View Full Version : Rookie Teams in Elims
I made an observation at the Los Angeles regional this past weekend that, despite the fact that 18 out of 66 teams (>27%) were rookies, there was not a single rookie team selected for elimination rounds. In total, only 1 rookie team (who was a picker) out of 24 participated in elimination rounds at all, despite my observation of several rookies who seemed to have robots well qualified for the job.
I'm curious if a member of a veteran team can comment on why this was the case:
Do veteran teams bias their scouting towards veterans due to a concern over lack of driver experience or teamwork in eliminations?
Is there a sense of favoritism between teams that know each other more so than rookies?
Would gracious professionalism have any impact on "inviting" a skilled rookie to join their alliance -- all other considerations being equal?
Or, was this simply a case that the rookie field this year simply did not have robots that met the compatibility and skill level the veteran pickers were looking for?
pfreivald
19-03-2012, 19:11
3951 was the second-picked (so third robot) on the winning alliance. They were good at bridges and defense, so complimented 1507 and 191 very well.
4124 did admirably on the second-seed alliance, too.
Sorry, I need to clarify. There was a reasonably evenly distributed number of rookies vs veterans at most regionals, which I witnessed in San Diego and saw results for at other regionals.
I'm wondering why Los Angeles was an anomaly in this case?
David Guzman
19-03-2012, 19:20
Part of the problem is lack of scouting.
Many times the picking lists don't get made until right before the alliance selection ceremony and in the rush of getting it done, unknown team numbers get overlooked if their robot wasn't noted by good scouting.
If you haven't done the proper scouting you are more likely to select teams that you already know rather than new numbers that are new to you. So in a way is not the rookie team's fault but the veteran scouter.
It is important that rookie teams approach those teams in the top 10 and tell them about their robot and why they should keep them in mind. Sometimes you can even ask them to watch you matches on Saturday morning and tell them the match numbers. If you talk to the right person, usually they are more likely to keep you in mind.
AdamHeard
19-03-2012, 19:26
Part of the problem is lack of scouting.
Many times the picking lists don't get made until right before the alliance selection ceremony and in the rush of getting it done, unknown team numbers get overlooked if their robot wasn't noted by good scouting.
If you haven't done the proper scouting you are more likely to select teams that you already know rather than new numbers that are new to you. So in a way is not the rookie team's fault but the veteran scouter.
It is important that rookie teams approach those teams in the top 10 and tell them about their robot and why they should keep them in mind. Sometimes you can even ask them to watch you matches on Saturday morning and tell them the match numbers. If you talk to the right person, usually they are more likely to keep you in mind.
The issue at La wasn't scouting. Many experienced teams were picking.
There simply weren't many good rookies at La, and were enough non-rookies that were better to fill the top 24.
David Guzman
19-03-2012, 19:34
The issue at La wasn't scouting. Many experienced teams were picking.
There simply weren't many good rookies at La, and were enough non-rookies that were better to fill the top 24.
Makes since, I didn't watch the LA Regional and wasn't talking about any specific event.
I was thinking in general at any given event, sometimes this is the case when high number teams ("unknown" teams) with good robots don't get selected.
aditya29
19-03-2012, 19:42
Part of the problem is lack of scouting.
Many times the picking lists don't get made until right before the alliance selection ceremony and in the rush of getting it done, unknown team numbers get overlooked if their robot wasn't noted by good scouting.
If you haven't done the proper scouting you are more likely to select teams that you already know rather than new numbers that are new to you. So in a way is not the rookie team's fault but the veteran scouter.
Totally agree with this. I doubt anyone has an intentional bias against rookies, but in a situation where scouters are hurriedly putting together a pick list, they're likely to favor veteran teams who they know have been successful in previous years. Unless the rookie team has really stood out in the current regional (and the scouters have done a good job of noting this!), rookie teams will probably be ranked lower than other "familiar" teams.
For what it's worth, I think the NYC regional had about 10 or 11 rookie teams, and none of them were picked for elims. In fact, 10/24 teams had team numbers under 1000, and 16/24 were under 2000. Very veteran-heavy.
DonRotolo
19-03-2012, 21:14
Having been on the other end of being picked, I too questioned whether there was a bias against "young" teams.
Now that we have veteran experience, I can safely state that there is no such bias.
Experienced teams pick their alliance partners based on their scouting data, and how well a given robot will perform within that team's strategy for winning. The picking team wants to maximize their chances of winning, so they pick the "best" team available. The issue is with the definition of "Best".
For 1676 at Rutgers, "Best" meant a nimble defensive bot with smart drivers that knew how to avoid fouls. They also needed to be able to balance well, again driver skill. Our pick of 1370 had these qualities. Check their rank to see if they were in the top 24 or not...
So if a rookie team fit the criteria, it would be picked, If not, it wouldn't. Simple as that.
(By the way: Having your team lobby us to get picked won't work. We use numbers, not friendships.)
In my second year attending the LA Regional I've noticed a veteran team or two that ranked well into the lower half of the table get picked for eliminations over very competent newer teams.
It seems like there is a bit of cronyism mixed in with that idea that a veteran team can handle the pressure better.
Thats life though.
