Tips for Team Promotion to Scouts

[remulasce]

@SuperNerd256, unfortunately due to a combination of being a programmer and having been kicked out- er, graduated, I am not in a position to provide photos. It's a drop-center 6 wheel drive, center wheel directly driven from custom ratio supershifters, with one chain powering the two edge wheels on dead axles sandwiched between 1/2"(?) CNC-cheesed aluminum sideplates. Idlers are positioned to give proper chain wrap on the center wheel. Key to this is donated CNC time from Northrop Grumman, it would be very hard to pull off without the precision of those machines.

On second thought, I remembered that I stole- was gifted- one of 2010's practice base sideplates. This is still useless to you, as I did not bring it to my dorm, where I am.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

....That match was hypothetical. i made it up. What you are describing to me doesn't seem accurate. I am in no way calling you a liar, but there are some things you say that don't look 100% accurate. I have never seen a regional where the not as good robots are chosen for alliances over the good ones.

It happens all the time, I don't have any recent examples but two that I remember from a few years back, 2007 Boston Regional team 1919 picked a team with their first pick who had not scored all regional, and another team with their second pick who had not only not scored but had been penalized multiple times for a net contribution of -30 points. All three bots had netted a total of -13 points through the qualification rounds. Many better scorers were on the board at both of their picks. Notably 125 placed the 6th most rings at the regional and was picked by the 3rd seed with their second pick.

It even happens to good teams, 47 made a mistake with their second pick at Championships in 2005 picking a bot that was averaging 1-2 tetras a match when there were many better scorers available.

SOme times it is a mistake, sometimes it is bad scouting, some times it is due to teams picking friends instead of the best alliance available, all in all it does happen.

[DavidGitz]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

I can offer you our perspective for what it is worth.

Very good advice. We also base our picks solely on performance and not on marketing, except during certain circumstances. This year, more than most the ranking system is very bad at determining how well a robot/team actually performs on the field. The only time I ever looked at the rankings was when we were hoping to seed above Titanium and when we were remarking at how bad the ranking system worked.

[bam-bam]

Originally Posted by DavidGitz

Very good advice. We also base our picks solely on performance and not on marketing, except during certain circumstances. This year, more than most the ranking system is very bad at determining how well a robot/team actually performs on the field. The only time I ever looked at the rankings was when we were hoping to seed above Titanium and when we were remarking at how bad the ranking system worked.

If you're talking about ranking, yes, it's pretty misleading.

However, the ranking system has the stats for tele-op points, hybrid points, bridge points, and cooperition points. I wouldn't call that part misleading.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bam-bam

If you're talking about ranking, yes, it's pretty misleading.

However, the ranking system has the stats for tele-op points, hybrid points, bridge points, and cooperition points. I wouldn't call that part misleading.

Until you figure out that all those points are scored by the alliance.

If I'm a Boxbot and I'm paired with two robots of the caliber of 1114 and 254 every single match, I'm going to look a lot better in the standings than my Boxbot really is.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by LeadU2Fun

Good to see 4146 got picked for the tournament. They had QP of 46 and OPR of 12!

And it was entirely due to scouting that they were selected by 498 and 2486. Up until this year I've been heavily involved in 498's scouting, my Dad took over this year now that I am out of state but we talked at length about how scouting was handled this year and the picks made at this year's regional. 2486 was seen as the 3rd best robot in our scouting (after 610 and 842) so they were a no brainer when available. 4146 was relatively high in scoring despite having a horrible QP and the decision was made to go after an alliance that could score heavily in the hybrid period, which is what 4146 did particularly well. Getting 36 hybrid points in the first elimination match convinces me it was a good choice.

To detail how our scouting was developed, I think 2005 was the first time the team made serious attempts at scouting (our first time as an alliance captain was 2004) and we used a similar setup to what many teams use now with computer based scouting. 6 scouts each cover one robot in a match, the data gets merged together (back then by wifi since it was allowed still), and the results are used to plan upcoming match strategy during qualifications. A preliminary pick list is made Friday night and Saturday the list is altered by sudden changes in performance. This worked well for us that year, but in the following years I found this setup wasn't feasible when our team got smaller.

