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!

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.

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.

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 ;)

to elaborate...
 

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

Negative scores are not possible.

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.

Re: to elaborate...
 

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

Re: Re: to elaborate...
 

Ut oh =)

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.

[Edit] 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.[/Edit]
- Patrick

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.

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?

PEOPLE! Is this really PRACTICAL?
 

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.

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

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!

I sure hope not!
 

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