Update #3 & Negative Scores...

[Joe Johnson]

The rules as written now seem to allow for huge negative scores.

Did FIRST really think this one through?

This is a huge confusion factor for the audience.

Here is the scenerio.

Assume the Blue alliance has twin Ramp Bots. They quickly go to the ramp, knock down the wall, plop down a couple of toilet bowl plungers and sit tight with the expectation that they have a lock on a win with 50 points in the bank...

But along comes the red alliance with Plow Bot and Tall Bot. Plow Bot methodically pushes all the containers in the blue zone into the no score zone. Tall Bot then picks up a single container and lifts it 11 Stack Height Units.

Red wins.

The score:
Red: 16 (assuming that the human players scored during the first 10 seconds)

Blue: (-10*11)+50 = -60

1 container IN
11 SHU
Multiplier 11
Base score 1-11=(-10)

This is going to be crazy for folks to understand.

Just my thoughts.

Joe J.
B

[JTH]

Two things:
1 - In the scenario as described, base score blue is zero, as the crate held by the robot as the multiplier stack is counted as zero points.
2 - Assuming there was another box still in the scoring zone, that one box would be counted as one point. It's not (B-X) anymore, as the equations have been showing, when you have an opponent supported stack. It's one point for every crate "in" the scoring zone that isn't in the highest stack.

[Jacqui Sutton]

The scenario you posted doesn't seem quite clear *maybe it's just me* but; if red team has one of their bot's in the blue teams scoring zone at the end of the game with a box raised 10 SHU high, and the blue team has only 5 boxes in their scoring zone..then it seems as if the score would be (5-11)*11 = -66... it does seem that negative scores are possible.. I hope FIRST will change this, yet again, cause as you said this would definately confuse the audience and also make one specific type of robot dominant after teams have already strategized and begun building robots without this possibility..
-sigh- guess it just makes it all the more of a challenge.

[Jacqui Sutton]

Originally posted by JTH

2 - Assuming there was another box still in the scoring zone, that one box would be counted as one point. It's not (B-X) anymore, as the equations have been showing, when you have an opponent supported stack. It's one point for every crate "in" the scoring zone that isn't in the highest stack. [/B]

in update # 3 under rule SC8 it says "the height of the tallest stack located in the scoring zone (the "multiplier stack"), measured in whole stack height units (as defined in SC9) is subtracted from the total number of containers to establish the "base score."" - how is that not (b-x)?

[JTH]

Oh... I guess I've been reading the rule wrong ever since Team Update 1 came out. I was still thinking the original rule, which considered stacks in the multiplier as zero. Now I really hope that FIRST reconsiders the virtual stack created by opponent robots.

[Joe Matt]

I have a feeling that this is not what FIRST means. And anyway, the bot is touching the stack of 11, so it's not counted.

Love,
Team 384 Rules Nazi

[JTH]

The opponent robot in your zone does not affect the eligibility of the stack.

But, my brother suggested that this might make a great blackmail strategy, if you have a really tall armed robot and are going up against a team that is almost guaranteed a top spot. "You know, we'll give you a huge negative QP unless..." How's that gratious professionalism?

[Jacqui Sutton]

Originally posted by JosephM
I have a feeling that this is not what FIRST means. And anyway, the bot is touching the stack of 11, so it's not counted.

Love,
Team 384 Rules Nazi

it's the oppositions bot that would be touching your stack, so yes, it would actually count.

and i agree, this is definately not in the spirit of FIRST, i dont see why they would do this intentionally?

[ahecht]

I asked FIRST about this, and basically got back snide comments about my questions being convoluted and me abusing the forums. I asked FIRST:
The way the rules are currently written, if your opponent's team has x containers in their scoring zone, and you take one of their containers and lift it x wSHUs into the air, their base score is reduced to zero. A robot with a tall enough lifter could easily ensure that their opponents never got any points for containers. Is this correct?

and they replied via email:
Rule SC8 states:

"Opponents robots in contact with containers in the alliance scoring zone will not affect the determination of the base score."