The past couple of years we've had 15 or less students on the team with few interested in scouting, so we changed to needing only 2 scouts at a time. Each scout covers an entire alliance and notes what scores happen by a robot, along with any other quick interesting comments ("dead", "good defense", etc.). Last year was just a quick sheet made in excel, this year I believe we modified SPAM's scouting system to fit our 2 scout method. We always use paper since we don't have enough laptops to go around, and you don't need to recharge paper . Whoever was in charge of the scouting usually did most of one alliance for the matches, the other alliance was done by whoever we could convince to sit down and write for a few matches (parents not excluded!). We haven't done pit scouting in years, if you're a team we're interested in we'll take a look Saturday morning to see how your robot looks and see then if there are any features that change our likelihood of picking you.

If you're having trouble getting enough students to scout on your team, I would encourage you to go to a simpler format like we've done, or work with other teams to get enough interested bodies for 6 man scouting. For standing out all I can say is perform your best on the field, and maybe let teams on Saturday morning know you've fixed issues you've had or that you're doing better than your QP shows. If you're noticeably good or bad promotion really doesn't matter, but if you're "on the bubble" it may help you out a little to teams with good scouting. For teams without any scouting data I can't quite say what influence it would have.

I'll PM you the contact info for my Dad on 498 if you'd like a copy of our scouting info from this year to see where you fell in the ratings (I don't have a copy of them myself).

And if it's any consolation things like this do happen everywhere, as has been mentioned. My team this year (167) finished 12th at Milwaukee and somewhere in the 16-20 range for most OPR categories but was not picked in eliminations. We lucked out in that we were called in as a backup after QF1-1, but prior to that I was thinking "maybe we should have promoted ourselves more" after seeing some picks that didn't make much sense with what we had scouted.

[dellagd]

It seems you guys continue to talk about how well your robot preforms to other teams in order to have a better chance of being picked. How would we go about doing this in a way that doesnt sound like "PICK ME PICK ME" or isnt awkward or anything?

It seems like "You should pick us because ~~~~" Would be a little bit of a bad thing to just put out there. Any help?

[Donut]

Originally Posted by dellagd

It seems you guys continue to talk about how well your robot preforms to other teams in order to have a better chance of being picked. How would we go about doing this in a way that doesnt sound like "PICK ME PICK ME" or isnt awkward or anything?

It seems like "You should pick us because ~~~~" Would be a little bit of a bad thing to just put out there. Any help?

I've never liked the idea of "cold calling" teams in their pit so to speak, since to me it always comes across exactly as you stated. I think the better option is to have that kind of information available in your pit if a team stops by and asks about how your robot is performing (and if they're coming by they probably have some interest in picking you). Also team members making friends with other teams helps since there is sometimes informal discussion of "how are you guys doing so far?", and the person you talk to may mention some of those comments to the scouting group later. Last year we had one team we elevated on our pick list after a student mentioned that team xxxx had fixed their arm issues and put up a full row of middle tubes on Saturday (this was despite a 2-8 record or so). Checking the scouting data again confirmed they were performing much better, and the only reason we didn't pick them was that we ended up getting selected by a team above us and there was another team high on our list that they also wanted to select.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by dellagd

It seems you guys continue to talk about how well your robot preforms to other teams in order to have a better chance of being picked. How would we go about doing this in a way that doesnt sound like "PICK ME PICK ME" or isnt awkward or anything?

It seems like "You should pick us because ~~~~" Would be a little bit of a bad thing to just put out there. Any help?

I much prefer teams that say: "we believe you should see us [do something] because we think we'd be a great compliment for your [some skill]. We're playing in match [number], please take a look!" This shows they're paying attention to your skills and the strategic implications of the entire event, and (most importantly) are willing and able to demonstrate their skills.

Unlike most teams, I am the mentor for both strategy management and pit work, so I am in the pit a lot when scouts come by. However, I pay zero attention to pick-me flyers or pitches that come without proof. There's just no time for sorting out the truth without the offer to demonstrate. If I know/have noticed the team already or am asked to watch them for something specific in a subsequent match, that's much more valuable.

[LeadU2Fun]

I hear everyone saying perform on the field. I think the problem was if you are "on the bubble" as someone stated then you might be overlooked. Also, I take to heart the suggestion to be highly distinguishable from other teams. I've heard that we were actually wanted for an alliance but our number was similar to others and we were confused with someone else. Completely different functioning robots. Because our team is small we are working on strategies so people know not only who we are but which robot is ours. I think this is where aesthetics come into the design that some teams don't think about. Especially important when "on the bubble". I also like the idea of a communication board in the pit educating people about your bot. Thank you for all the feedback. We are starting to build a business plan for next year based on your gracious professionalism.

