Where is the sweet spot?

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

This was one of the biggest debates our team had for the design phase: what level stack is going to provide maximum scores most consistently? Not in theory, but in practice, where tall towers tumble, and take time to make that could have been spent better.

Obviously the best teams will do six with RC consistently. But is it really wise for everyone to keep trying to stack six?

Anyway, we eventually settled on three. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks. I'd do a poll, but I don't know how.

Using some linear programming and matrix math it's pretty easy to set up an objective function to calculate what height of stacks you should make using you handling times as constraints.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by JohnSchneider

Using some linear programming and matrix math it's pretty easy to set up an objective function to calculate what height of stacks you should make using you handling times as constraints.

I'd love to see that, and your results.

[Boltman]

Its the number of RC's your alliance has and max stack size taking into account that number plus the time it takes to insert a noodle. Minus the time to add to co-op stack plus any time left over to score totes and that will vary every match based on your alliance partners and noodle throwing.

[mrnoble]

...

[asid61]

I think it's just 6. It really depends on where you're aiming IMO.
At the highest level, it has to be 6 due to the cans. The cans determine the game at the high levels in regionals and on Einstein.
If you want to win a local regional, it's probably okay to go for less than 6 IMO. It might also be fine to go for fewer if you have valuable features like can grabbing or can capping.

[TDav540]

I'd expect that, at the regional level, a quality alliance will be able to do a four to six four stacks, and if they control most of the bins then that will be sufficient. At Champs, stacking 5 with a bin in the playoffs will be a minimum.

[mrnoble]

Can someone do a poll? I can't figure it out.

[MrForbes]

Seems to me it's pretty dependent upon your robot design. (or maybe, your robot design is dependent upon what you chose as your own "sweet spot").

Our robot can do 4 but is happier with 3. But it can cap 5 if someone else makes the stack.

[mrnoble]

To clarify: I am concerned (or rather, interested) that we are overestimating how stable sixes are, and how quickly we make them. It's a classic gambler's fallacy: I've already put X dollars into this slot machine, so I'll stay here until it pays off. Drivers will underestimate the amount of extra time they are taking gingerly placing their carefully built full stack on the platform, and will waste time that could have been better spent making a second (shorter) stack for the same point value.

[Kpchem]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

...waste time that could have been better spent making a second (shorter) stack for the same point value.

It is only a waste of time if that stack is not capped with a recycle bin. If the stack is capped, it is more advantageous to have a taller stack.

[xXhunter47Xx]

I've been running strat over and over in my head because it is kind of my job...

IMO if you are on an alliance that can reliably stack recycling cans on top of stacks, and you have robots that are capable of making 6 tall stacks comfortably, then it is definitely worth it to make 6 tall stacks because you have a bot that can stack them with a RC.

Otherwise, if you have to stack the RC yourself or do not have an alliance member that can cap the stacks off, it is much quicker to make stacks of three to four and make a lot of them.

It's kind of like R-strategists and K-strategists. Do you want to make a lot of little tiny ones or do you want to make little, but big ones? It depends on the resources you have.

[IronicDeadBird]

From what I am gathering here it seems to be the general consensus is that the best way to score is the biggest stack you can make with a recycling bin as a cycle. Make a giant stack with a recycling bin, wash, rinse, repeat.
From practice videos that is all I see.
Is anyone willing to openly admit that they plan on deviating from that?

[GeeTwo]

In addition to how tall your robot can reach, it depends on how long it takes you to line up to stack, and how precise your stacks are (do they nest, or sit on top, ready to fall in if jostled). Fast, precise stackers can go six. If you're either fast or precise but not both, probably four or five. If neither, probably two or three. If you can't make nested stacks, you may want to consider stacks that completely change direction so they don't "settle" later on.

We're hoping to get enough speed and precision to score four totes, then top that with two more totes and and RC, at least for the first stack or two. Later, as the cost of a lost stack goes up, we may go down to four. Until/unless you run out of space on the scoring platforms, there's no need to make uncapped stacks tall; they're 2 points per tote at any altitude (below the top of the backstop).

[MrForbes]

Moving a stack without it falling over, and placing it without falling over, become more difficult for most robots as the stack gets taller. The normal way to prevent it falling over is to move more slowly.

Some teams figured out good ways to move and place a tall stack quickly. They'll do well.

[mrnoble]

I am willing to bet all my rep points ("just dots", of course) that most teams are way overestimating the value of the tallest stack in terms of their actual capability. That includes most of CD, from what I've read for the past four weeks or so. I think the winners of many regionals will include robots that stack for three or four with RC. And that many robots that can stack higher will start to stack lower on purpose.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I am very interested on how this plays out. I just think that I see too much optimism out there currently.