TeamSpyder1622
19-03-2012, 21:39
[QUOTE=SenorZ;1146420]In my second year attending the LA Regional I've noticed a veteran team or two that ranked well into the lower half of the table get picked for eliminations over very competent newer teams.
It seems like there is a bit of cronyism mixed in with that idea that a veteran team can handle the pressure better.
Thats life though.[/QUOTE
In my opinion sometimes when alliances are picking their third robot there are so many robots left in the pool of teams who are competent enough to fill that position. Therefore they may pick a team they have worked well with in the past. For example: 1622 has been on an alliance with 1572 in eliminations in San Diego for 3 years in a row because we have experience together and we are good friends, we have also been on an alliance with 2984 in San Diego for 2 years in a row.
When you said veteran teams ranked in the lower half of the table you also have to factor in teams going to their first regional. We didn't score a single point until something like our 6th match because of all the bugs in the code we had to work out so we ended up ranked somewhere around 40 our of 58. But we ended up scoring 25 points on our own in the elimination matches. It would have looked like our team just got picked because we were a veteran.
But I do agree that some teams who do not have scouting tend to have a bias towards teams they know have had good robots in the past. a triple digit team will almost always get picked over a rookie team if the one picking doesn't know anything about their robots and they are ranked about the same.
Thats just my opinion
973 Had 8 rookie teams on our pick list. Of those 8 ,I was really impressed by both 4141, for having a great looking robot, and 4019, for thinking outside the box when it came to the bridge(our whole team cheered every time we saw that).
When the time came to pick a 3rd we went with a team that looked most attractive by the numbers and willingness to be a team player. If 1836 or 3512 had not been available, we probably would have picked a rookie.
Joe Ross
19-03-2012, 22:51
973 Had 8 rookie teams on our pick list. Of those 8 ,I was really impressed by both 4141, for having a great looking robot, and 4019, for thinking outside the box when it came to the bridge(our whole team cheered every time we saw that).
Likewise, we had 7 rookie teams in our top 24. We also had very little difference between the 18th and 35th best robots. There were only two robots in the finals that were lower then 35th in our scouting, and only one higher then 18th that was not selected. Overall I don't think the alliance selection was that bad, compared to previous years.
davidthefat
19-03-2012, 23:38
In my second year attending the LA Regional I've noticed a veteran team or two that ranked well into the lower half of the table get picked for eliminations over very competent newer teams.
It seems like there is a bit of cronyism mixed in with that idea that a veteran team can handle the pressure better.
Thats life though.
I assume you are talking about us (team 589). We seeded at 33rd place, which is 50th percentile. (Surprisingly, spot on with my prediction) We did not have a ball manipulator because we took it off on Thursday due to weight problems. Why we got picked? Not actually too sure. We were a defensive bot, balancing was pretty much a breeze for us. However, I can say that our ranking was pretty bad because of our role. We were a defensive team, there was no other way to score other than by balancing. We were just a supplement to alliances; we are pretty much useless without an alliance. Of course we had issues, like match 19, where a jaguar pwm cable fell out, and match 36 where the battery fell out.
We also had 2 teams of drivers, with 2 drivers each. There was a single match (24) where I got to drive without any technical problems, I never drove after match 36. I then became the "coach" for the eliminations. The general consensus was that I was the best driver on our team, but had been retired due to the foul I committed on the 24th match.
Perhaps, some of you have seen my signature bridge balancing technique demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vYNlwoGRo#t=50s
Trust me, it was more impressive the first time I tried it, this time, I was rather nervous.
When you said veteran teams ranked in the lower half of the table you also have to factor in teams going to their first regional. We didn't score a single point until something like our 6th match because of all the bugs in the code we had to work out so we ended up ranked somewhere around 40 our of 58. But we ended up scoring 25 points on our own in the elimination matches. It would have looked like our team just got picked because we were a veteran.
Actually, that shouldn't really factor in. Who can assume a team will be effective in elim matches when they haven't been able to score in qual matches? If a team's bot isn't effective, first regional or not, why should they be ranked higher because of their "potential"?
Everyone has code or mechanical issues in their first regional -- and most teams only go to one regional (especially rookies) so I don't see any correlation.
973 Had 8 rookie teams on our pick list. Of those 8 ,I was really impressed by both 4141, for having a great looking robot, and 4019, for thinking outside the box when it came to the bridge(our whole team cheered every time we saw that).
When the time came to pick a 3rd we went with a team that looked most attractive by the numbers and willingness to be a team player. If 1836 or 3512 had not been available, we probably would have picked a rookie.
Hi,
Thank you for cheering for us (4019). We loved being part of FIRST and we were in awe with every rookie and veteran team. We are humbled for even being noticed or even considered to be part of an alliance. Maybe next year we would pair up.
Way to go all FRC teams!!!
Much Love,
Aidyl Team 4019 Mechanical Paradise
Al Skierkiewicz
20-03-2012, 08:47
Eric,
WildStang makes no decision based on team number. Our statisticians look at performance on the field (not win/loss), consistent behavior, robot functions all the time, etc. If you look back at our history we have often won regionals with one or even two rookies at our side. Some of those teams have gone on to be real powerhouse teams like 1625 and 1816 to name just a few. In 2009 we and 67 picked a team that was 66th in the standings because our scouters believed they had what our alliance needed and met the criteria above. Happily they were right and 971 performed admirably. (Thank you again!)