How much clearer could that be.

This lead me to believe that stacks would be measured form the lowest bin, not from the ground, but nowhere in the rules does it say where stacks are measured from. I replied to the email they sent me asking if the height was measured from the bottom container, and they replied:
See Team Updates

Please do no abuse the Team Forum process. Please do not send e-mails directly to FIRST. Use the team forum. You received an e-mail response because I did not want to clutter the Forum with your convoluted question. If you abuse the forum, we will remove your access to it.

Has anyone managed to get a real answer on this issue?

[Shawn60]

Am I wrong? If red gets 16 and blue gets -60 the final score will be
red 16 +(2*60)=-104
Blue -60

Blue wins

[ejthe4th]

from what i understand the base score is the number of boxes that are in the scoring zone that are not in the tallest stack...so if there was a box 11shu and a stack 1shu then they would recieve 11*1 = 11 points

"All containers within the alliance's scoring zone will be worth one point EXCEPT the containers in the tallest stack"

[Justin Stiltner]

Well.. would this be in the best intrest of the team doing it.... because they still get 2X their opponents score in QP, so say they did manage a win with the opponents getting say -30 qp, well they would drop by 60 IF FIRST allowed negative QP scores to be applied....

that just hit me like a sack of dead drill motors....


<edit> shawn on re reading your post I realized I jsut restated what you said in a way. red would still win.. but the real winner would be blue (see shawn's post) </edit>

[Gadget470]

Originally posted by Shawn60
Am I wrong? If red gets 16 and blue gets -60 the final score will be
red 16 +(2*60)=-104
Blue -60

Blue wins


Sort of correct. Red wins, but blue gets more Qualifying Points

[George1902]

first of all, i haven't seen ya post in a while, Joe! it finally feels like a FIRST season again =-]

just a quick reason why this wouldn't be a good strat at all...

the QP for Joe's scenario would be as follows:

blue (the loser) of course would get -60 QP

red (the winner) would get 16 + 2*(-60) = -104 QP

the winning team is getting the lower QP!!!

the really needs to be addressed...

maybe the height of a robot-held stack should be measured from the lowest point in the stack... or maybe the multiplier stack height can never be higher than the number of bins in the stack...

something needs to be changed, that's for sure

[JTH]

Originally posted by ejthe4th
from what i understand the base score is the number of boxes that are in the scoring zone that are not in the tallest stack...so if there was a box 11shu and a stack 1shu then they would recieve 11*1 = 11 points

"All containers within the alliance's scoring zone will be worth one point EXCEPT the containers in the tallest stack"

That's what I thought until Jacqui corrected me.

The original SC8 stated
All containers in the tallest stack located in the scoring zone (the “multiplier stack”)
are worth zero points. Containers in additional stacks of the same height will be
scored normally;
but, in order to fit with the original hint equation of "y=ax^2+bx+c", Team Update 1 changed it. That statement now reads
The height of the tallest stack located in the scoring zone (the “multiplier stack”),
measured in whole Stack Height Units (as defined in SC9) is subtracted from the total
number of containers to establish the “base score.” Containers in additional stacks of the
same height will be scored normally;

The original rule would have meant that a team could give the opposing team a huge multiplier. With the updated rule, because of the inverted parabolic scoring, we are seeing that teams can give penalties.

[dlavery]

Originally posted by George1083
first of all, i haven't seen ya post in a while, Joe! it finally feels like a FIRST season again =-]

just a quick reason why this wouldn't be a good strat at all...

the QP for Joe's scenario would be as follows:

blue (the loser) of course would get -60 QP

red (the winner) would get 16 + 2*(-60) = -104 QP

the winning team is getting the lower QP!!!

the really needs to be addressed...

maybe the height of a robot-held stack should be measured from the lowest point in the stack... or maybe the multiplier stack height can never be higher than the number of bins in the stack...

something needs to be changed, that's for sure


Originally posted by Shawn60
Am I wrong? If red gets 16 and blue gets -60 the final score will be
red 16 +(2*60)=-104
Blue -60

Blue wins

You guys are 90% there. Now finish the thought.