[ToddF]

Let's assume your goal is to be in the elimination matches.

There are three ways to get there. 1) Win enough matches so your ranking makes you an alliance captain. 2) Perform well enough on the field so your performance makes you an attractive second pick. Second picks usually are decent "primary" scorers. 3) Become a third pick due to your outstanding secondary characteristics. In this year's game, this is probably going to be ability to balance and ability to play effective defense against fender bots.

Notice that marketing has almost nothing to do with the first two ways of getting to the elims. It is all about performance on the field. When you are marketing your robot, you are primarily trying to effect the possibility of your team being a third pick.

To do effective marketing, you need clearly identify your target market, and you need to effectively communicate the right message. In this case, your target market is/are the decision makers on the two better teams who have the power to decide to pick you. Since you cannot know ahead of time exactly which teams these will be, market to all the teams. I saw this mentioned in just one other post, but it bears repeating: Be sure you are directing your communications to the right person or persons. The people who are going to be making the pick lists are probably not in the pits. They are in the stands doing scouting. If you are trying to sell your team, and are walking from pit to pit doing so, your first question should be, "Can I speak with a member of your scouting team?" If there is no one in the pit from scouting, ask for a name, and go find that person in the stands. Communicating the right message to the wrong person is not effective marketing.

Next, you need to communicate the right message. Remember who your target market is. You are not trying to sell your "primary" scoring ability. If you were a steller scorer, you would be one of the two teams doing the picking, not one of the many hoping to be picked. Your performance on the field would have achieved this already. Rather, emphasize the qualities that will distinguish you from the rest of the mid-pack robots.

The most effective marketing strategy I can think of would be to track down the mentor and student in charge of making the pick list for each team. Place in their hands a flyer. The most important thing on the flyer is a huge picture of your robot, so they will see it and remember to watch for it on the field. Under that, list the qualities that make you an attractive third pick.

Just for the fun of it, here is a flier for our team. (Look for us at the North Carolina Regional.)

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-y...%2520flier.gif

[remulasce]

It's not a bad flier, but even that is too much self-promotion for a scout to take seriously. As you said, the picture is the most important thing, but that picture doesn't tell a scout what he wants to know. Better would be shots of the drivetrain, the "high traction wheels" themselves, and the bridge manipulator. A scout does not trust your declaration of "no penalties", "bridge manipulator works", "can drive over balls to balance", and will not have faith in your drivers' years if it is not evident on the field. What he might do, however, is look at a team number on his pick list as he attempts to rank it, and wonder exactly what that robot /has/. Conventional scouting is good at figuring out how well a robot performs, but it's a bit harder to judge the overall quality of construction, how likely it is to fail, etc. That's why a scout would like a picture of your bridge lowering device: Is it a wimpy pneumatic piston, or is it a beast of aluminum? Does it look taped together? That's the sort of thing that he can use to place your robot above the near-identically-performing next one. Otherwise, your only option is to just do better.

[LeadU2Fun]

If anyone wants to see how OPR and QP points can vary here is the comparisons in an excel file from the Arizona regional:

Just click "Login as Guest" to get it.

Granted having scouts record more specifics based only on individual team statistics is a better measurement tool.

P.S. Just wanted to congratulate 498 and 2486 on their awesome scouting!

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by remulasce

It's not a bad flier, but even that is too much self-promotion for a scout to take seriously.

Our head coach said pretty much the same thing when he saw it. Our actual team policy is to do little to no self promotion at all. We scout others based on what happens on the field, not what they say they can do, and expect others to scout us the same way.

It seems that the gist of the thread is that aggressive marketing is at best ineffective, and at worst off-putting. So, (speaking as a relative newcomer to the FIRST scene) why do so many teams do it? It seems like it must have been effective for someone at some point in time, or the practice would have died out. Or is it a case of newcomers seeing people doing something that seems like a good idea, and copying them, even though it's not? (Like shouting "Robot!")

[remulasce]

Right. The best you can hope for, I think, is to be helpful. If you are performing as well on paper as teams with wimpy drivetrains, but your drivetrain is really a beast that hasn't had opportunity to show its true potential, you can help other teams' scouts out by giving them pictures of your drivetrain. They should (hopefully) be able to tell a solid drivetrain when they see one. But if you have the exact same robot as everybody else on the field, there's not much you can do.