Chris Vivo
20-03-2012, 11:11
It has been my experience that the teams at the LA regional pick alliance partners based on performance. We were picked for direct eliminations our rookie year as was at least one other rookie team. I know that when we do our scouting, we do not worry about whether a team is a rookie or not, all we worry about is on field performance and what we find out when we visit them in the pits. This year, it just turned out that non-rookie teams got selected over rookie teams. We are a veteran team, but we did not get all of the bugs worked out until the end of the day on Friday, so I knew we had little chance of being selected, even though we did well Saturday morning.
Hawiian Cadder
20-03-2012, 12:52
When considering robots to pick during eliminations this year, I will be looking not only at the robots scores, but also how reliable I think they will be through eliminations. This year I would probably choose a team that has fallen off the bridge several times without breaking over a team that has never fallen off as long as they are relatively equivalent in other ways. A robot that will stop working after a tip is not one that I want to be working with in Eliminations. Rookie teams IMO either build robots that are far too fragile, or incredibly durable, a rookie with a fragile robot would not be a team that I would pick.
AdamHeard
20-03-2012, 12:58
Likewise, we had 7 rookie teams in our top 24. We also had very little difference between the 18th and 35th best robots. There were only two robots in the finals that were lower then 35th in our scouting, and only one higher then 18th that was not selected. Overall I don't think the alliance selection was that bad, compared to previous years.
This was very, VERY true at LA, and probably why I disagreed with our scout, Marc S, on them being on our list.
We probably had about 45 teams on our list friday night, with 15-45 all being on the "watch list", as it was just too hard to tell from the statistics.
I am agreeing with the sentiments of Joe and Adam. Our scouts had a good idea on the first 10-15 teams on Friday night. Of those top 10-15 one was a rookie. Afterward to start figuring out the next set of teams we needed to do a lot of searching to find what teams would work best with our robot/alliance formation we wanted. We had a bunch of teams that fell into this group. Finding the right one that fits with our robot, strategy is a tough task for any team.
I will admit our scouting while leaps and bounds better than what it was in years past, has a long way to go. We collected a lot of great data and performance numbers. Putting that data to great use is our next step.
Regardless we make our picks based upon on field performance regardless of ranking (this year with better data) and based upon how the team rounds out our alliance.
robochick1319
20-03-2012, 17:57
I think one obstacle in seeing rookies in the elimination rounds is the fact that this is a very difficult year to be a rookie. In past years, even rookies who built what were essentially running bases (a kit base with kit wheels) could put up some serious defense.
In 2008, for example, as long as a robot was running, it could rack up points for making it around the track. But this competition makes defense difficult with the many possibilities for serious penalties. Unless rookies are especially good, they don't always have a way of getting on the ramp or shooting well.
There will always be good rookie teams in the elimination rounds, but rookies should remember that the first year is a building year. Many veteran teams have veteran knowledge and experience to make better robots and better strategy. Rookies shouldn't get discouraged by this but rather strive to build great programs. And like others have said, it isn't about the number but the performance. :)
Actually, that shouldn't really factor in. Who can assume a team will be effective in elim matches when they haven't been able to score in qual matches? If a team's bot isn't effective, first regional or not, why should they be ranked higher because of their "potential"?
Everyone has code or mechanical issues in their first regional -- and most teams only go to one regional (especially rookies) so I don't see any correlation.
You don't necessarily "assume', but you might hope. I could give you numerous examples of robots that finally got the bugs out late, and then won the whole thing (with their alliances help of course). I can think of 2/4 division champion alliances last year that had such a partner.
You don't necessarily "assume', but you might hope. I could give you numerous examples of robots that finally got the bugs out late, and then won the whole thing (with their alliances help of course). I can think of 2/4 division champion alliances last year that had such a partner.
Sure you can hope -- but as many of the posts in this thread indicate, much of the scouting considerations take place on Friday night, and at that point some teams have only played half of their matches and don't have their bugs worked out until Saturday. Based on this logic, the analysis from Friday night would remove those "buggy" teams from the running even if they had potential.
In San Diego, I had our scouts editing picks in real time during the final day to account for performance of the robots, because it doesn't really matter how good/bad a team does in its first few matches, but how well the bot is performed in the last few in prep for the elims. Case in point -- we saw Team 702 have some field connection issues beyond their control in SD (lowering their seed ranking significantly), but after watching them in the second day decided to pick them for our alliance based on their latest performance.
Conversely, in Los Angeles it was my team having all the bad communication issues the first day, and it wasn't until Saturday that we managed to get everything working well. Some other teams I scouted performed great in their first few rounds, then had a mechanical failure or flipped and had to remove a key actuator. That's just the way these things go, so it's hard to tell.
Nevertheless, it's interesting to see teams in this thread post that "7 of the top 24 in our list was a rookie", yet not a single rookie was chosen by anybody.