Joe's original point was spot-on. One alliance can directly affect the score of the opposing alliance by playing with the opponent stack height (to be complete, you should also assume that the opposing alliance is doing the same to your stacks). A robot could lift a container up to be equivalent to a 10-high stack (hmm, 4.8lb container at 14.75*10=12feet above the base of a 130 lb robot, plus a little "robust physical contact", yields a CG rapidly moving outside the conservative support polygon...), and it is possible to create a negative score.

At this point it is worth pointing out that this potential is exactly why no teams should start any game with a strategy that has them plunking down on top of the ramp and just sitting tight with the expectation that they have a lock on a win with 50 points in the bank...

A little more analysis is then done, with a broader view. Yes, negative scores are possible. But then there are those pesky QP and EP calculations. If your opponent gets a negative score, which means you will probably win, then your alliance gets twice as many negative QPs! You better be REALLY FRIENDLY with your alliance partner if you cause this! Sure, you won the game, but - through your own actions - you actually DROP in the QP standings. By giving your opponent a negative score, you may actually cause them to move ahead of you in the overall tournament standings as you drop down the QP ladder. And because the scoring systems are the same in the qualifiers and finals, this is also true in the finals!

So it quickly becomes obvious that while negative scores are possible, they are generally a bad idea. So their potential use becomes self-limiting. There are a very few particular circumstances where you might be willing to take the QP/EP hit, just to ensure that your opponent moves to a certain position in the QP/EP standings (think about this and you can identify those few circumstances). "Sacrifices" could become an element of the competition! It works in baseball and chess, so why not?

What does this mean? It means that there is a potential whole new level of strategy in the tournament (notice I said "tournament" and not "game"). It means that teams need to start thinking beyond the effects of the current match, and start thinking about multi-match strategies.

Don't automatically assume that this is a "loophole!" This is not an accident that wasn't thought through. It is actually an opening onto a new level of the competition that requires a little more thought and offers more complexity to the players.

-dave

----------------------------------

Y = AX^2 + BX + It's great to see Joe again!

[MacZealot]

Simple fix to those who didn't think about it.

(total amount of bins EXCLUDING those in the multiplier stack) * (the amount of bins in the multiplier stack

There is no subtracting in this anywhere, it's just there or it isn't.

[MacZealot]

Further thoughts.

If you have 3 stacks of 5 bins, 4 bins laying scattered about the score zone, and a stack of 7 bins, this is how the score will be calculated:

[(3*5)+4] * 7

Not any other way. You don't need to bother with the 7 bins in the first half of that equation.

More examples:

You have a multiplier stack of 4 bins, and one bin lying next to the stack

1*4=4.

[MacZealot]

oh yeah, one more thought, to complete any other thoughts ;)

an enemy robot IN YOUR SCORE ZONE, whether it is holding 1 container 10 units high or holding a stack of 10 containers, will not effect your score.

This was mentioned in update #3 if I'm not mistaken.

Again, there are absolutely no subtractions, the only thing your opponent can do is knock down your stack, which would be hard considering they probably won't be able to see their bot on the other side :eg:

Ok, I was wrong. an enemy robot CAN add points to your score, but not subtract, think of them adding bins to your multiplier stack or such.

But the only way they can knock down your score is by knocking down your stacks, which still won't subtract anything as long as your bins are not pushed outside the score zone, then those just don't count at all ;)

[Brett]

The height of the tallest stack located in the scoring zone (the "multiplier stack"), measured in whole SHUs is subtracted from the total number of containers to establish the "base score." Containers in additional stacks of the same height will be scored normally;

The base score is determined: (<All bins in scoring zone>-<bins in tallest stack>)*<bins in tallest stack>

Negative scores are not possible.

