Strategy Sub-Team

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

*INCOMING CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT*

I'm truly surprised at how intensive some of you guys are with scouting during competition. I mean to be fair this year was the first time I was faced with having to make a pick list. But scouting didn't effect match to match strategy as much as Q'ing up did...

Smart strategy and scouting can take a weak robot and get it into eliminations.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a mediocre robot and make it a regional contender.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a decent robot and turn it into a regional lock.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a good robot and make it a sure bet to win a regional.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a great robot and bring it to einstein.
And smart strategy and scouting is essential for an elite robot to win a World Championship.

This year, 20 had the second one. Last year, 20 had the fourth one.
The goal is to one day strike lightning on robot design so we can be the sixth one.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Smart strategy and scouting can take a weak robot and get it into eliminations.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a mediocre robot and make it a regional contender.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a decent robot and turn it into a regional lock.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a good robot and make it a sure bet to win a regional.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a great robot and bring it to einstein.
And smart strategy and scouting is essential for an elite robot to win a World Championship.

This year, 20 had the second one. Last year, 20 had the fourth one.
The goal is to one day strike lightning on robot design so we can be the sixth one.

In your opinion could a robot provide a skill/ability/trait that by itself would carry the robot to the point where it would win a a world championship?

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

In your opinion could a robot provide a skill/ability/trait that by itself would carry the robot to the point where it would win a a world championship?

71 in 2002. That's it though. Every team since then to win a world championship because of the combination of good strategy, scouting, and a great robot.

And they wouldn't have won had they not correctly identified the right strategic priorities during build season.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

71 in 2002. That's it though. Every team since then to win a world championship because of the combination of good strategy, scouting, and a great robot.

And they wouldn't have won had they not correctly identified the right strategic priorities during build season.

So do you think theory crafting or the process of looking for game breaking tricks is separate from scouting?

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

So do you think theory crafting or the process of looking for game breaking tricks is separate from scouting?

What 71 did is good strategic design, which is in a similar category as scouting, but not the same.
I don't understand what you mean though.
What you said was:

*INCOMING CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT*

I'm truly surprised at how intensive some of you guys are with scouting during competition. I mean to be fair this year was the first time I was faced with having to make a pick list. But scouting didn't effect match to match strategy as much as Q'ing up did...

Strategic design isn't scouting, its good design. And they ended up with a good alliance to compliment them (meaning the team that picked them did a great job understanding what they needed to do to be 71's eliminations partner, so they won by doing good strategy and scouting)

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

What 71 did is good strategic design, which is in a similar category as scouting, but not the same.
I don't understand what you mean though.
What you said was:


Strategic design isn't scouting, its good design. And they ended up with a good alliance to compliment them (meaning the team that picked them did a great job understanding what they needed to do to be 71's eliminations partner, so they won by doing good strategy and scouting)

Oh my bad. Generally speaking scouting to me is done as something as soon as I have info on what other teams are doing. So as soon as we get feedback from things like Ri3D or as soon as I start seeing mechanisms crop up on youtube that information is plugged in directly to where its needed, and all that I consider part of scouting. So sometimes the info goes to strategic design, sometimes it goes to manufacturing so they order parts before they all vanish.

[pabeekm]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

So do you think theory crafting or the process of looking for game breaking tricks is separate from scouting?

While technically separate processes, scouting/scouting analysis and rules analysis rely on similar skill sets (e.g. knowing how to identify key factors of the game before competition, knowing how certain strategies will likely play against each other given robots of X ability, knowing what qualities of X robot type make or break performance, being able to realistically evaluate your limits (that one especially), etc.). That’s why game analysis and scouting often get paired together within discussions and within teams; the skills that a team uses for one will often be applied for the other. While you could say great scouting is “irrelevant” if you find and realize something truly and absolutely gamebreakinig, the GDC and your competition will try their best to keep you from ever getting there (hence why the few examples are remembered so well).

In the extremely likely event that you can’t totally break the game, even if you have a top tier robot, you are taking on an insane amount of risk by not scouting to your full potential, especially considering how easily various factors not based purely on your ability can murder your end performance (poor schedule, your robot’s name simply not being “out there”, alliance picks going in a crazy direction, etc.); good scouting will enable you to mitigate these risk factors.

That level of risk is way more real than you would think; in 2014 we got hit hard by all of these factors one way or another. The effects would’ve been way worse had we not been scouting hardcore (and 2014 absolutely demanded hardcore scouting), and, in hindsight, there are several ways we could have applied our knowledge to make those factors have hardly any end effect. The main point is that the payoff of great scouting can easily become very high in comparison to the (relatively low) effort cost. That’s why in a competition as intense as FRC, it’s virtually essential for teams who want that extra edge.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

So do you think theory crafting or the process of looking for game breaking tricks is separate from scouting?

We focused from Day 1 this year on can grabbing because we saw it as the chokehold strategy. However we also knew we needed at least a second stacking robot. Then we realized at the end of the build season it would take 2 bots to grab all of the cans, so that became the other scouting priority. So we set out to break the game, but we needed scouting to pull it off.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

We focused from Day 1 this year on can grabbing because we saw it as the chokehold strategy. However we also knew we needed at least a second stacking robot. Then we realized at the end of the build season it would take 2 bots to grab all of the cans, so that became the other scouting priority. So we set out to break the game, but we needed scouting to pull it off.

