Where is the sweet spot?

[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.

[page2067]

The answer comes back as 5. over time.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

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.

It's not "too much" optimism; it's the right amount.

I agree with you that most teams still hope to do better than they will actually achieve. My team just happens to be one of the very few exceptions. This is closely tied in with what the FIRST Robotics Competition is all about. In a competitive venue, safe designs constitute "playing not to lose"; bold, innovative, (and therefore risky) designs are "playing to win". If you don't push your limits, you're really just imposing your own limits.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

It's not "too much" optimism; it's the right amount.

I agree with you that most teams still hope to do better than they will actually achieve. My team just happens to be one of the very few exceptions. This is closely tied in with what the FIRST Robotics Competition is all about. In a competitive venue, safe designs constitute "playing not to lose"; bold, innovative, (and therefore risky) designs are "playing to win". If you don't push your limits, you're really just imposing your own limits.

Playing to win means a correct and solid analysis of the game. I admired teams that built 30 point climbers in 2013, but they were not "winners" in the sense that they didn't win the game (and teams like 118 abandoned their climber, even though it worked). My favorite robot of 2008 was 1583's little RC car, because they correctly understood that the field would be clogged, and a simple design that drove around in circles could win points. Deciding that building a robot based on the simplest math of the game is the way to win is usually foolish.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

In a competitive venue, safe designs constitute "playing not to lose"; bold, innovative, (and therefore risky) designs are "playing to win". If you don't push your limits, you're really just imposing your own limits.

Originally Posted by mrnoble

Playing to win means a correct and solid analysis of the game.

That's like rebutting a statement that the coach must train football players so they are fast and strong and skilled with a statement about the importance of game strategy and clock control. They're complementary, not exclusive.

If everyone on team 3946 decided that we would never be able to stack more than six game pieces in a match, we would have stopped programming last week and had limited driver practice and certainly be right. If we strive for 30, we'll keep getting better right up to (and into) competition. If we actually average 15 per match as a result, was that "too much" optimism?

[asid61]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

It's not "too much" optimism; it's the right amount.

I agree with you that most teams still hope to do better than they will actually achieve. My team just happens to be one of the very few exceptions. This is closely tied in with what the FIRST Robotics Competition is all about. In a competitive venue, safe designs constitute "playing not to lose"; bold, innovative, (and therefore risky) designs are "playing to win". If you don't push your limits, you're really just imposing your own limits.

I agree with this. While there are exceptions, I very highly doubt the teams on Einstein are going to be making 3-tote stacks. If you can't make it to Einstein, then the point is moot anyway and you can go on making 3-tote stacks.
It comes down to how much you want a working robot with no risks versus a probably working robot that has potentially higher scores.
You do have to be consistent though.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by asid61

While there are exceptions, I very highly doubt the teams on Einstein are going to be making 3-tote stacks.

Did you think the Einstein finals in 2013 would have 30 point climbing?

[mrnoble]

I am certainly a fan of teams making their own goals for each year's game. If a team decides that their goal is to build a robot that is exceptionally beautiful, or elegant, or that achieves the most difficult task in the game, or that pushes the team's capability in programming, or manufacturing, or whatever, that is fine. But those are all different goals from building a robot that wins.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

Did you think the Einstein finals in 2013 would have 30 point climbers?

Apples and axe murderers. In 2013 you could score points by climbing and by throwing frisbees. This year, everybody stacks, so it's a matter of stability.
The vast majority of 30-point climbs were slow; the only really fast one I saw was 254 (of course there are probably others that I didn't see). It's the speed that matters, and even teams like 118 had a pretty slow 30-pointer. I didn't see a robot scoring 30 points in 7 seconds to compete with 254. Their elimination basically meant the end of a good 30-pointer on Einstein.

This year you can see tons of teams making 6-stacks really fast. 118, Shockwave, 148, and most likely other top teams as well like 254 and 1678.
5-tote stack maybe. But almost certainly 6-tote stacks. Thet're just worth so many more points when topped with a RC- which is what limits the big teams in this game.
There are only 7 RCs max for each team. In an even match, there are 5. Look at Shockwave's reveal video. A 6-stack in around 30 seconds. Multiply by 3 robots and assume that they are not outshining everybody by a lot.
5 RCs means 6-tote stacks. After the RCs are used up do what you will.

EDIT: I don't think I'll reply to this thread again. I see your point, you see mine, not a lot of reason to just rehash.