[Travis Hoffman]

Hey, Joe!

The Game is called "Stack Attack", not "Lift Attack" - that's all I have to say. That, and this rule really hurts this game's spectator friendliness.

This type of negative QP strategy seems more suited to the spiteful and the desperate (sounds like a winning name for a new soap opera) as, in Joe's example, the Lift Bot's "winning" Red alliance would get 16 - 120 = -104 QP while the "losing" Blue Alliance on the ramp would get -60 QP.

If this scoring strategy of generating negative QP's is, in fact, legal, then I think it should be EXPLICITLY made known to everyone in a future team update, so everyone is fully aware of this possibility and can plan accordingly. Teams have enough difficulties to deal with on a daily basis - they shouldn't have to hire a lawyer in order to plow through the murky quagmire of the Game Manual.

My advice to teams on the ramp who are about to be affected by this so-called "strategy" - if time permits and the risk of losing 25 points is an acceptable one, consider doing exactly what the name of the game says - ATTACK THE STACK.... More than likely, the Lift Bot is going to be taller and more unstable than you. Don't let the fact that there's an opposing robot between you and the stack get in your way. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, they've just made the decision to become a PART of your stack, and therefore, you should be able to manipulate THEM as you would a stack that was comprised solely of bins. If your objective is to topple your OWN "stack" to eliminate the negative QP threat, full use of acceptable ramming/pushing/lifting/wedging force to achieve this objective should be perfectly legal. As soon as the opposing robot interacts with your stack, it has just made itself a potential target and should expect to be treated as such. If teams are bold (or foolish) enough to try such a lifting strategy, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences of such actions.

If your alliance is on the ramp and does indeed attempt to attack the stack, don't forget about the 16 Human Player points in the opposing scoring zone the antagonizing alliance hopes you forgot about. Let's say the antagonizers bait both of you into coming off the ramp and chasing the Lift Bot and your "stack" around, and you eventually manage to evade the protective defense of Tank Bot and get Lift Bot to drop the lifted bin (or get him to run away with his tail between his legs, or better yet - simply tip him and the "stack" over :-P ). If you can't get back to the ramp by the end of the match, you'd lose the match 16-1 (or worse). Keep one of your alliance bots on the ramp, or have him go topple THEIR stack, push their bins out of their scoring zone, and rush back to the ramp.

I would think more teams might prefer to not create negative QP or EP scores but instead use their lift mechanism to reduce or completely CANCEL OUT all Base scoring for their opposition. This might come in handy in the eliminations when you're stuck in the opponent's zone during a match and you want to create some havoc to keep the scores as low as possible to prevent a large EP disparity.

Total Bins in Scoring Zone = X
1 of those bins is lifted to X SHU => Stack Height = X.

Bin Score = Base * Stack Height = (Total Bins - Stack Height) * Stack Height

Bin Score =[ X - X ] * X = 0

10 bins total in scoring zone.
1 of those bins is lifted to 10 SHU height.

Score = (10 - 10) * 10 = 0

Regardless of the opponent's intent, I think the best counterstrategy for this play remains the same - tell them that they're in Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, and show them that Mr. Robinson doesn't take too kindly to that sort of thing going on in his backyard.

[George1902]

Originally posted by Brett
The base score is determined: (<All bins in scoring zone>-<bins in tallest stack>)*<bins in tallest stack>


umm... no... reread what you just quoted... "the *height* of the tallest stack"

this has nothing to do with how many boxes are in the stack. you can have a stack 5 high that has 1 box in it if the opponent is holding it up.

so if we have only 1 box in the scoring zone (the one raised to 5 SHU) then the base score is total - height in SHU which is 1 - 5 = -4

now -4(5) = -20

negatives *are* possible... read the very bit that you quoted

[Brett]

Ut oh =)

[patrickrd]

As many engineers and teachers say to students about robot designs during team meetings, FIRST needs to keep things simple.

