Where is the sweet spot?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

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

I expected some, but am not greatly surprised. In 2013, if the alliances at the top level had generally been able to score all 60-odd discs they had available to them in 150 seconds in their highest-scoring goals (also leaving few/none for the other alliance to sweep up), being able to climbing high as well would have been critical.

This year is a bit swapped around from 2013. I expect top teams, and quite a few medium-level teams, to get a tote stack or 3 RCs (or both) to the auto zone. Once you have a tote stack, you only need to spend a few more seconds on coopertition, provided that the center aisle to the step is clear. The RC is the highest-value game piece, and apart from the yellow totes, the scarcest. Further, its point value is directly proportional to its altitude. This means that getting RCs and scoring them high will be the most important things in teleop. Best scoring of noodles is next, finally followed by scoring any remaining totes (including the ones on the step). Uncapped totes do not need to be in such tall stacks, though you have to be careful not to run out of room on the scoring platforms before you run out of totes. As processing litter is only 1 point per piece for so few pieces, and usually requires a different mechanism, I would be surprised if many robots, including on Einstein, had noodle manipulators at all. I expect even fewer with noodle manipulators that aren't either serendipitous or about as complex as a plow blade.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by asid61

Apples and axe murderers.

I wish I'd said that!

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I wish I'd said that!

And I wish neither of you had, since what I have wanted to know from the get-go is, where do you think the average team should be aiming to maximize their own scoring, not what will win Einstein. But I guess I can safely put you both down for "six".

[matthewdenny]

My thought is that if your goal is to do well at a regional stacks of 4 would work well if you are fast in transporting them to the scoring area, and maybe stacks of 5 if you are slower. Both of these assume you have a robot on your alliance that can cap some of them.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by asid61

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.

Did you put a stopwatch on how long it took to build those 6 stacks? Those videos put the robots in best light.