We had the (as it turns out) VCU Rookie All-Star team on our very short list, since it was a box on wheels with a very low ballasted c.g., good bridge lowerer, 4 CIMs on a moderately-geared drive train, and decent drivers. They would have pushed around the multitude of fender bots, and I could have helped guide them through overall strategy since they would have been defending right in front of us. Yet as 3rd seed we wound up picking a robot with a variable-consistency mid-goal autonomous that was (amazingly) still available.
So I agree with Adam -- it had everything to do with robot performance vs. our needs rather than the fact they were rookies.
chmconkling
20-03-2012, 20:53
We had the (as it turns out) VCU Rookie All-Star team on our very short list, since it was a box on wheels with a very low ballasted c.g., good bridge lowerer, 4 CIMs on a moderately-geared drive train, and decent drivers. They would have pushed around the multitude of fender bots, and I could have helped guide them through overall strategy since they would have been defending right in front of us. Yet as 3rd seed we wound up picking a robot with a variable-consistency mid-goal autonomous that was (amazingly) still available.
So I agree with Adam -- it had everything to do with robot performance vs. our needs rather than the fact they were rookies.
Hey there's always St. Louis!!
BrendanB
20-03-2012, 21:48
Last year we were the first pick by the number 5 alliance captain and another rookie was the captain of the 8th alliance.
There sometimes is a bias against a team number but its not deliberate. Some teams who find themselves captains of an alliance with no scouting data will lean towards lower numbers/winners from last year if available because we all have that assumption that the longer a team has been around the better they will be which many times isn't true because we all have good and bad years.
Perform at your best and the teams who scout will notice you!
Having been on the other end of being picked, I too questioned whether there was a bias against "young" teams.
Now that we have veteran experience, I can safely state that there is no such bias.
Experienced teams pick their alliance partners based on their scouting data, and how well a given robot will perform within that team's strategy for winning. The picking team wants to maximize their chances of winning, so they pick the "best" team available. The issue is with the definition of "Best".
For 1676 at Rutgers, "Best" meant a nimble defensive bot with smart drivers that knew how to avoid fouls. They also needed to be able to balance well, again driver skill. Our pick of 1370 had these qualities. Check their rank to see if they were in the top 24 or not...
So if a rookie team fit the criteria, it would be picked, If not, it wouldn't. Simple as that.
(By the way: Having your team lobby us to get picked won't work. We use numbers, not friendships.)
We are ranked 18. We thank teams 1676 and 56 for giving us that shot to show what we have. It gave our team a boost and we've been soaring ever since! See you in Philly!!
Austin2046
02-04-2012, 04:31
I've wondered about this too, esspecially at champs. I remember in 2007 (our rookie year) our team was 5-2-0 (one of those losses being against 1114) on Curie and I believe we were ranked 11th. Thinking back, I've wondered if we weren't picked because our robot wasnt very attractive... despite being rather effective... or because we were a rookie team... despite having a reliable autonomous... or maybe we didnt fit in with the alliance captain's strategies... or maybe some other reason.
Generally speaking, when i'm looking for alliance partners I usually want to pick robots that can fit in to my predetermined strategies. Usually the first pick is a highly effective scoring robot, which can sometimes be a rookie team... i know at Seattle Cascade this year we were thinking alot about picking 3968 because despite being a rookie they were one of the best scorers on the field. Generally though the best offensive robots are not rookie teams. So then in a second pick the general role is often a defensive robot. Unfortunately most rookie teams don't spend much time thinking about a drive base for defense. I know our rookie year, we had 2 traction wheels, driven by 2 cims, and two omni wheels... it took hardly any effort to push us :P...
Anyway, i think while there may be a little bias against rookie teams, the smart teams easily look past that, because they're simply asking themselves, "how do i win? and who will help us most to do that?" If I feel a rookie team best fills one of those roles and would work well with us, I don't hesitate to pick them.
Clark Pappas
02-04-2012, 10:52
When considering robots to pick during eliminations this year, I will be looking not only at the robots scores, but also how reliable I think they will be through eliminations. This year I would probably choose a team that has fallen off the bridge several times without breaking over a team that has never fallen off as long as they are relatively equivalent in other ways. A robot that will stop working after a tip is not one that I want to be working with in Eliminations. Rookie teams IMO either build robots that are far too fragile, or incredibly durable, a rookie with a fragile robot would not be a team that I would pick.
Well, if nothing else, we build an unbreakable frame. Twice we tipped on the bridge (That I can recall; once on coo-op with 399 when we got shifted sideways, and once when we over drove with our top heave frame) We still didn't get picked, but this was because we didn't perform well during eliminations with issues ranging from shifting the coach role too much and bad communication, to an unlucky match schedule, to the two alliance having constant breakdowns on or around the bridges. Although I would have liked to think we could have been a decent bridge pick (It's the only thing we really did during the match anyway), we never really got many opportunities to prove it. What we ended up learning at the end of the regional was that we couldn't rely on others to handle balance or coopertition for us, and that we needed to try it ourselves to prove ourselves pickworthy.
JohnSchneider
02-04-2012, 11:38
From what I saw in Dallas West, the bias against rookies wasn't intentional but there.
