“The height of the tallest stack … measured in whole stack units … is subtracted from the total number of containers to establish the “base score”…”
Now consider this:
Boxes on ground: 4
Stack Height:4 (Boxes in stack : 4)
Base Score = Boxes on ground + Boxes in stack = 8
Therefore, the score = (8 Base Score-4 High stack)*4 High Stack score=16pts.
Now if, somehow, the 4 box stack had a height of 5 (all of them were on end or something) this happens:
Boxes on ground: 4
Stack Height:5 (Boxes in stack : 4)
Base Score = 4 Boxes on ground + 4 Boxes in stack = 8
Therefore, the score = (8 Base Score-5 High stack)*5 High Stack
Score = 15pts.
With this equation, you can score LESS for turning a box on its side. Am I reading this correctly? This is real weird if I am.
It sounds right to me. I think the likely-hood of actually have 4 boxes reach the height of 5 SHUs is pretty unlikely (or impossible) but I understand your point.
The reason they changed the wording was to clear up what would happen if you just have a big pile of boxes. I think they may not have thought of that when they rewrote it though.
On their longest side, the boxes are approx. 9" taller than their “height”. On the shorter side, it’s 2". Therefore, to make a stack of four be 5 SHU’s, you’d neeed to have either two on their long ends or one long and two-three short ones. The likelihood of being able to keep three-four bins stacked any way other than nested is very low. Plus, it’s darn close to impossible to stack two the long way.
Overall, I wouldn’t worry about it. It’s just not going to come up.
As has already been discussed in several other threads, for a given number of containers the best possible score is achieved when half of the containers are on the floor and half are in the stack. Moving away from that ratio will always decrease your score. In the example you cited, the best score is 4 on the floor and 4 in the stack, for a score of 16. Making the stack higher by one container/SHU (by turning containers on end to go above the 5 SHU mark) has the effect of reducing the number of containers on the floor. By doing this, you have moved away from the optimal floor/stack ratio, and your score drops.
The important thing to realise here is that the number of containers “on the floor” plus the number of SHUs can never be more than the total number of containers in the scoring zone. If, by stacking the containers on end or edge, you build up enough extra height to go the the next SHU mark, you have effectively created a “virtual container” that has to come from somewhere. In that case, it is “virtually removed” from the containers on the floor.
Regarding your virtual stack comment, per rule SC9, which defines the multiplier stack, what if we have the following scenario:
An opponent alliance’s robot is in your scoring zone. They lift one bin to a multiplier stack height (as indicated by the measuring stick) of 10 SHUs. Does this constitute a legal multiplier stack?
An interesting situation might arise with this scoring formula if the height of a stack supported high in the air by the opponents robot in your scoring zone is measured from the ground.
For example, if your opponent is trying to steal a box and has it 10 SHU’s in the air but you have only 5 other box in your scoring zone. Your score would be stack*(total-stack). This would give 10*(6-10) or -40.
*Originally posted by dlavery *
**The important thing to realise here is that the number of containers “on the floor” plus the number of SHUs can never be more than the total number of containers in the scoring zone.
-dave
**
Your scenario violates that premise, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they clarify the stack rule to require bin-to-bin contact with the ground. That would allow opponent robots to support or touch your stack, but not allow them to inflate your stack height.
On the other hand, maybe this is a loop hole to decrease your opponent’s score???
In the example above, I was speaking about the general case when you have a group of containers on the floor, and no other external factors affecting the containers (i.e. opposing alliance robots, your own robots, contact with field components, sudden loss of gravity, etc.). In the general case, you would want to be sure that the total “things” that you are using to determine your score (i.e. the scoring bins on the floor, and the effective number of bins in the multiplier stack) is the same as the actual number of physical “things” in the scoring zone.
What I am trying to communicate is the philosophy behind the scoring structure and rules, and (in the few areas where I have some knowledge) what they are attempting to achieve. The exact wording of the rules, and exactly how they will be interpreted and enforced, comes from FIRST, not me (or anyone else). Look to them for exact definitions on how a specific ruling might apply to a specific scenario.
I gotta get a lawyer to tell me when to keep my mouth shut…
Hmm, so if your robot could lift your opponent’s stack so that the top of it was high enough, you could guarentee that your opponent never got any points at all from bins. Isn’t that a bit of a loophole?
Regarding your virtual stack comment, per rule SC9, which defines the multiplier stack, what if we have the following scenario:
An opponent alliance’s robot is in your scoring zone. They lift one bin to a multiplier stack height (as indicated by the measuring stick) of 10 SHUs. Does this constitute a legal multiplier stack?
Per rule SC9 and Game Section 7.6, it is unclear.
Any information would be appreciated.
Thanks.
:yikes: **
Um, SC7 eliminates your scenario. As it says, scoring containers must be touching the scoring zone to count. Therefore, the 10 containers in your scenario are out of play.
