View Single Post
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2013, 13:06
Ed Law's Avatar
Ed Law Ed Law is offline
Registered User
no team (formerly with 2834)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Foster City, CA, USA
Posts: 752
Ed Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond repute
Re: OPR after Week Seven Events

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
OPR (specifically CCWM) is better than I expected at separating teams, and seems to be ~85% accurate based on a comparison to a few events of data.

That said, you have to remember that OPR is an approximation of skill that is better than average score but no replacement for a real scouting system. It's a decent "sanity check" to see if you missed an outlier or two but if you have actual data I wouldn't even touch it.

During and after the season, it's a very good approximation of skill that is very useful for Internet debates.
I don't know why there is this constant argument of the shortcomings of OPR. I don't think anybody including myself advocate only using OPR/CCWM as a way to scout, decide on match strategy or alliance selection.

To me, OPR/CCWM is very useful if you were not at the event so you have a general idea what each robot is good at based on Auto OPR, Climb OPR and Tele OPR. Like Chris said, if you have actual data, why do you need OPR? I don't remember who it was, but I was once asked if I have the match data of each robot of every match, will I be able to create a better model to increase the prediction ability of OPR? I thought it was a trick question.

But we need to keep in mind that some teams are very small. One person cannot watch 6 robots at the same time. He/she can try and take some notes but it is very difficult to rank teams based on subjective measures on select matches. In those cases, I think it is better to use OPR/CCWM as a guide rather than selecting the next highest seeded team

Take a look at what teams actually select based on human scouts (I assume) at events and compare the first round picks with OPR and second round picks with combination of OPR/CCWM, it is amazing how good the correlation is and why some teams that seeded high were not selected. There are always exceptions because a team is looking for a very specific attribute in a supporting robot. But in some cases I have to scratch my head where it looked like a poor choice and very often the data confirmed that they ended up as quarterfinalist.
__________________
Please don't call me Mr. Ed, I am not a talking horse.
Reply With Quote