Dallas West had some very lackluster rookies (A lot of straight kitbots). And for a regional with 39 teams, where less than half of teams have shooters, and less than a third can pull down the bridge consistently, picking seemed rather shallow.
Many of the Veteran teams sort of grazed over the rookies, as if the pick didn't really matter, because the field was so even.
Due to this we got a gem in 4206 - a rookie who could lower and go over the bridge, but who also had an intake, which we were attempting to use for a 4 ball autonomous. And they made it all the way back around the serpentine.
Proper Scouting is needed even when the field looks even. Drive train considerations for triples, or intake considerations for 4 ball auto, can make all the difference in the world.
Several teams don't have proper scouting, leading to biased picks. Teams with proper scouting know what they're going to pick, regardless of team number.
1501 got 4028 this way and we won the Boilermaker regional with them and 1756.
Alexa Stott
02-04-2012, 13:37
(By the way: Having your team lobby us to get picked won't work. We use numbers, not friendships.)
THIS. We have our team of scouts watching every single match with each one assigned to a different robot. Trust us, we have all the data on your robot.
In my second year attending the LA Regional I've noticed a veteran team or two that ranked well into the lower half of the table get picked for eliminations over very competent newer teams.
It seems like there is a bit of cronyism mixed in with that idea that a veteran team can handle the pressure better.
Thats life though.
Again, teams collect all sorts of data on the robots. We were looking for some very specific things in our scouting this year. We don't even use the FIRST rankings because we use our own system to rank teams. Just because a team is ranked lower doesn't mean they aren't good or useful. If a team started off badly because of code/mechanical issues but improved throughout the day, we'd put them lower down on our pick list with a note to see how they do in the rest of their matches. Sometimes they got paired up with an unlucky alliance with teams who didn't show up, didn't have a robot, had a robot that didn't move, etc.
Often, teams use their 3rd pick to be their alliance's defensive robots. As was already pointed out in this thread, defensive robots typically do not seed very high. For example, our third pick at the 2006 Las Vegas Regional was team 8, who went 6-5 in the qualifications. We knew they could play some serious defense, though, which is why we picked them. I used the LV regional as my example here because it was our team's first time travelling out west so most of the teams there were unknown to us, much like a rookie is at their first event.
maxweberh
02-04-2012, 14:30
just an example of good scouting vs. using FIRST rankings
We (3929) are a rookie team, who were ranked roughly 35th by the end of the qualifications, but were picked by 25 & 222 in eliminations, 2nd round of picking they were 3rd alliance from the top. We went on to win the Mount Olive competition yesterday. From the limited competitions I have seen, good scouting goes much farther than looking at rankings.
Happy April,
Max
From what I saw in Dallas West, the bias against rookies wasn't intentional but there.
Dallas West had some very lackluster rookies (A lot of straight kitbots). And for a regional with 39 teams, where less than half of teams have shooters, and less than a third can pull down the bridge consistently, picking seemed rather shallow.
Many of the Veteran teams sort of grazed over the rookies, as if the pick didn't really matter, because the field was so even.
Due to this we got a gem in 4206 - a rookie who could lower and go over the bridge, but who also had an intake, which we were attempting to use for a 4 ball autonomous. And they made it all the way back around the serpentine.
Proper Scouting is needed even when the field looks even. Drive train considerations for triples, or intake considerations for 4 ball auto, can make all the difference in the world.
Not sure if we were an example of bad scouting...or if our robot just sucked that much...
Our team could do 2 ball auto by itself, and had a pretty consistent rate of getting it in from the middle...We also had the ability to feed our alliance, if it was needed.. Our shooter was also pretty good, and were getting some points in teleop, we had problems with our shooter not being consistent, but that was changed...Our team could push down the bridges with some difficulty, but we could get over the bridge and we pulled a 2-way balance...
We could have done many things, but for our last regional, we were not picked...Even being seeded at 11th out of 55.... I am guessing it was because of our lack of scouting...Because we should have been in the elims :/ So scouting is going to be a big thing for us next year...
Aren_Hill
02-04-2012, 15:27
3928 seeded 5th at midwest, and with a coop balance that was stopped by a ball in our last match would've jumped to 3rd I believe.
best way to be a rookie in elims? be a captain :p
(our kids kinda did awesome)
Clark Pappas
02-04-2012, 15:44
Not sure if we were an example of bad scouting...or if our robot just sucked that much...
Our team could do 2 ball auto by itself, and had a pretty consistent rate of getting it in from the middle...We also had the ability to feed our alliance, if it was needed.. Our shooter was also pretty good, and were getting some points in teleop, we had problems with our shooter not being consistent, but that was changed...Our team could push down the bridges with some difficulty, but we could get over the bridge and we pulled a 2-way balance...
We could have done many things, but for our last regional, we were not picked...Even being seeded at 11th out of 55.... I am guessing it was because of our lack of scouting...Because we should have been in the elims :/ So scouting is going to be a big thing for us next year...
