Quote:
Originally Posted by DELurker
1) The sheets look great, although you might want more area to take notes.
2) Without trying to hijack the thread, is pit scouting really all that valuable? I ask because, in our area, I've watched teams tell pit scouters that they can do things, but their performance on the field never backs it up. Isn't field performance what ultimately matters?
|
I agree, the scouting sheet contains a lot of great information, however, I think a lot of this information should be made match-specific. That's where you see a team's strategy, and if their robot does what they say it does. However, I still believe that pit scouting should be done. You can get information such as if they can climb, if they can shoot, what type of drive do they have, the physical characteristics of the robot. (Yes, those can be scouted match by match, but the implementation would be quite trivial.
Actually, pit scouting can be useful. If a team says that they do this and this and this, but in fact they can hardly do one, then it shouldn't matter. If a team has mecanum wheels in a game where pushing robots around is very important, then it was a bad design decision, and it will hurt them. Team RUSH came into a similar consequence last year, where wide bots ruled the field at the Michigan State Championships. We designed a long bot, which put us at a disadvantage, but that didn't mean we competed the best we could. However, it was a deciding factor for a lot of teams who got into eliminations, and that's just how the game was designed.