than
the Sony dogs of
evil. We have lost our edge of being the fastest league with continuous
play, and 
we have to make something about this, not just make the game longer.
Tedious remains tedious,
even with more time.

For those who missed my proposa, here is the full text:
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~rojas/pub/NextFrontier.pdf

I would be for longer matches, only if we cannot find something better.
I put forward the
the slope idea for discussion.

Teams, contribute to this discussion, feedback is needed.

Raul Rojas
FU-Fighters Team

_______________________________________________
robocup-small mailing list
robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small