Probably more of a case that you just didn't fit into what alliances wanted for their first or second pick. As stated earlier, 111's alliance in 2009 had 971, the 66th seed. Look how well they did. It's possible you filled a very niche role that just didn't fit into the 8 alliances. Don't be discouraged. Maybe you should ask some of the alliance captains how you could have been a more appealing pick; maybe you can use this information for next season to build a more desirable bot.
Dr Theta
02-04-2012, 15:46
Scouting can not be understated at competition. The rankings are almost never the best metric to go off of when it comes down to alliance selection, especially in years that the GDC feels like experimenting with the seeding algorithm.
I will use our experience this year as an example. We ended up seeding 29th at our regional not due in particular to poor play or poor strategy, but due to the fact that in 9 matches we only got 1 coop balance due to a little bad luck. We also needed to zone in our shooter to our hotspots throughout the course of the regional and did not get it to peak functionality until our second match on Saturday for both hybrid and teleop. We weren't bad before then but we weren't where we wanted to be.
Despite being a very solid team I think that our low ranking caused us to be largely overlooked throughout alliance selection dropping all the way to the second pick for the fourth seed who had done their scouting on us throughout the weekend and communicated with us, we were upfront with them as far as what problems we had and what we had done to fix them. Ultimately their scouting and selection of us allowed our alliance to upset the number one seed at our event, set and break the high score of the regional three times, and post a perfect 36 point autonomous.
By the end of the event I would estimate that we were possibly a top 5 shooting bot, top 3 bridge bot, and the best bot at our regional at traversing the field, and yet we were the 21st robot into elims at our event.
I agree that it is possible for teams to overlook others, be it rookie or veterans due to different factors such as high team number or ranking, but those that know what they are doing and scout properly do not let those factors get in their way.
Scouting can not be understated at competition. The rankings are almost never the best metric to go off of when it comes down to alliance selection, especially in years that the GDC feels like experimenting with the seeding algorithm.
I will use our experience this year as an example. We ended up seeding 29th at our regional not due in particular to poor play or poor strategy, but due to the fact that in 9 matches we only got 1 coop balance due to a little bad luck. We also needed to zone in our shooter to our hotspots throughout the course of the regional and did not get it to peak functionality until our second match on Saturday for both hybrid and teleop. We weren't bad before then but we weren't where we wanted to be.
Despite being a very solid team I think that our low ranking caused us to be largely overlooked throughout alliance selection dropping all the way to the second pick for the fourth seed who had done their scouting on us throughout the weekend and communicated with us, we were upfront with them as far as what problems we had and what we had done to fix them. Ultimately their scouting and selection of us allowed our alliance to upset the number one seed at our event, set and break the high score of the regional three times, and post a perfect 36 point autonomous.
By the end of the event I would estimate that we were possibly a top 5 shooting bot, top 3 bridge bot, and the best bot at our regional at traversing the field, and yet we were the 21st robot into elims at our event.
I agree that it is possible for teams to overlook others, be it rookie or veterans due to different factors such as high team number or ranking, but those that know what they are doing and scout properly do not let those factors get in their way.
I really believe our robot should have been in one of the few alliances...It was all a scouting problem.. But really, I need other teams to comment on this.. Will contact them soon enough :/
Team 3992 was chosen in elims during the South Florida Regional by 1557, and joined by 179.
I don't know whether it was a scouting problem or not, but among the 12 rookies at our regional, only us and 3932 were in elims. Then again, I can't say a lot of the other rookie bots were major forces, or consistent.
We were pretty darn good at balancing.
I worked closely with our scouts this year and last, and can honestly say that team number has had NO impact on our rankings. It's about these things: (1) individual robot performance; (2) reliability; (3) whether the functions that the robot does well are the things we need to compliment our alliance; and (4) whether we think the team is a "team player," ie. will follow the alliance captain's strategy.
For example, this year in CT we were seeded 10th and fairly certain that we would be moving into picking position. We decided that we needed two robots that could reliably score in hybrid, one that was a faster shooter than we were (we were decent, usually getting 3-5 balls in the 3-point basket in teleop but knew we needed someone faster) and a third robot that could play defense and feed balls from the other end of the field. We also wanted both robots to be wide, or at least able to rotate on the ramp, because we were a long robot that could hang off the end of the ramp, and although we never tried a triple balance we did not want to preclude that possibility.
In the end, we were selected by Team Max, 1071, who was the 5th seeded team. At the time we were 8th and could have declined, but we accepted their invitation. When our scouts saw that Apple Pi, team 2067, a fairly prolific scorer and good balancer with a wide configuration, was still available for our second pick, they and the 1071 scouts agreed that they would be a good offensive pick, and Team Max agreed to be our defensive threat.
Alexa Stott
02-04-2012, 18:13
Not sure if we were an example of bad scouting...or if our robot just sucked that much...
Our team could do 2 ball auto by itself, and had a pretty consistent rate of getting it in from the middle...We also had the ability to feed our alliance, if it was needed.. Our shooter was also pretty good, and were getting some points in teleop, we had problems with our shooter not being consistent, but that was changed...Our team could push down the bridges with some difficulty, but we could get over the bridge and we pulled a 2-way balance...
We could have done many things, but for our last regional, we were not picked...Even being seeded at 11th out of 55.... I am guessing it was because of our lack of scouting...Because we should have been in the elims :/ So scouting is going to be a big thing for us next year...
