The math of the cans...
 

So after discussing with some of my team members about whether we should make our step can grabbers faster (Yes!) I decided to run some numbers on whether it would be worth it in elims to grab, say, 2 cans, faster than anybody else. Or 4 cans but remove something major from our bot.
Or literally have a bot made of can grabbers that grabs all 4 cans in a fraction of a second, using superior firepower (all the cims + as many motors and pneumatics as you can fit in that 120lb-limit), plus our drivetrain for shoving noodles or totes.

I am not counting the value of noodles due the unknown factor in how long it takes to put them in cans or how many can fly to the other end of the field.

Most of this is calculated with a 3-stack assumption for really good teams. This is lowballing IMO, but you can see at the end that more stacks/ team means a more effective can grabber.

With 2 cans to each alliance, then it's evenly matched points-wise per alliance. If, in one match, an alliance can score 5 full stacks of totes + can (not counting noodles here) and one non-can stack that's
36 points/stack * 5 stacks + 12 points for non-can stack = 192 points.
A high number, to be sure, but doable depending on where you are (thankfully, my team is not attending Dallas lol). With no cans, only the 3 you begin with, then you run a point total of
36*3 + 12*3 (tote-only 6-stack) = 152 points.
Okay, that's not too bad, your average still remains relatively good, especially if against other teams you can match taking 2 cans off the step. Plus, you can still score totes instead of picking up cans once you run out to lessen the impact. The other team still gets only 192, which could be beatable overall with other elims scores.

TL;DR: If a really good robot this year can score 2 canned stacks (as in, that's the effective maximum for even the really good teams) then the can grabbing bot is somewhat ineffective in elims. Very situation-specific as to its other capabilities.

But...

If two alliance members can stack 3 fully loaded stacks, and the can grabber can only grab 4 cans, then that's a total capacity of
6*36 = 216 points.
with canned stacks. By contrast, if you can only get 2 cans off the step and a decent stacker (2 loaded stacks) with the two good stackers that's
5*36 + 3 * 12 = 216 points.
TL;DR: At any level of competition, two demon-stackers and a decent stacker w/ two-can grabber would do as well as an alliance containing a bot that grabs 4 cans and flops over with two demon-stackers. If the can-grabbing-flopper can cap 6-tote stacks with cans or load cans with noodles or something, then it has the upper hand.

If an alliance with the capability to get 4 cans the fastest makes it to semis, then it gets very interesting. Because each team plays 2 matches, and there's only 4 teams playing, a lowered score due to loss of the cans could impact the score enough to outweigh the fewer points that a specialty can-grabbing bot would make compared to a fast stacker.
Using the 3-stack/bot model,
4-Can grabber alliance:
6*36 = 216 points.
Other alliance:
3*36 + 6*12 = 180 points.
In matches without facing the 4-can grabber, but still obtaining two cans:
5*36 + 4*12 = 228 points.

Cutting it pretty close there at 228 vs. 216. But, at 6 matches worth 228, and 2 matches worth 180, the average is only 216 points! What an interesting coincidence.
So if you have that 4-can flopper, pushing some noodles around could possibly win you semis.
TL;DR: A 4-can bot that does nothing else can tie with an alliance made of really good stackers if it has stackers of similar level oiance in semis. It can beat the opposing alliance if it can push stuff around or do anything other than flop over.

On Einstein, the 4-can-and-flop is an almost guaranteed win. If every robot there can make, say, 3 loaded stacks over the course of the match, this is the flopper's alliance:
6*36 = 216 points.
This is the other alliance:
3*36 + 6*12 = 180 points.
In order to beat the flopper's alliance, the opposing alliance has to score an additional 18 totes. That's 3 extra stacks, or essentially one entire extra stack per robot on an alliance. And everyone's on Einstein here. 3 stacks is a lot of upper hand.

I'll have to wait until Dallas to see what the metagame is- how many stacks can the best of the best get? 3? 4? 5? The more stacks they can make, the more effective the can-grabber-flopper bot becomes (assuming the alliance is made up of good robots), as it becomes increasingly likely that they can score all 7 canned stacks every single match, and the opponent's average score drops even lower.