Why not:
N = number of bins in scoring zone
S = largest number of bins in stack (# bins, any orientation, height of stack doesn't matter...)

This keeps scoring as simple as possible without drastically changing the way the game works.

However, I think the whole issue is not very relevant because I don't expect to see stacks with multiple bins with long sides facing vertically... Simple reasoning: it's very difficult for a human to accomplish this given the round shapes of the bins. If a human can't do it easily I certainly don't expect a robot to be able to do it, perhaps at all.

Hmmm I'm re-reading Dr Joe's post and am realizing I need to reread the rules on this game... I'm not seeing something.
- Patrick

[Danaca]

Wouldn't it be easier just to define the term "stack" as a self-supporting structure rather than re-dfining the rules again about height? I think it would be less complex for the audience.

[illumanat'i]

ahecht said he got a reply from First saying not to email them (something they say a lot, since they can't respond to important emails if everyone bothers them with questions on how to properly screw in a lock nut or something)

they also said they "did not want to clutter the Forum with [his]convoluted question," which sounds like a snide remark, if you don't know what convoluted means:
convoluted - Intricate; complicated...

since they didn't want to explain the "complicated" issue on the first forum, they obviously want this to be an issue... maybe they want to make trick stragegies and sly moves possible so the spectator's get more dramatic games...

or maybe i'm just wrong about everything but the meaning of the word convoluted.... :confused:

i just trying to say don't jump to any conclusions, because they can very well be wrong, and then where are you?

[Joe Matt]

The multiplyer stack DOSN'T COUNT. It isn't subtracted nor added. It's just counts as a MULTIPLYER!!! That's what I understand, now, if I'm magicaly wrong, it still would be impossible to build a robot to lift up a 5 lb box 12 ft in the air without toppling over.

[Andrew]

There are many disturbing aspects to this new "interpretation" of the game scoring elements. We've been looking at the possibility of negative scores since the initial rules announcement. Looks like this is in fact the case. We just didn't see that you could set your opponent with a huge negative score.

This negative scoring strategy has two major impacts. First, as Joe pointed out, the spectator is going to be mighty confused.

Second, there is much more possibility for "dirty tricks."

As Dave pointed out, you have a robot who is setting you with a negative score. So you "vigorously interact" with him and tip him over. Will this be called as deliberately tipping him? Will deliberate tipping be more loosely controlled than we originally expected?

Further, even if you get DQ'd because of deliberate tipping, you have a better QP score (0 instead of say -200). Even with the threat of a DQ, which should be designed to prevent "foul play" you are better off with a DQ than a victory!

Dirty trick #2. I'm doing well in the standings. My buddy, who has a big lifter is doing so-so. I ask him to set all of his opponents with a huge negative score so that I rise in the standings. My buddy's reward...I pick him for eliminations, even though he is the last ranked player.

If people were upset by the Cooperative Strategy, then this should drive everyone mad.

Although we will not participate in Dirty Trick #2 (which is well outside our bounds of fair play), I cannot see us -not- engaging in Dirty Trick #1 under the specific circumstances that Dave pointed out. In fact, it seems to be condoned.

Andrew, Team 356

[MBiddy]

JosephM you are magically wrong.

Here is the rule quoted DIRECTLY FROM UPDATE 3 -

"The height of the tallest stack located in the scoring zone (the "multiplier stack") measured in whole Stack Height Units (as defined in SC9) is subtracted from the total number of containers to establish a "base score". Containers in additional stacks of the same height would be scored normally."

Multiplier! Y to an I!

[Mark Pierce]

If what's being discussed here is real, it implies a rather significant change to the game one week into the design process. I thought that FIRST said it would try not to do that again! A week of developing designs and strategies thrown out and a major increase in complexity for spectators again?

