View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-03-2016, 14:11
Boltman Boltman is offline
Registered User
FRC #5137 (Iron Kodiaks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 834
Boltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud of
Re: Scouting: looking for an excel sheet

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinCAD View Post
Our scouting team this year is trying something new - Google Docs.

In the past we have used pencil & paper, which tends to be tedious over time. Once we collected data with the paper, a scouter would continuously type all of the data into an excel sheet. The system wasn't as efficient as we hoped.

This year, I realized that Google Docs could help us with this problem. We made an Google Sheet for each team that was going to be at our competition, and made a template to fill out for each team.

Due to it's feature of auto-updating, Google Docs is internet dependent. Most (not all) venues have an accessible Wi-Fi network. If no network is available, scouters can download the Google Docs app, and just work off of mobile data. I did a count on how many team members would be able to work on their phones for scouting, and about two-thirds of the team are able to.

I have not yet used this at a competition, so we have yet to see if it works well!
In quals its better for your team to take care of business than overly scout
you win by outscoring and earning a breaching point (maybe scaling)... so scouting during quals has little effect on outcomes IMO in this game as everyone will be playing for max scores...sure its good to know what defenses teams cannot cross but that's about it apart from expecting a defensive bot. Throw out all other stats and take notes on team tendencies (weaknesses/strengths) and how fast they score. (cycle times)

Take my advice to simplify your scouting .... figure out what your team does most efficiently by watching them by match 4..then that's your "thing" then find (20-24) other bots to compliment what you do and add what you cannot do. Also look for re-purposed defenders and if you cheesecake bots those that can be ...also Reliability and consistency are huge this year, that is what wins regional.

So as you are scouting in qualifications.... look for bots that do what you "don't do best and most efficiently/reliably " and build a list 20-24 deep. In 2015 we started this approach..we just took down alliance #1 as alliance #8 in two games (That never happens). It works. Only reason we did not win was our mechanical issues with boulder getting stuck in SF. Won't happen in CV we have a solution.

If you can customize your alliance buy finding two other perfectly matched bots your chances go way up to go to St Louis.

I only use stats to verify I did not miss any...I only found four that I reevaluated the next day.... 1/2 of the field will not be playing in eliminations so over scouting half the bots is noise you don't need..eyes on bots is the way to go. It works.

I had our alliance..we had a real good strong one as alliance #8. Had not been for mechanical issues I am certain we would have been in Finals as #8 because we had a great alliance and a good plan.

Now that my team scouted SD ..we can simplify for CV we now know what to find (and we know ourselves).

Remember numbers do not show how a team really plays nor how consistent they are or reliable...its a fatal flaw to numbers scouting in a game year like this. Any questions? feel free to PM me.
__________________

Iron Kodiaks Team #5137 San Marcos, CA

2016 Semi-Finalist | Central Valley Alliance Captain #2
2016 Semi-Finalist | San Diego 2nd bot alliance #8
2015 Semi-Finalist | Ventura 3rd bot alliance #3
2015 Quarter-Finalist| San Diego 2nd bot alliance #5
2014 Rookie All-Star | #21 San Diego | Galileo Division #91

Last edited by Boltman : 06-03-2016 at 22:03.
Reply With Quote