Take Einstein again. The opposing alliance has to make do with 3 cans. With only two functioning robots on the flopper's alliance after auton, at a capacity of 4 stacks per non-can bot, the flopper alliance makes
7*36 + 1*12 = 264 points.
Compared to
3*36 + 9*12 = 216 points for the no-canners.
AKA 24 extra totes to score to catch up. I'm not doing the math for semis, but I think it's still going to be pretty close for a can grabber vs. everybody else with higher points totals, although the can grabber would have a better upper hand.

So to summarize:
-On Einstein, cans are important. It could all be decided in the literally the first second.
-In elims, cans are important, but not as much. A can grabber has to still carry its weight, at least a bit.
-If a really good robot can stack 3 canned stacks per match, then a 4-can grabber is about equal to a 2-can grabber with 2 canned stackes in a match.
-If the metagame is 3 stacks/bot, then the 4-can-grabber is pretty good. As the metagame gets better, to 4 or even 5 stacks per robot, the value of the can grabber becomes much higher to the point of being overpowered.
-If a very high-seed team with 2-can grabber picks the next fastest 2-can grabber, it stands poised to win if it can pass through quarterfinals.



Personally I wouldn't want to build just a 4-can grabber as the robot unless we spent all season getting the code and mechanism perfect to the point where it was a guaranteed grab of all 4 in 1/10th of a second, and I knew it was impossible to be faster than us.
Which is totally possible.

Thoughts and errors in my concepts? Assuming all tote stackers are created equal is a fallacy, but it doesn't look like there will be a massive fissure between the fantastic teams and the good teams this year. Still, the 4-can flopper has to do something else other than grab the cans...

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I hope on einstein both teams can grab all 4 bins from the middle, and they all grab them at the same time and it comes down to whose grabber is stronger.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Zip ties on the can or just can shear is my guess. Those things are only so strong.
They might end up simply getting rid of the center cans or something. Nobody could let go for the entire match.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Gamesense had a good discussion on this. Your alliance still has to execute even if you get all 4 cans off the step. A knocked over stacked could end an alliances hope at making it out of any round.

Also noodles in the RCs mean that the opposite alliance needs another 3 totes per stack to catch up. There is something to be said for efficiently noodling the cans and ensuring the noodles stay in the cans. One of the reasons why so many people are amazed by 148 is their ability to play two different roles. They can both acquire cans, put noodles in them and put them on top of stacks while they stack at the same time. If that gives them an extra stack or possibly two out of the feeder station (say 4 or 5 by one robot with littered RCs on top) that is a huge advantage.

The average stacks per robot gets harder as more good teams get on an alliance. 30 totes behind the glass (5 stacks) and 18 right side up in the landfill (3 stacks). The 9th stack is likely way slower for even the best alliances since it's either upside down or pulled from the step.

The arms race (as talked about on GameSense) will be very interesting this year. It's going to be like 2011 but worse since teams can keep throwing power, weight, and design time at it. 3310 has set the bar at their reported 1/4 sec pull. I'm waiting for the 1st team to start wind tunnel testing their mechanism to reduce drag.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

:confused: start wind tunnel testing?

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Common, who doesn't like seeing an entire season decided in less than a quarter of a second? :rolleyes:

Re: The math of the cans...
 

that's how breakaway was on einstein. If you didn't stop....469(?) in autonomous you lost the match.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Yes, 469.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Just the last match of it. :)
Consider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmyph...ature=youtu.be
Even if it's sped up, it's definitely possible to reach those speeds and beyond with the infinite motors this year.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Have I underestimated you guys?

We all signed up for this drag race, right?

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Forget wind tunnel testing, we need to start looking at the relativistic effects that could be caused by time dilation at high can grabbing velocities...

Seriously, don't you guys have a regional to be getting ready for or something? Get some sleep. :D

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I'm waiting to see a robot towed over the step in a tug-o-war.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I asked that tug-o-war question on Gamesense after seeing all the auto can grabbers.

