Re: alliances selection
 

The difference between a stack of six and a stack of five is only 6 points, and if the stack of six contains no litter, there is no difference in point value at all.

3 stacks of 5 with 2 containers and litter: 36*2+5*2=82
2 stacks of 6 with container and litter: 42*2=84
Only a 2 point difference between the 2 strategies executed perfectly.
Now,
3 stacks of 5 with 2 containers and litter at 97%: 82*.97= 79.5
2 stacks of 6 with containers and litter at 75%: 84*.75= 63

Therefore the more consistent stacks of 5 are generally the better option.

However, the number of containers your alliance is able to utilize can also factor in to what height you should be building stacks at. If your alliance only has the three containers available to use, stacks of 6 better utilize your containers than stacks of 5. But not much better in the long run if the 6 stacks is less consistent.

Re: alliances selection
 

That is not quite right. Team 503 (finalist) wanted to starve the winning alliance of containers, they were not necessarily interested in using them themselves. They realized that if they could get the four containers off the step (including winning the race in autonomous) than they limit the amount of points the winning alliance could get. The other two containers on the step were left untouched after 503 lost the autonomous race.

Re: alliances selection
 

How is this any different then stopping them from scoring points? By 548 taking them, it pretty much put a seal on winning based off of what the number 1 alliances average score was. And I wouldn't say that they weren't interested, they still would of had to match the 1 alliance with stacks and then place up a 4th stack because they were behind from HOT's auto. Neither her nor there, the cans decided the outcome of that match.

-Ronnie

Re: alliances selection
 

Finals match one we fought for the cans with the intention of keeping the first alliance to three capped attacks (one five and two sixes most likely) while we would be able to put up two capped sixes from 3641, a five from us, a four using DHDC'S totes and our container, and possibly another short one if we got lucky with time. We lost the race and therefore could only get two sixes and a five. Finals match two we kept the same plan and lost again, but the other alliance was only able to get three stacks up. Of course we had no idea they would "mess up" so we raced. Had we known that they would only get three, we should've taken the two uncontested containers and then we would likely have gotten another cap and won the match. We were definitely planning on using four containers with five being a stretch goal.

Also, our mechanism was very hard to line up and we hadn't yet practiced lining it up with operator controls instead of by hand.

Re: alliances selection
 

Three stacks of 5 with 2 RCs is better. It is only 2 points less than 2 stacks of 6 with 2 RCs.

Re: alliances selection
 

Consistency is generally more important. Plus your third uncapped stack might be capped by an alliance partner. Dropping one of your 6 stacks is a risk that is unattractive. We made the early decision to focus on 5-stacks for strategic reasons for which you can work out the math.