Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11
What quantitative data would lead 1114/2056 to pick 4334? I suspect they were picked because they were very thin (to allow for easier triple balance), well driven and dependable. At least in my opinion, those are more qualitative measures opposed to quantitive. I'm not saying quantititative data isn't important, but how qualitative data is also necessary.
|
Qualitative scouting is undoubtedly important, as is pit scouting, but especially at larger events where there are close decisions to be made, numbers are going to be the best answer.
Regarding the 1114/2056/4334 alliance (warning: *some* blind conjecture ahead) yes, they were well driven, dependable and thin, but there are elements to consider that can't be answered without numbers. 1114 and 2056 would be taking a gamble by having only 2 robots that could shoot when facing alliances of 3 if they didn't do their homework. With good scouting data, you can look at how much higher robots scored compared to their averages when they had 4334 feeding them. If shooters score an average of 2 more cycles when they have 4334, then it would be worth choosing 4334 over any robot that scores an average of 2 cycles or fewer. By self scouting, they can also put together hypothetical alliances and estimate not only their expected match score, but also the standard deviation of scores of different alliances (high standard deviation = higher risk/higher score ceiling). Lacking this information means you can't make decisions about things like your ceiling vs your average, or what your opponents are likely to be scoring. This is a very condensed version, but there is a lot more that can be gleaned from good scouting data than what I said here.
I have never won a world championship though, so if anything I put up is wrong and can be corrected by someone who has, I welcome it.