Cans will be HUGE in Einstein...in Elims not so much

I still think there may be fouls called over alliances "fighting" over RC's from the neutral zone but those decisions should be rare.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I really think at this point having the ability to grab cans in auto will just make you 1) a more appealing robot to scouting teams 2) prevent the other alliance from potentially scoring those cans which will be good for you even if you don't score them yourself 3) Make you more valuable in auton to robots who have a 3 tote auton, or 148 who can get all 3 cans and all 3 totes.

Ultimately, I think grabbing all 4 cans in auton with one robot will prove to be too slow unless someone can get all 4 crazy fast like 3310. I will be willing to bet that on Einstein, if divisions get lucky, the winners will be an alliance that can grab all four cans with 2 robots, while the third does a 3 tote auton, or even just drives forward to the auto zone. I am not too sure yet depending on alliance selections and the depth of the divisions.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

The CAN race is the only thing that keeps this game from a glorified skills challenge.

The GDC will improve the overall game by allowing ONLY 1 team from each alliance to touch the cans.
(restriction only applies in the autonomous period)

Re: The math of the cans...
 

You may want to take a look at the way things turned out again...

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Don't agree. That's a huge change in design philosophy.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

If you go with a "pure" can grabber (that is, ignore totes and depend on alliance partners), you are unlikely to seed high at regionals, due to the low numbers of stacks to place them on. This means you'd be shooting to be selected as part of an alliance. To be most attractive, you'd need to not only grab the cans, but be ready to either score them yourself, or orient them so that any prospective alliance partners can score them (some only use them upright, some prefer them horizontal). If you can carry all four cans over to an HP station in one trip to get them quickly noodled, that would help as well.

Our team has a landfill-mining robot with capability to put a vertical RC at level 6 (or at least 5). Other things being anywhere close to equal, a can-grabber with these features would likely be our first alliance selection.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Considering that the can race requires no tact or guile, just a really fast mechanism, this game is still just a glorified skills challenge.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

This game is all about EFFICIENCY and then skills.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I completely disagree.

This is a game of precision. A fast efficient machine that is not precise in it's placement and movement will be more of a hindrance to an alliance than a slower one that can precisely build stacks.

That being said, a fast efficient, and precise robot (with a skilled drive team) will be in the running for regional champs this year.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

135 seconds... an efficient robot (that scores points and improves stacks or top RCs) trumps a more precise one that takes longer to do same scoring task IMO

You only have to be "so precise"... more precision is a waste of time with only 135 seconds to build stacks and top them.

That being said I am encouraging our driver to pause a second or two to make sure his move is solid. Because every mistake wastes time and 135 seconds is very limited.

You watch the championships will have efficient robots as the main trait. Sure they will be precise enough.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Agreed, but for week 1 precision will be key IM(NS)HO.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Re: The math of the cans...
 

The GDC will improve the overall game by allowing ONLY 1 team from each alliance to touch the step cans
(restriction only in the autonomous period)

The design fundamentals are still similar with only 1 robot pulling Cans in Autonomous. The only real design difference is the ability to pick up 2 or 4 cans.

However, teams don't have to spend the entire season up to champs trying to get 0.1 second faster. Instead, teams might spend more time trying to get all 4 cans. It keeps the competition from turning into a throwback mini-bot race.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

No limiting it to one team makes it worse. The arms race to 2 cans is manageable by far more teams than the arms race to 4 cans. If they dramatically change the rules like that they would have needed to do so at the beginning of the seaosn. A rule change like that changes the value of a lot of designs. Limiting to 1 team would put the most crucial part of the game in the hands of just a few capable team. The 2 can race as it stands should be doable by a far greater number of teams. Also remember that the GDC has given the placement advantage to the lower seeded team in eliminations. In my view their goal is for most matches to be a 5 RC vs 5 RC battle and everything may be decided by the upside down totes, totes on the step, and the noodles.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I think something along the lines of "any robot may touch no more than one can that is in contact with the step at any given time during autonomous mode" would have been a better rule. It would have GREATLY increased the strategic aspects of robot placement, autonomous strategy, design (you could still build a robot to get multiple cans, but it must do them serially rather than in parallel), and still rewarded teams for iterating on the fastest can grabber.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Yes I agree that would have made a more interesting game. Allowing alliances to choose to have 3 robots grab cans instead of just 2. I think this would have led to very hard calls by the referee when a robot hit two RCs in quick succession and just knocks them instead of grabbing them it hard be hard to tell if they were ever touching both at the same time.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Yeah, I was just spitballing. I think there would be ways to fix that (perhaps even as simple as "you can only touch one of the center 4 cans during auto mode").

