1310 Versatility: 2013 Recap Video

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Curie selections turned out just how they should have (in regards to the scorching, good picks!), but the fact was it did weaken the division (which was the point).

Originally Posted by Jeffy

I think I was a bit misunderstood. The results of the #1 alliance speak for themselves. I wasn't trying to diminish the strength of any of the alliances, but I believed that if 1310 had gotten to play on one of the top 3 alliances, they could have progressed much farther in the ladder.

Instead of a top 3 pick, they ended up making a much later pick.

2056 + 1310 would have been a nightmare to play against, they would have had an unbelievable alliance if we had let them make that pick. I agree that some of the Curie alliances would have been stronger, however they were by no means non-competitive compared to the other divisions.

Originally Posted by O'Sancheski

Agreed. 1310 picked up the best pure cycler in the division in 3824.

3824 was not the best pure cycler in the division, they were however very high on the list and the fact that 1310 got both 3824 and 1684 was astounding, those robots should have both gone as first picks much earlier on.

[O'Sancheski]

Originally Posted by themccannman

2056 + 1310 would have been a nightmare to play against, they would have had an unbelievable alliance if we had let them make that pick. I agree that some of the Curie alliances would have been stronger, however they were by no means non-competitive compared to the other divisions.

3824 was not the best pure cycler in the division, they were however very high on the list and the fact that 1310 got both 3824 and 1684 was astounding, those robots should have both gone as first picks much earlier on.

In your scouting data who was the best cycler?

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by O'Sancheski

In your scouting data who was the best cycler?

Not including FCS's the robot that picked up the most frisbees per match from the feeder station only was 359. 3824 was the second best at only getting frisbees from the feeder station, however this is partially due to the fact that they never did ground pick up. Both 1717 and 1310 picked up and shot more frisbees per match than 3824 did however they occasionally did ground pick up which reduced their feeder station pick up count. 3824 had a killer robot and was the best pure cycler available for 1310 to pick, however they were not the best pure cycler in Curie. I'm still incredibly surprised that they didn't go as an earlier pick since they were so good.

[O'Sancheski]

Originally Posted by themccannman

Not including FCS's the robot that picked up the most frisbees per match from the feeder station only was 359. 3824 was the second best at only getting frisbees from the feeder station, however this is partially due to the fact that they never did ground pick up. Both 1717 and 1310 picked up and shot more frisbees per match than 3824 did however they occasionally did ground pick up which reduced their feeder station pick up count. 3824 had a killer robot and was the best pure cycler available for 1310 to pick, however they were not the best pure cycler in Curie. I'm still incredibly surprised that they didn't go as an earlier pick since they were so good.

I agree with you that 359 was the best at getting frisbee from the feeder station. But 3824 had the highest shooting percentage and usually had 6 cycles per match. 359 was only getting 4-5. 3824 also had a 5 disc auto.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by O'Sancheski

I agree with you that 359 was the best at getting frisbee from the feeder station. But 3824 had the highest shooting percentage and usually had 6 cycles per match. 359 was only getting 4-5. 3824 also had a 5 disc auto.

3824 definitely had the advantage in auto, it looks like 3824 did average more tele-op disc point per match than 359 did, 359 just averaged 1 more disc picked up from the feeder station per match than 3824. 359 was better at getting frisbees, but 3824 was better at scoring.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by themccannman

3824 definitely had the advantage in auto, it looks like 3824 did average more tele-op disc point per match than 359 did, 359 just averaged 1 more disc picked up from the feeder station per match than 3824. 359 was better at getting frisbees, but 3824 was better at scoring.

Who cares how many frisbees you picked up from the feeder slot? I care about how many you got in the goal.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Who cares how many frisbees you picked up from the feeder slot? I care about how many you got in the goal.

If you completely excluded all robots that did anything other than run feeder station cycles (e.g. any robot that ever FCSed, or did ground pick up) then 3824 was the best at getting the most points doing laps from the feeder station to the pyramid. It's hard to compare robots like 1717 and 1310 that did lots of different things.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by themccannman

If you completely excluded all robots that did anything other than run feeder station cycles (e.g. any robot that ever FCSed, or did ground pick up) then 3824 was the best at getting the most points doing laps from the feeder station to the pyramid. It's hard to compare robots like 1717 and 1310 that did lots of different things.

I'm referring to comparing 3824 to 359. Both great bots, but why would it matter who can get more disks from the feeder slot? You don't get points for that. You get points for the disks in the goals.

[Ankit S.]

Originally Posted by Gregor

I'm referring to comparing 3824 to 359. Both great bots, but why would it matter who can get more disks from the feeder slot? You don't get points for that. You get points for the disks in the goals.

I would think they look at both disks scored and disks taken from feeder station.
Sometimes the disks miss the robot while loading.

It would be extremely important to know that although a robot scored 16/16 disks, 10 disks were lost due to feeding error.

By looking at disks scored and disks loaded (and disks missed too), you can not only find the robots teleop points per match and shooting percentage, but also see if a robot is taking an unnecessarily large amount disks that could instead be used by a different alliance partner.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Gregor

I'm referring to comparing 3824 to 359. Both great bots, but why would it matter who can get more disks from the feeder slot? You don't get points for that. You get points for the disks in the goals.

359 and 3824 where very close in both number of cycles per match and number of shots made, in some cases you may want to know if 359 could make one more cycle per match more than 3824 even if they weren't making all of their shots. There's a lot of things you can infer from statistics that statistics won't necessarily tell you. Both of these robots were so close in performance that you can't say that one was absolutely a better cycler than the other, all you can say is that 3824 tends to score slightly more points. In addition, 359 went for the climb much more often than 3824 did, which is also may have caused them to have a lower average disc score. And comparing either of these robots to ones like 1717 and 1310 is much harder to do because we don't know how either of them would perform if they weren't allowed to FCS or do ground pick up, they could be better, or they could be worse than 3824. There were a lot of robots at the top of Curie that were all very good and had very similar performance, it's really hard to say which is the "best" at anything.