Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard
This is half my opinion and half my recollection of conversations with Austin, so please don't hold Austin accountable for my statements.
They had a clear problem they wanted to solve. An effectively utilized autoshift function with properly picked low/high ratios could potentially shave seconds off each match (4-10 maybe?). This time saved isn't huge, but could amount to a 5-15% increase in scoring each season.
Both the dog and ball shifter do not shift instantly, and neither does this clutch method.However the clutch method does shift faster than the previous two, and with a smoother engagement; this better blends with their goal of smooth autoshifting.
You can debate whether or not their overall goal is valid or cost effective, but please don't say that it's a solution in search of a problem. Valid analysis and engineering went into this, and it wasn't created for the sake of coolness.
|
I can see why taking seconds off of operation time would be helpful, and I concede that I shouldn't judge the necessity of this mechanism without knowing the design process behind it.
I wonder, though, if time wouldn't be better spent on low-hanging fruit -- some mentors and I made a lively discussion of this a few months ago when talking about how 1678 could improve our competitiveness. I know 971's bots always have high score ceilings, but often fail to execute to full potential. Would not it be more efficient to ensure basic functionality in each match, as opposed to some fantastic and some mediocre matches, rather than build a smoother autoshifter? (This isn't to say that both of these improvements couldn't happen simultaneously, of course.)
Perhaps someone from 971 could chime in here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Holley
Also keep in mind that you do not necessarily need to optimize-for-efficiency every single action your team takes.
|
My mistake. I usually take just this approach.