Re: The math of the cans...
 

This rule sounds more reasonable.
The GDC probably won't make the change, but here's hoping for offseason rule changes !


Agreed, the Recycle Rush skills challenge is a huge swing away from Aerial Assist teamwork centric game.

The GDC will be disappointed to find that the Rich will get Richer and the underdogs won't even make the elimination rounds.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I disagree on both counts. While Aerial Assist was presented as a teamwork-centric game, at the regional seeding and even much of our regional elimination level, there were few assist points scored compared to the number of points prevented by defense, because it was so much easier to get in the way than to gain possession of the ball.

On the other hand, in Recycle Rush moderate-power teams that can work as a team can score more points together than they can separately, especially if they have complementary capabilities; there's no requirement that each stack be built by exactly one robot. I think that one noodling canner and two tote stackers that can execute their tasks well can score much more together than three robots that can do both fairly. I believe this will be a game of specialization and teamwork at both low and high levels.

Further, smart alliance selection for elims/playoffs will be based more on teamwork capability than seeding rank or OPR.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I loved 2011 too!!!!!! :rolleyes:

At least this year the quarter of a second is at the beginning of the match, not the end. Saves you about two minutes that you can spend going to the concessions stand or something.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

That will be so disheartening: making it to that level of play, and it coming down to the less than the first second of the match to know if you won or not. I don't know of any other sport/activity that is similar to this.

And to be on the other side, if we get those 4 bins from the middle, it comes down to how well have you practiced as a driver. There is literally nothing the other team can do to prevent you from scoring, they can only attempt to outscore you, which won't happen at the top level of play.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Elite teams pick strategies that allow them to win regardless of who is on their alliance. Therefore elite teams this year will be able to do just about everything by themselves. A well formed alliance can counter that but elite teams will seed higher, for theost part, and will use their scouting to pick an alliance that will be very difficult to beat.

The rich will get richer in this game.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

You were not playing competitive Aerial Assist at a high level of play then. The entire fame was teamwork and coordinated defence without detracting from your own score.

This game has almost no match strategy.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I agree and will add that this game sort of levels the "skill" you need to compete and a high level. Its a very "blue collar" type game. So teams that take a mentality of building a workman like robot will do well especially if versatile enough to do any task.

This does not require an advanced mechanism. I think you will be surprised that some "dark horse" teams make it to Einstein along with the Powerhouses. Because they have shown to be valuable in ever changing game conditions this year...sort of like a Wes Welker or Danny Woodhead like robot.

This year is so unique that I think some Powerhouse teams who have not adapted to this mentality and use previous winning precision formulas will fail. There are many teams that if things aren't PERFECT they will be useless.

We plan to compete and I for one LOVE this bringing everyone to a certain level this year. So many variables its going to be a constantly changing leader board.

As for match strategy it will change with the other two you have...I find it fascinating.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

You've never heard of drag racing?

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I'll build a Julian Edelman robot. That robot doesn't drop Super bowl winning touchdown passes.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I think every game has had some level of strategy. At lower levels of play and earlier competitions, where teams are struggling to figure out how control and move game pieces, there won't be much of it. But the same was true last year--many matches (even when we competed during week 4) had very little strategy. We spent at least one match not moving, and then had to figure out how to control the yoga balls. It wasn't until much later that we figured out which roles we could play well.