I'd like to see this rule clarified so the subraction never yields negative numbers:

The height of the tallest stack located in the scoring zone (the “multiplier stack”), measured in whole Stack Height Units (as defined in SC9) ).or the number of boxes in the stack, whichever is smaller, is subtracted from the total number of containers to establish the “base score.” Containers in additional stacks of the same height will be scored normally;

I'd also like to see SC9 changed to state that the multiplier stack cannot include boxes solely supported by an opponents robot. (not in contact with boxes below it or the floor

[Joe Matt]

So what Woodie's saying, if you don't like the game, blame it on me.

Yeah, I hate you now. Now, I know I'm 'magicly' wrong, but I don't see the refs supporting this. Last year they made calls about teathers and goals, now I think the same will happen this year. I don't think this rule was thought through totaly and I think that it will be changed.

[Andrew]

f what's being discussed here is real, it implies a rather significant change to the game one week into the design process. I thought that FIRST
said it would try not to do that again! A week of developing designs and strategies thrown out and a major increase in complexity for
spectators again?

The possibility of negative scores has been present since day one. When they rounded up to get the stack height, if you had all your boxes in the stack and the top one was sideways, you would get a negative score.

The big change is the interpretation that the stack height would be the height from the floor of the highest box, regardless of how it was supported. I think this was inherent in the rules from day one as well, there was just some confusion in the language about how the maximum stack height would be measured.

I agree that blue robots raising bins really, really high in the red scoring zone will confuse spectators. However, this should only happen if a team is trying to "take down" an opponent. And that opponent should be prepared to defend against such a move.

Andrew, Team 356

[ahecht]

While negative scores would hurt both teams, a zero score wouldn't do that much damage.

[Jon K.]

Originally posted by Andrew
The possibility of negative scores has been present since day one.

Actually no it hasn't. In the very beginning it was stated that the multiplier stack would not count when adding up the base score. Not all the bins in scoring position- the height of the multiplier stack in shu's.

[Doug]

im thinking they anticipated the possibilitly from the very beginning. That is probably the motivation behind going to the total points after 2 rounds in the finals. If it was win at all costs then it would just be a raise-the-bin-at-all-costs-a-thon. but since its total after two rounds the team could win both rounds and be eliminated.

[Jon K.]

WAIT now I have a question. In update number 3 it says ‰ Opponent robots in contact with containers in the alliance scoring zone will not affect the determination of the base score
So does this mean that the stack height won't be subtracted or that it is not counted as zero?

[Todd Derbyshire]

Ok lemme get this straight if my robot lifts "one" box lets say 12 feet in the air above the scoring zone that counts as a stack and gives them a negative score?

[bigqueue]

I think all of these rules changes probably come from someone's extreme excitement to show off and use some sort of whizzy-wig stack counting "stick".

I was wondering how they were going to make such a "stick" given all the different possibilities of heights. (and fraction of box heights)

Then, when I saw the SHU defined, it was all so simple......

[Joe Matt]

Woodie loved that stick......

I.... think I'm going to cry.....

[Jacqui Sutton]

Originally posted by Todd Derbyshire
Ok lemme get this straight if my robot lifts "one" box lets say 12 feet in the air above the scoring zone that counts as a stack and gives them a negative score?

I dont know how many SHU's 12 ft would be, but say it was 9.6 or somewhere around there, that would round down to 9. this would only give your opponent a negative score if they had less than 9 total boxes in their scoring zone..i think.

[Andy Grady]

Joe J. Wrote...

The score:
Red: 16 (assuming that the human players scored during the first 10 seconds)

Blue: (-10*11)+50 = -60

1 container IN
11 SHU
Multiplier 11
Base score 1-11=(-10)


Its absolutely senseless to even attempt to push your opponent negative. If red wins in this case, blue ends up winning in a way because blue finishes with -60 QP's and red finishes with 16 - (-60*2) = -108 QP's

[bigqueue]

Andy,

Ok....so the point isn't to push them negative....only apply enough negative points to get them to ZERO. (or even just 1 less than you)

Does that sound better?