How many times did you make both balls in? How many shots did you make (on average) during teleop? How long did it take you to get the bridge down? How many times did you balance? Did you get any penalties? Did you have any major issues with your robot during the competition?
I can tell you that when were putting together our pick list for Lenape, we wanted both of our teams to have highly consistent auto modes and the ability to consistently balance on their own so we could continue to score balls while the other two balanced. We also wanted one of the teams to be able to score quickly and well in teleop. Our scouts take down information on each team about how many points they scored in autonomous and teleop for each match. We sorted our information by these two things and used that as a starting point for our pick list.
Honestly, if your robot was one of those in the middle of the pack, it might not have had anything to do with you. There are usually a limited amount of top tier robots at each event, then there are those in the middle tier who all sort of run together, and then those at the lower end. Middle tier teams can easily get lost in the mix and this is when being a well-known team tends to help. Teams may be more likely to pick a team they have worked with before and have a good relationship with over a team they do not know very well when the robots are of similar quality. Additionally, teams often use their third pick for a defensive robot (we usually eliminate any teams using omni wheels or mecanums from being high on our pick lists), which leaves some of the middle tier offensive robots in the wind.
I worked closely with our scouts this year and last, and can honestly say that team number has had NO impact on our rankings. It's about these things: (1) individual robot performance; (2) reliability; (3) whether the functions that the robot does well are the things we need to compliment our alliance; and (4) whether we think the team is a "team player," ie. will follow the alliance captain's strategy.
For example, this year in CT we were seeded 10th and fairly certain that we would be moving into picking position. We decided that we needed two robots that could reliably score in hybrid, one that was a faster shooter than we were (we were decent, usually getting 3-5 balls in the 3-point basket in teleop but knew we needed someone faster) and a third robot that could play defense and feed balls from the other end of the field. We also wanted both robots to be wide, or at least able to rotate on the ramp, because we were a long robot that could hang off the end of the ramp, and although we never tried a triple balance we did not want to preclude that possibility.
In the end, we were selected by Team Max, 1071, who was the 5th seeded team. At the time we were 8th and could have declined, but we accepted their invitation. When our scouts saw that Apple Pi, team 2067, a fairly prolific scorer and good balancer with a wide configuration, was still available for our second pick, they and the 1071 scouts agreed that they would be a good offensive pick, and Team Max agreed to be our defensive threat.
Ah, irony, our robot could go over the middle bridge..and go collect balls...and then shoot them back to our field.....another utilization that would have been possible.. if we were picked :)
I wonder if if our robot could pull a triple balance though..we only pulled of a 2-way balance...
Alexa Stott
02-04-2012, 22:23
Ah, irony, our robot could go over the middle bridge..and go collect balls...and then shoot them back to our field.....another utilization that would have been possible.. if we were picked :)
I wonder if if our robot could pull a triple balance though..we only pulled of a 2-way balance...
Again, were you able to balance in every match? Did you have any issues with your robot at the event? How long did it take you to balance? How consistent were you in auto? Did you ever have any issues not showing up to the field on time, missing matches (due to the robot not working or because you hadn't passed inspection)?
I wasn't at the event and haven't seen any match video so I can't really speak specifically about your robot, but it's really hard for us all here to judge without all the information. Being seeded 11th doesn't really mean anything to me. There are teams that sometimes get carried all the way into the top 8 by getting paired up with good robots every match. I'm not saying this is the case with you because I don't know the facts.
I've also seen you posting in other places about not getting picked. Well, it happens. It's fine to ask for advice on what sorts of things the teams in picking position were looking for. But most of the posts I've seen by you have just been reiterating the point that you really think you should've been picked. You just keep parrotting "We were 11th seed and could double balance." That's fine and dandy, but doesn't really add to the conversation very much and it gets irritating to check back on this thread to see that you're in here again complaining about not being picked.
Am I being a bit harsh? Maybe. But one of the thing that really bothers me about CD is that some people come on here largely to just toot their own horns and highlight their own team.
Garten Haeska
02-04-2012, 22:37
Dr Theta,
Scouting can not be understated at competition. The rankings are almost never the best metric to go off of when it comes down to alliance selection, especially in years that the GDC feels like experimenting with the seeding algorithm.
I couldn't agree more. I feel like we had a very good robot that had a very nice and consistent hybrid mode along with a average teleop, but we were told that we had the best bridge manipulator and it was also one of the simplest. When we went into the alliance selections, we thought we wouldn't get picked because of or low ranking of 17th but we were told that we had a high chance due to the fact that we had the most bridge points at 120pts. We found out that teams had been scouting us like no other. But when the eliminations came down to our matches, we never actually used our bridge manipulator, or our hybrid mode.(well we used our hybrid but we didn't have time to tweak it so that we could have another robot drive in front of us. Now many probably are trying to see what im getting at, but when it came for us to use what we had been so good at the entire weekend, we only really used our programming which allowed us to balance the double bridge with just a push of a button. showing that it doesnt take the mechanical to show what it takes but it takes the programming that people find to be useful and also i would like to point out that we ended up getting 3rd place.
