Quote:
Originally Posted by PayneTrain
No one's totally sure until Karthik either praises or denigrates it in his strategy presentation this year.  |
I can think of other issues with OPR that are unchanging from year to year:
-How valuable is a scouting system that everyone else is using? How do you differentiate your picks from other teams' picks if you're all picking from the same OPR/CCWM-derived list?
-OPR doesn't take into account a robot's type and how it interacts with other robots. You can get a high OPR in qualifying simply by supplying discs to a floor loader that then scores them for you. But an alliance of disc-suppliers would score very poorly in eliminations.
-OPR doesn't compare well at all across events. Waterloo had a ridiculous average OPR (even excluding 1114/2056), but that was probably because nearly every robot there was offensive, and so little defense was played. If you added 10 defensive robots to the pool, everyone else's OPR would have fallen drastically. You can do a "global OPR", but I doubt it corrects that much.
OPR seemed to do very well this year as far as its ability to reflect robot's effectiveness within a regional, but there are broader issues with it than just that. IIRC, Karthik's main complaint about OPR was that people were using it for scouting and comparing robots without really understanding it or understanding its shortcomings like those I listed above.