[robocup-small] Major Rule Changes 2012 Discussion

Fri Nov 11 09:17:54 EST 2011

Hi all

I want to thanks the technical committee for their efforts. I review all of
the possible combinations for finding an optimized answer of which 3 rules
have to change for a better game play.

1-      1) Ball speed limit, increasing robots quantity and increasing
defense area size

Disadvantages: more collisions, no motion, less goal opportunity

Advantages: more passes (may be impossible)

2-      2) Ball speed limit, increasing robots quantity and increasing
field size

Disadvantages: no goals because of 4 Goalkeepers

Advantages: NO advantages

3-      3) Ball speed limit, increasing field size and increasing defense
area size

Disadvantages: less game play, long movements, no changes in goal counts

Advantages: more passes, high speed motions

4-      4) Increasing robots quantity and increasing defense area size and
increasing field size

Disadvantages: scoring from long distance shoots possibility

Advantages: more passes, suitable distance motions, logical defenses

It seems, it is better that all of the changes are accepted by the
federation. Otherwise, i strongly recommend the last set for the most
active and dynamic games.

Bests

Aras

MRL Team Leader

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Angelo Gurzoni Jr <jgurzoni at yahoo.com.br>wrote:

> Hello, everybody !****
>
> The TC, after consultation with the Execs and OC, is issuing a major rule
> changes proposal for community consideration. ****
>
> We kindly ask teams to provide feedback and discuss it using the ssl
> mailing list, *until November 16th*. The TC will try its best to
> summarize the feedback and answers in a document available to everybody. Please
> send your comments, suggestions and feedback.****
>
> * *
>
> *MAJOR RULE CHANGES FOR 2012 PROPOSAL*****
>
>
> After having evaluated various ideas and analyzed the results of the
> member survey, the TC has elaborated some rule change proposals that we
> believe will make the game more intelligent.
> Is the TC understanding that the first two rule changes may be simpler to
> implement, while the last two have deeper impacts, which is one more (not
> the only !) reason to ask for community feedback.
> Please also consider that the number of major rule changes in a single
> year needs to be constrained, so the final decision likely will not include
> all the four proposals. Depending on the community feedback, it is possible
> that a change not implemented may be added as a technical challenge or to
> the RoadMap (3 year plan) discussion, to occur right after the rule change
> decision.
>
> *1) Ball’s maximum speed reduction*****
>
> The current maximum ball speed on the SSL is too high, leading to games
> with elevated number of throw-ins and favoring of simple shooting to the
> goal over passing. The TC considers that a reduction to the maximum ball
> speed to a number *around* 6 m/s would be beneficial and lead to a more
> intelligent game. A plug-in to check compliance is to be created, but
> regardless of it the TC trusts teams to apply the changes. If anybody in
> the community thinks of some test that can be performed in lab to adjust
> the maximum ball speed, the TC would welcome suggestions.****
>
>
> *2) Defense area increase*****
>
> The current defense area, of 500mm, allows that most teams use what seem
> to actually be 3 goalkeepers, when defending, using two robots in front of
> the goalkeeper. To make this strategy less efficient and incentive teams to
> play smartly, the TC considers that the defense area should be expanded to
> 800mm. The penalty mark will be moved accordingly, to 750mm. This change is
> irrespective of a change in field size, and shall the field size change the
> defense area must be scaled based on the proposed size.****
>
>
> *3) Change in number of players to 6*****
>
> The TC believes that the addition of a 6th robot on the SSL teams will
> increase the possibilities for passing and intelligent plays. The benefits
> are manifold: Teams can increase the number and variety of team plays,
> experiment with more agents in the field and create different behaviors for
> robots and. The TC believes the current field size to be enough for 12
> robots and that cluttering of robots on the space will not be significant*
> ***
>
> The TC understands that there is additional financial costs involved, but
> based on the responses of the SSL Survey, when most teams agreed with this
> proposal, the TC understands that most teams are ready for the change and
> in fact may already have enough extra robots for that. We would like to
> receive feedback to confirm this understanding, as well as to know if there
> are teams which cannot afford this change because of financial restrictions
> .****
>
>
> *4) Field Size Slight Increase*****
>
> The TC is considering a proposal to increase the field size to 5.0 x 7.5m,
> as well as proportionally adjusting also the other field markings and goal
> size. Thanks to the MRL team, the feasibility of the new field size in
> SSL-Vision (using 2 cameras), was tested and confirmed.****
>
> However, there’s concern on the TC about how teams who want/need to
> maintain fully sized fields in their laboratories will accommodate the
> increase and the overall feedback of the teams about the idea. ****
>
> Be aware also that a permission from the RoboCup Federation may be needed
> to increase field sizes, as a general guideline received is to keep field
> sizes similar throughout all the leagues (except middle size)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Christopher Head, Mohammad Hoshyari and Angelo Gurzoni Jr****
>
> The SSL TC for RoboCup Mexico 2012.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> robocup-small mailing list
> robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20111111/f412294a/attachment.html>