Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangel
But my question is, is it more important to figure out exactly what each robot did in every match or what their actual capabilities are? For example, a robot that does mostly gears but ball scoring when able to is going to have a very low average for ball scoring, whereas a team that only does ball scoring might have double or triple the average despite being a far worse ball scorer. For us at least, we will be caring more about how good robots are at each task rather than how many times they do it in a match. Of course I'm sure match data can be useful too. Especially for determining what the robot will probably try to do. I would just avoid arguments of this robot scores this many balls on average vs this robot when discussing who is the best at any particular task.
|
Understood. I am currently ABD in my quest for my doctoral degree and have struggled with qualitative research and writing. In my quest to be as quantitatively black and white as possible (which is impossible with this game), I am seeking snapshots of performance in order to support my allies and strategically weaken my opponents. Part of the process is minimizing human differences of opinion. We run waves of 18 students in scouting at a tournament with various levels of technical understanding and honestly - interest. Keeping it as yes/no as possible helps focus the picture for the scout team leaders when its 1:00 am Saturday morning and we are punch-drunk trying to determine possible alliance selections.