This year, for very strong alliances, strategy will be key to them winning. They can't just tell their third bot to just inbound a ball and then play defense. Every robot will either contribute or be essentially useless. Robots may play very different, separate roles, but I'd still consider it a strategic game.

Like always, the range of matches will be huge, from little to no strategy in week 1 or less competitive to incredible alliances on Einstein. In the first set, matches will be difficult to watch and strategy won't play as huge a role, since just being able to control game pieces is usually enough. In the second, with many capable robots, how they divide up tasks will be crucial.

But only time can show what this game will bring.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Derp. You're right. An interesting aspect with the game being decided within the first second is that it involves zero human interaction when the game starts.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I'm not sure what you mean, but it is pretty clear that this is the year the rich get richer and the middle of the road teams have no way to differentiate themselves.

Look at 148 as an example. They will potentially empty the human loading stations entirely. That would be 3 stacks, with noodles and cans, and 2 stacks with no noodles/cans and 34 points in auton. Total of 184 points by themselves (plus coop points, if they do it themselves).

An average robot probably can't even create a 6 stack or takes the entire match to do so. Let's be charitable and say you could make a 6 stack and a 3 stack. That's only 18 points without someone getting cans off the step to cap with (which assumes someone other than 148 can cap cans). 18 points isn't trivial, but its 10% that of 148.

To be fair, even elite robots will fail to make 5 6 stacks on their own, so the bar isn't quite that high. But the overall contribution of the average team will still be minimal, compared to last year where you absolutely needed them to contribute in order to get high scores.

The only way a middle of the road team could have differentiated themselves was with a multi recycling can autonomous grabber...but the problem is the elite teams will all do it faster/better than those middle of the road teams do, leading to the middle of the road 2 (or 4) RC grabber robot being useless once lined up against the elite team with their 2 or 4 RC grabber robot.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

In 2011, at least 1st and 4th was worth 5 more points than 2nd and 3rd. Second doesn't matter at all this year.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Have you seen how long it takes 148 to stack 6 + RC+ noodle? (I saw a lot of clips of it driving around with 6 loaded which many bots can do) Remember theroretical scores are just that until duplicated in action under game conditions in 135 seconds. Its easy to be enamored/wowed with glossy reveal videos...lets see it in action first. It takes TIME to build any stack (even at HP station) and many of these robots need perfection to build those stacks in the first place.

Potentially empty the HP station is just that... potential not necessarily reality..our bot could potentially score all landfill totes doesn't prove anything. I think 148 will be solid but also rely to a certain extent on decent alliance players or they will fail it they expect to "do it all" and waltz into the Championship Finals.

I see a shakeup this year at the Top...not a predictable as in past do to variability in game conditions. Many robots are very similar in design and that makes it difficult for many to separate including powerhouse teams.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

For those of us that weren't involved in FRC back then, what did they do that was so great?

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Navigated to the platform and mechanically locked themselves in position to roll all the balls returned into play back into the goal.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I already said not all elite teams will be able to do what I laid out in that example...but they will still generate a vastly higher amount of points than the average team does. We shall find out how many 148 does this weekend. There's no reason they aren't physically capable of doing 3-4..and the 4th/5th are really irrelevant without the extra RCs (only 12 pts ea).

The latter point about perfection to build stacks is far more applicable to the average team than the elite team, which makes it more likely that the average robot will contribute even less.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

They did it so smoothly that it looks like that's what was supposed to happen. You have to watch another match from that year to appreciate it.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

This was not something that was easy to do within the framework of the rules that year, either.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

The can grabber arms race is going to be very interesting. I think that the middle containers stand a good chance of being broken during Einstein. You have the vertical surface of the step and the vertical surface of the totes to provide an unmovable plane to anchor your robot from going forward.