Dr Theta
03-04-2012, 00:46
We found out that teams had been scouting us like no other.
Despite not ultimately being in a picking position at the end of saturday we did far more scouting this year than we have in the past. You guys were definitely not below our radar, I don't have our scouting sheets on me off hand, but you were definitely in our top ten. We also had the pleasure of playing with you in the very first match on friday. Hopefully we can get together again in the future.
ErikEdhlund
03-04-2012, 02:22
This really is an issue that comes up each year. It really comes down to who is scouting and exactly what they are looking for in Alliance partners. As someone had pointed out earlier, it really depends on who is scouting and what do they need to take home the win. For anyone who was watching the Minnesota North Star Regional, we had decided to pick rookie team 4226 to be our second pick due to their ability to play defense, tilt the alliance bridge, and balance consistently. They had no ability to score outside of balancing, but they were able to do exactly what we wanted since we already had 2 strong scoring robots. We had looked for the team that would best fit our strategy and it really paid off. The key thing that everyone should really learn is that the first pick is always the easiest to figure out, it is that second one that could make a good alliance the winning alliance.
Akash Rastogi
03-04-2012, 03:08
Team 3992 was chosen in elims during the South Florida Regional by 1557, and joined by 179.
I don't know whether it was a scouting problem or not, but among the 12 rookies at our regional, only us and 3932 were in elims. Then again, I can't say a lot of the other rookie bots were major forces, or consistent.
We were pretty darn good at balancing.
Maaan am I lucky for picking 79, 3992 AND 3932 then for the event's Fantasy draft. :D
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1097488&postcount=20
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1097525&postcount=34
Garten Haeska
03-04-2012, 09:18
Despite not ultimately being in a picking position at the end of saturday we did far more scouting this year than we have in the past. You guys were definitely not below our radar, I don't have our scouting sheets on me off hand, but you were definitely in our top ten. We also had the pleasure of playing with you in the very first match on friday. Hopefully we can get together again in the future.
Sounds delightful
4055 was a rookie in Hartford and we owned the bridges ranked 22 and had 16 cp. At first we thought we might have a shot at being picked because of our bridge work. We were incorrect. We realized that its not because we were a rookie, it was because we did not have what the other teams need. We did how every learn what was need and will make improvements to our robot so that when we are in Missouri we will have a better chance of being picked. I would like to say that any team even a rookie would be picked if it help for the win. :)
Again, were you able to balance in every match? Did you have any issues with your robot at the event? How long did it take you to balance? How consistent were you in auto? Did you ever have any issues not showing up to the field on time, missing matches (due to the robot not working or because you hadn't passed inspection)?
I wasn't at the event and haven't seen any match video so I can't really speak specifically about your robot, but it's really hard for us all here to judge without all the information. Being seeded 11th doesn't really mean anything to me. There are teams that sometimes get carried all the way into the top 8 by getting paired up with good robots every match. I'm not saying this is the case with you because I don't know the facts.
I've also seen you posting in other places about not getting picked. Well, it happens. It's fine to ask for advice on what sorts of things the teams in picking position were looking for. But most of the posts I've seen by you have just been reiterating the point that you really think you should've been picked. You just keep parrotting "We were 11th seed and could double balance." That's fine and dandy, but doesn't really add to the conversation very much and it gets irritating to check back on this thread to see that you're in here again complaining about not being picked.
Am I being a bit harsh? Maybe. But one of the thing that really bothers me about CD is that some people come on here largely to just toot their own horns and highlight their own team.
Ah, no you are right! I have been complaining too much, I Am just thinking of all the things our robot could have done to get picked..strategy wise...Anyways, seeding doesnt matter much... I learned that this year :/.. I gotta go do a review of this years season.
I thought CD was the place where we could come on and toot our horns and highlight our own team XD, but leaving that aside, UI Really like the discussions on why teams thought they did not get picked...
The key thing that everyone should really learn is that the first pick is always the easiest to figure out, it is that second one that could make a good alliance the winning alliance.
THAT'S the truth. We're either getting better at this, or just got lucky in our last three tournaments -- all of which we were seeded 1st, meaning we got the last pick, and all of which we won. btw, at KC this year we picked a 2nd-year team, and at St. Louis we picked a rookie. Both of whom did exactly what the alliance needed from them; they were great picks.
Of course, we prefer to think we're getting better at scouting. ;) We may not be as sophisticated as some teams' scouting, but what we do works for us, and the results seem to be OK.
pfreivald
03-04-2012, 14:33
Anyways, seeding doesnt matter much... I learned that this year :/
I hope you can take that one step farther and realize that unless you're an alliance captain, seeding doesn't matter *at all*.
I hope you can take that one step farther and realize that unless you're an alliance captain, seeding doesn't matter *at all*.
Or just under!
Theres a been a few times where we'd have been a great 3rd bot but there was just enough in-picking to bump us up to 8th seed captain :p
pfreivald
03-04-2012, 15:01
Or just under!
Theres a been a few times where we'd have been a great 3rd bot but there was just enough in-picking to bump us up to 8th seed captain :p
...in which case you're an alliance captain! :p^2
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.