-Quentin



Originally posted by Andy Grady
Joe J. Wrote...

The score:
Red: 16 (assuming that the human players scored during the first 10 seconds)

Blue: (-10*11)+50 = -60

1 container IN
11 SHU
Multiplier 11
Base score 1-11=(-10)


Its absolutely senseless to even attempt to push your opponent negative. If red wins in this case, blue ends up winning in a way because blue finishes with -60 QP's and red finishes with 16 - (-60*2) = -108 QP's

[Ashley Weed]

In trying to catch up in the forums after a long build day.. I am having touble figuring out this whole negative thing....

Let's say BLUE team 5555 has a stack of x number of boxes, and in addition they have y number of bins in their scoring zone, for a total of xy.

And RED team 9999 has a stack of a number of boxes, and in addition the have b number of bins in their scoring zone, for a total of ab.

if BLUE 5555 goes to the other side of the field, and raises RED 9999's stack of bins into the air.... what happens?

Does RED 9999 end up with a negative due to their bins being in the air, or does BLUE 5555 get a negatice for lifting the bins into the air??


:ahh: I'm going to go re-read update 3 I guess.......

[Nelson G]

Don't forget that if your robot is in contact with a stack it doesn't count. I take this to mean that if your robot is in contact with the robot supporting a box in your scoring area, the stack will be negated. You don't have to tip the opponents robot and face dq but just stay in contact with it.

Nelson Green
Team 1108
Panther Robotics
Paola, KANSAS

[bigqueue]

Good point....but at the same time, the robot touching you is NOT on the ramp.....so if this was the point, it worked.

-Quentin

Originally posted by Nelson G
Don't forget that if your robot is in contact with a stack it doesn't count. I take this to mean that if your robot is in contact with the robot supporting a box in your scoring area, the stack will be negated. You don't have to tip the opponents robot and face dq but just stay in contact with it.

Nelson Green
Team 1108
Panther Robotics
Paola, KANSAS

[redbeard0531]

I highly doubt a team will give up 25 king of the hill points, just to get negative QP!!!!!

A more likely situation is that a team will be a team getting less then 3 boxes in their scoring zone. lemme breake it down.

3 box = 2-1 = 1
2 box = 1-1 = 0
1box = 0-1 = -1
0 box = 0-0 = 0

my sugestion - very easy


the stack* with the most boxes in it is multiplied by the TOTAL number of boxes in the scoring zone. PERIOD, NO MATER WHAT!


*definition of stack

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stack) "An orderly pile, especially one arranged in layers."

Legalese / Mattsk=peak
"A group of boxes supported by 1 and only 1 box, or any nonbox item. each box can only directly support 1other box.

any stack not fitting this description is not elegible for the high stack.THATS IT; The boxes in it are just regular boxes!!!



high points (pun intended;)) in this plan




NO NEGATIVES!!!
VERY SIMPLE!!!
tallest stack possable = good!!
why shouldnt I get points i my bot is holding a stack?
Why should i rais my oponents score if my bot cant steal a stack in time?
did i say NO NEGATIVES!?! ;)


ps. this exact same message will be posted in all negative point threads, and in its own poll thread in the rules forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16355). any updates/replies should be posted in poll thread, so please make sticky. goto the poll thread and lets make it a petitition!!!!

pps. sorry bout the speling, gammer, too many !'s and bouts of RAGE; its 3:45 AM!!


-Matt Stearn
CUL8R

[jskene]

The cause for confusion is that there are two ways to calculate the base score.

Competition Manual Section 7.6 says containers in the tallest stack are not counted as part of the base. The base is simply all containers not in the tallest stack.

Rule SC8 says total containers in the stack minus the stack height are added to the base score, so some containers in a pyramid stack will count.

See an example at:
http://www.skene.org/robots/Final-Configuration.jpg


FIRST needs to decide which of these scoring methods will be used. If 7.6 is used, then there cannot be negative scores. If SC8 is used, then there can be.