Clever teams will build mechanisms which cannot physically let the containers go across the step. When two of these teams are against each other, bad things may happen to containers and robots.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I hope that one match, 2 robots dont let go of the bins they are both holding and rely on the other 2 robots on their team to outstack the other, or better yet, it end in a tie.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Lot of interesting things have been said in this thread. In my opinion getting the cans is important but utilizing them is more important. If you are on a team where you are the only robot that can stack cans with the reveals I have seen I don't see anyone needing more then 3 cans on their own. The game piece choice this year was really interesting in the fact that it creates so much clutter. If you pull the cans first what do you do with em? There isn't really any place you can put them where they are completely out of the way because the corners are filled with totes. As impressive as step can autos are going to be I wonder if they are actually going to interfere with the scoring ability of teams. I mean if you pull 4 bins to the ground in auto they take up a lot of space.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

The vertical surface of the totes is anything but unmovable when speaking of a tug-of-war over the RCs. It also risks violating G24 (emphasis mine):
The vertical surface of the step is only 6" tall, and the RCs start above this. There isn't really a solid way to anchor to this - especially as only the very center of the step is accessible, and you can't be there at the start of the match, due to: G7(c):

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Absolutely. If neither you nor your alliance partners can score them, it's only marginally beneficial by pulling down averages all around. Of course, if you grab 3 or 4, there are auto points.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I think this will be a very interesting predicament in eliminations. Sort of like playing chicken of who lets go first. If you let go first, you give the other alliance the containers. But if both of you hang on, you both fall off the edge so to speak since both of your alliances were only scoring with 2 robots vs the others. How long a team holds on will depend greatly as to whether they need those containers for their offense to be strong enough to move on.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Now there's a Prisoner's Dilemma. Any chance that each alliance can trust the other to let go of two and take the other two?

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Nobody stopped 469 in autonomous on Einstein.
469 didn't win Einstein.

Even with an overwhelming strategy, you still have to execute. Getting the cans alone is not a chokehold strategy.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I think it will have to come down to who did their research on the other team, as well.

Looking at the average score per robot of the robots in the match not stuck holding onto the bins, does your two out stack the other 2?

If both teams are somewhat equal in scoring capability, allowing each team two of the bins is the same as not allowing any team any of the bins result wise to my understanding.

That would be something. You are on einstein, and your only role is to not let go of the bins you grab in autonomous.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

The problem is that logic only works in the finals of a divison, regional/district, or Einstein. If you are playing 2v2, you are actually playing 2v2v3v3v3v3v3v3 since you need the top half highest average score to advance. Giving containers up first will not only make the team your playing against stronger but also reduce your own average depending on how much time is left and how many stacks can be made by the other 2 on your alliance.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

meanwhile not knocking any items off the step onto the other side, or going over yourself! Other things being equal (which they never are), this battle will go to a horizontal 'bot (CoG as low and farthest from the step, while pushing against it). Maybe someone without wheels, or totally retractable ones. Actually, it will more likely go to an alliance that isn't on the field right now.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Interesting idea that could benefit the game, but it would also have created a ref quagmire. With the speeds that teams would attempt to engage and disengage with the containers (not to mention the results of containers and gravity afterwards), it would be awfully dicey in determining if a team was only touching one container at a time.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I still don't know how the referees will be able to judge the status of 6 robots, 6 totes, and all the containers in the 200 milliseconds between autonomous and teleop.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

I take this quote as one example of all of the similar quotes in this thread; yours just happens to be short.

I disagree with this viewpoint because this game is totally different from 2010. There is a limited number of cans and totes, to the point where if all the cans are acquired at the highest levels it is likely that no other can grabbers can compete.
I did my math with something that solely grabs cans. Add a drivetrain and a can topper and it becomes unstoppable.
I will elaborate on this later.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

While this is correct, it is only applicable at the highest levels of play. Until then the value of the RCs on the step is very low ... especially if they go unused.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

You're missing the point. I wasn't disputing the importance of the cans from a game theory perspective. I'm simply pointing out you still have to execute after obtaining the cans. Unlike controlling the goals in 2002, acquiring the cans is not a chokehold on its own. The cans AND scoring points are a chokehold. If you don't execute in the scoring department, you don't win.

Obviously the teams at the highest level of play should be able to execute in almost every match. However, almost every match is not the same as every match. Mistakes still happen, sometimes crippling ones. Look no further than the Einstein finals in 2010 for proof of that.

