I hope that one match, 2 robots dont let go of the bins they are both holding and rely on the other 2 robots on their team to outstack the other, or better yet, it end in a tie.
Lot of interesting things have been said in this thread. In my opinion getting the cans is important but utilizing them is more important. If you are on a team where you are the only robot that can stack cans with the reveals I have seen I don’t see anyone needing more then 3 cans on their own. The game piece choice this year was really interesting in the fact that it creates so much clutter. If you pull the cans first what do you do with em? There isn’t really any place you can put them where they are completely out of the way because the corners are filled with totes. As impressive as step can autos are going to be I wonder if they are actually going to interfere with the scoring ability of teams. I mean if you pull 4 bins to the ground in auto they take up a lot of space.
The vertical surface of the totes is anything but unmovable when speaking of a tug-of-war over the RCs. It also risks violating G24 (emphasis mine):
G24 ROBOTS may not cause TOTES, RECYCLING CONTAINERS, and/or LITTER to completely transfer from their side of the FIELD, or from the STEP, onto the opposite side of the FIELD.
The vertical surface of the step is only 6" tall, and the RCs start above this. There isn’t really a solid way to anchor to this - especially as only the very center of the step is accessible, and you can’t be there at the start of the match, due to: G7©:
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
Absolutely. If neither you nor your alliance partners can score them, it’s only marginally beneficial by pulling down averages all around. Of course, if you grab 3 or 4, there are auto points.
I think this will be a very interesting predicament in eliminations. Sort of like playing chicken of who lets go first. If you let go first, you give the other alliance the containers. But if both of you hang on, you both fall off the edge so to speak since both of your alliances were only scoring with 2 robots vs the others. How long a team holds on will depend greatly as to whether they need those containers for their offense to be strong enough to move on.
Now there’s a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Any chance that each alliance can trust the other to let go of two and take the other two?
Nobody stopped 469 in autonomous on Einstein.
469 didn’t win Einstein.
Even with an overwhelming strategy, you still have to execute. Getting the cans alone is not a chokehold strategy.
I think it will have to come down to who did their research on the other team, as well.
Looking at the average score per robot of the robots in the match not stuck holding onto the bins, does your two out stack the other 2?
If both teams are somewhat equal in scoring capability, allowing each team two of the bins is the same as not allowing any team any of the bins result wise to my understanding.
That would be something. You are on einstein, and your only role is to not let go of the bins you grab in autonomous.
The problem is that logic only works in the finals of a divison, regional/district, or Einstein. If you are playing 2v2, you are actually playing 2v2v3v3v3v3v3v3 since you need the top half highest average score to advance. Giving containers up first will not only make the team your playing against stronger but also reduce your own average depending on how much time is left and how many stacks can be made by the other 2 on your alliance.
meanwhile not knocking any items off the step onto the other side, or going over yourself! Other things being equal (which they never are), this battle will go to a horizontal 'bot (CoG as low and farthest from the step, while pushing against it). Maybe someone without wheels, or totally retractable ones. Actually, it will more likely go to an alliance that isn’t on the field right now.
Interesting idea that could benefit the game, but it would also have created a ref quagmire. With the speeds that teams would attempt to engage and disengage with the containers (not to mention the results of containers and gravity afterwards), it would be awfully dicey in determining if a team was only touching one container at a time.
I still don’t know how the referees will be able to judge the status of 6 robots, 6 totes, and all the containers in the 200 milliseconds between autonomous and teleop.
I take this quote as one example of all of the similar quotes in this thread; yours just happens to be short.
I disagree with this viewpoint because this game is totally different from 2010. There is a limited number of cans and totes, to the point where if all the cans are acquired at the highest levels it is likely that no other can grabbers can compete.
I did my math with something that solely grabs cans. Add a drivetrain and a can topper and it becomes unstoppable.
I will elaborate on this later.
While this is correct, it is only applicable at the highest levels of play. Until then the value of the RCs on the step is very low … especially if they go unused.
You’re missing the point. I wasn’t disputing the importance of the cans from a game theory perspective. I’m simply pointing out you still have to execute after obtaining the cans. Unlike controlling the goals in 2002, acquiring the cans is not a chokehold on its own. The cans AND scoring points are a chokehold. If you don’t execute in the scoring department, you don’t win.
Obviously the teams at the highest level of play should be able to execute in almost every match. However, almost every match is not the same as every match. Mistakes still happen, sometimes crippling ones. Look no further than the Einstein finals in 2010 for proof of that.
The alliances that win the battle for the center step will undoubtedly have an incredibly high winning percentage. However, that winning percentage will not be 100%
“Highest levels of play” is variable.
For example, this year we are going to Utah, SVR, and Championships (probably for the lottery, hopefully if we win). Utah may not be as challenging as SVR, although I don’t know what powerhouse teams are attending. SVR ahs 971, 254, 1678, sometimes some of the texas teams. It’s very competitive IME. And of course Champs will be interesting.
So depending on the competition, it changes the play. At SVR, for example, I would definitely play a tote-and-flopper, maybe with a wimpy elevator for can topping. I don’t know if our team could support it at Utah, and so I would ahve to let one go.
At Champs it’s a pretty good chance at victory IMO.
The purpose of a bot like this is to win, not to seed high. Sure, it’s a gamble, but a traditional bot has to undergo far more fabrication and testing, as it has to be a multipurpose bot. But a tote-flopper with can topping abilities has to only be loosely tested because it has to lift only 8lbs at once. Add a capable drivetrain and the only thing that has to be tested is the grabber itself- and you have weeks to perfect that. So the odds of winning, even for a middling team otherwise (resources, mentors, etc.) are actually quite good.
Driver practice is much less because they simply have to avoid stacks and top off cans at a rate of 6 or 7 per match. One repetitive action over and over again.
You don’t seed high with this; you depend on being picked. A point analysis and minimal scoring capabilities is enough to allow a can grabber to win. That was the point of starting this topic, to discuss how overpowered a fast 4-can is points-wise.
Randomosity isn’t something you can really control, and your bot’s main mechanism failing entirely in elims would be rare, depending on your mechanism. Not much you can do about that, regardless of whether it’s a can grabber or stacker.
Nothing in my post was talking about seeding.
I’m pointing out the 100% undeniable fact that the cans are not a chokehold strategy in themselves. You still have to score points to establish chokehold. That’s a fundamental difference from 2002, where controlling the goals meant you won the game, regardless of how many balls were scored. While the odds are stacked dramatically against the team that loses the can race, this game is not over after the can race.
The Einstein finals in 2010 are an example of a similar scenario. The odds were stacked against any team failing to stop 469 from establishing position, but the game wasn’t automatically lost, either. 469’s alliance still had to execute for the remainder of the match. Same holds true in Recycle Rush.
It’s pretty easy to execute a strategy when the game prevents defense from being played. It comes down to driver practice at that point. There is zero potential for the other team to “outplay” the team that gets the middle bins, only the hope that they mess up.
So we’re considering the entire alliance then, my bad. I thought you were referring to the one can grabber.
That makes sense. You do still have to score the cans across your alliance. However, you only need good stackers to win. Sure, they’re bound to be less common than bad stackers, but I feel like due to the nature of the game finding good stackers won’t be that hard.