[robocup-small] Major Rule Changes 2012 Discussion

Thu Nov 17 03:41:17 EST 2011

Hi everyone,

Our team (UBC Thunderbots) has talked over the possible rule changes, and
here is some of the feedback I've collected.  (Sorry for such a last minute
response!)

1. Decreased ball speed - This would definitely make the game more
intelligent, allowing for more passing and less outages.  There have been
some suggestions to remove sidelines instead (only walls so that the ball
is always in play), but this seems like a step backwards.  Decreasing the
speed seems like a great idea, but the exact max speed is debatable.  6 m/s
might slow down the game's pace too much (or not enough?).  Have their been
any calculations or tests conducted to find the max ball speed that vision
can detect, or the max ball speed that the majority of teams could
pass/intercept at?

2. Increase defense area - Currently, using 2-3 robots as a "goalie wall"
is an effective and almost necessary way to stop shots.  The ball moves too
fast for only a goalie to intercept.  As long as the ball speed is
decreased (even slightly), this idea becomes much more practical and would
encourage more teamwork tactics, rather than a brute force approach to
defending and scoring.

3. Six robots - This would work on two conditions. First, the defense area
would need to be increased (possibly even more than suggested), otherwise
it becomes even easier to build a "wall".  Second, the field size would
need to be increased to not clutter the field with robots.  Terence on our
software team did the math and found that 10 robots on the current field
yields a density of 0.42 robots/square meter, whereas 12 or 14 robots
yields less -- 0.32 and 0.37 respectively.  Therefore, a larger field could
easily accommodate more robots.  It is important to consider the extra cost
of a 6th robot though, as some teams might not have the funds to build the
additional robots.  However, the manufacturing cost of a 6th robot is
generally negligible relative to the rest of the team plus all the research
and development costs.

4. Enlarged field - The benefit I see to a larger field is the ability to
play with more robots.  However, there would be many downsides to this.
 First, a decreased ball speed on a larger field would definitely decrease
the pace of the game, probably too much. At this point, a decreased ball
speed is a higher priority to advancing the quality of the game.  There are
also numerous costs associated with a larger field.  Many teams would most
likely have to purchase an all new field (our field carpet is designed for
4 m x 6 m), and there are some teams, including us, that do not have the
space to accommodate a larger field.  It has taken over 3 years just to
secure permanent space for a 4x6m field, and a larger space on our campus
is nearly impossible to come by.  From this experience, I could see a
larger field being a barrier of entry to new teams, and it's important that
we keep the SSL league accessible to new teams.

Rules 1 and 2 are very easy to implement (and revert), and they have direct
and predictable benefits to the game.  I would highly recommend
implementing these rules.  Rules 3 and 4, however, have large capital costs
associated with them, and their outcomes are difficult to envision without
seeing them in action.  It would be worthwhile to set up these last two
rules as a demo or technical challenge at the next competition so that
teams can further assess their impact.

Regards,
Jordan Balanko

-----
UBC Thunderbots | Technical Lead
3rd Year Mechanical Engineering, Mechatronics Option
University of British Columbia
www.ubcrobocup.com |   <778.773.1940>778.773.1940
-----

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:57 AM, 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/20111117/48a291e0/attachment-0001.html>