The alliances that win the battle for the center step will undoubtedly have an incredibly high winning percentage. However, that winning percentage will not be 100%

Re: The math of the cans...
 

"Highest levels of play" is variable.
For example, this year we are going to Utah, SVR, and Championships (probably for the lottery, hopefully if we win). Utah may not be as challenging as SVR, although I don't know what powerhouse teams are attending. SVR ahs 971, 254, 1678, sometimes some of the texas teams. It's very competitive IME. And of course Champs will be interesting.
So depending on the competition, it changes the play. At SVR, for example, I would definitely play a tote-and-flopper, maybe with a wimpy elevator for can topping. I don't know if our team could support it at Utah, and so I would ahve to let one go.
At Champs it's a pretty good chance at victory IMO.
The purpose of a bot like this is to win, not to seed high. Sure, it's a gamble, but a traditional bot has to undergo far more fabrication and testing, as it has to be a multipurpose bot. But a tote-flopper with can topping abilities has to only be loosely tested because it has to lift only 8lbs at once. Add a capable drivetrain and the only thing that has to be tested is the grabber itself- and you have weeks to perfect that. So the odds of winning, even for a middling team otherwise (resources, mentors, etc.) are actually quite good.
Driver practice is much less because they simply have to avoid stacks and top off cans at a rate of 6 or 7 per match. One repetitive action over and over again.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

You don't seed high with this; you depend on being picked. A point analysis and minimal scoring capabilities is enough to allow a can grabber to win. That was the point of starting this topic, to discuss how overpowered a fast 4-can is points-wise.

Randomosity isn't something you can really control, and your bot's main mechanism failing entirely in elims would be rare, depending on your mechanism. Not much you can do about that, regardless of whether it's a can grabber or stacker.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Nothing in my post was talking about seeding.

I'm pointing out the 100% undeniable fact that the cans are not a chokehold strategy in themselves. You still have to score points to establish chokehold. That's a fundamental difference from 2002, where controlling the goals meant you won the game, regardless of how many balls were scored. While the odds are stacked dramatically against the team that loses the can race, this game is not over after the can race.

The Einstein finals in 2010 are an example of a similar scenario. The odds were stacked against any team failing to stop 469 from establishing position, but the game wasn't automatically lost, either. 469's alliance still had to execute for the remainder of the match. Same holds true in Recycle Rush.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

It's pretty easy to execute a strategy when the game prevents defense from being played. It comes down to driver practice at that point. There is zero potential for the other team to "outplay" the team that gets the middle bins, only the hope that they mess up.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

So we're considering the entire alliance then, my bad. I thought you were referring to the one can grabber.
That makes sense. You do still have to score the cans across your alliance. However, you only need good stackers to win. Sure, they're bound to be less common than bad stackers, but I feel like due to the nature of the game finding good stackers won't be that hard.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Assuming a perfect auto, if your alliance gets all 4 containers, to guarantee victory in finals, your alliance needs 7 fully capped stacks of 5 or 6 fully capped stacks of 6.
While that isn't a small number of stacks, its certainly doable by championship alliances. Although not necessarily consistently.

Interestingly enough it requires more totes to execute a chokehold with stacks of 6 than stacks of 5.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

Not really, as 5 stacks of 6 and one stack of 5, all capped, score the same as 7 stacks of 5, assuming "normal height" stacking. Both 35 totes, both 210 points. And assuming, of course, that you did get all four RCs onto your side.

Re: The math of the cans...
 

148 put up 4 stacks of 6 by themselves, would have been 5 if their last stack didn't take a tumble going to the ramp.

Add the totes from the landfill to that and you're looking at at least 7 stacks (more if teams can effectively use upsidedown totes.

The robots grabbing from the landfill better have some sort of on board vision for the end of the game....

Re: The math of the cans...
 

On the other hand, looking at Dallas regional right now, teams cap out at just over 200 points, of that maybe 5 canned stacks. Championships will be interesting, as this is only week 1.