Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor1523
Well it wouldn't necessarily be that crazy. I think we both know that 75 balls in 10 seconds is quite optimistic. I would actually prefer the 50 over the 9, because it's more balls per second. But if it took a lot longer to score, and the robot misses a lot of shots then theoretically the robot is just sitting there and not scoring points. I would be looking for robots that are efficient. I think that makes sense.
|
My point is (and maybe you know this) you don't know the average amount of fuel shot information with the % method you are proposing. I will be releasing what data we will be collecting for this year on Feb 7th. While shots made % is a category we are tracking it has two other data-points to make the % a usable (and therefor worthwhile) data-point to track.
Hypothetical data (assuming constant cycle time):
Team # | ~High % | ~Load Size
001 33 20
002 50 50
003 100 10
If you only have the first two columns (Team # and make%) how are you going to differentiate what teams score the most? You will need another way to bring the make% into focus. If teams always used the full extent of their hopper you could use the size of their hopper, but there will not always bee full hoppers. I recommend including a 1/3 full, 2/3 full, and 3/3 full option just to get an easy average of their match load size. Cross reference this with how large their hopper is (from pit scouting or careful observation) and BOOM you can calculate ~fuel pts./match.