We recognized the value of Cans day 1. One day I hope that a team just throws everything out the window and focuses on no direct scoring and pure utility.

Oh and they win worlds... BUt thats impossible in itself.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Gregor

We have the exact same system. Lead scouting mentor and student come down and discuss with our drive team what our alliance should be doing. Time permitting, they come to the pre-match alliance meeting, but are normally quiet unless they drive coach misses something (which isn't uncommon, I miss things ).

What I wouldn't give to have a scouting mentor...

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Our system is similar. We wish we had it built by Week 4...

It helps when one of your best programmers is spending ~75% of his time working on the app Much of our data processing spreadsheets (now replaced by a combination of Access and Tableau, I'm going to post that eventually) were made by just changing some column titles.

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Smart strategy and scouting can take a weak robot and get it into eliminations.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a mediocre robot and make it a regional contender.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a decent robot and turn it into a regional lock.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a good robot and make it a sure bet to win a regional.
Smart strategy and scouting can take a great robot and bring it to einstein.
And smart strategy and scouting is essential for an elite robot to win a World Championship.

Originally Posted by connor.worley

2nd round picks win worlds...

Nothing on CD has ever been this true.

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

The definition of pit scouting in my book is asking teams questions about their robot that can't be answered through match scouting. Limit pit scouting to data your actually going to use(anything that can't be answered through match scouting) or in other words like you said, keep it simple(actual questions can be complex, but not redundant to what your match scouters are observing). Don't ask teams questions you can answer through match scouting because It'll be a waste of time and It'll be a pain on Friday night going through redundant pit scouting data.

I'll bite.
Having intensive pit scouting data can make filtering teams by their abilities easier, which is the only reason we still do extensive pit scouting. It has no other use besides giving us criteria to sort quantitative data by. Therefore, most questions we ask are either something they can't lie about (i.e. if they have can pullers, cause I'm standing in front of the robot and I can see if they have them) or something they wouldn't have a reason to lie about (their preferred starting position).

Originally Posted by EricH

Just about any key data point that you could pick up in the pit--like the ones you mentioned--can also be picked up on the field,

Drivetrain type can be impossible to pick up on from matches, especially if you're trying to differentiate between a really bad swerve and a really good mecanum. Number of motors in drivetrain, another important one when you're looking for defensive bots. Weight, impossible to get from matches. Available autonomous modes, as opposed to your preferred auto mode. Whether a robot can upright a container.

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

We also ask questions about what the intent of the robot (specifically worded to extract intent of the design). That way, we are able to juxtapose that with how they are doing (and if they are performing to expectations).

I'm not sure how that would give you an idea for how good a team actually is. Some teams have very low expectations, others have unreasonably high expectations.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

I'm not sure how that would give you an idea for how good a team actually is. Some teams have very low expectations, others have unreasonably high expectations.

It's less about finding out how good a team is rather than what to expect when we interact with the team. If we know they're going to say they can do [x] during the strategy session, we have data proving whether they can or not (so we know whether to rely on that information). For example, if a team says they're going to put up 3 yellow totes and that they do it all the time, yet our scouting says otherwise, then it's pretty easy to tell them "no" if another team can do it as well. If we see that we are going to be with a coach that's a 10-year veteran mentor, then 9 times out of 10, it's going to be hard to convince him or her of going with a strategy other than their own. It's about arming yourself with information, which I see no problem in.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Drivetrain type can be impossible to pick up on from matches, especially if you're trying to differentiate between a really bad swerve and a really good mecanum. Number of motors in drivetrain, another important one when you're looking for defensive bots. Weight, impossible to get from matches. Available autonomous modes, as opposed to your preferred auto mode. Whether a robot can upright a container.

I suspect that in most years, weight is a non-factor. If you pick them for eliminations, you will naturally do your best to find enough steel plates--or more useful hardware--to bring them up to the maximum weight minus 0.1 lb.

Let me phrase it this way: I don't give a darn about drivetrain type, number of motors, or weight. Why? Because handled well, they. don't. matter. What matters is how you use what you do have. If you have a somewhat lighter 4-CIM 4WD tank, and you drive it effectively, you will do better at your role than a heavy 6-CIM 6WD drop that isn't driven well. This competition (in general) isn't all about the pushing matches--if your 4-CIM hits the corner right when a shot is lined up, they're going to be wasting time realigning while you line up for another shot at them and your partners score 3.


That being said, I think y'all are forgetting something. At the Champs, it isn't just the second pick that will win you the event. It's the third as well. And then the lineups you use.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by EricH

Let me phrase it this way: I don't give a darn about drivetrain type, number of motors, or weight. Why? Because handled well, they. don't. matter. What matters is how you use what you do have. If you have a somewhat lighter 4-CIM 4WD tank, and you drive it effectively, you will do better at your role than a heavy 6-CIM 6WD drop that isn't driven well. This competition (in general) isn't all about the pushing matches--if your 4-CIM hits the corner right when a shot is lined up, they're going to be wasting time realigning while you line up for another shot at them and your partners score 3.

When you're picking the 24th robot at a 30-36 team event, drivetrain and number of motors absolutely matters.

That being said, I think y'all are forgetting something. At the Champs, it isn't just the second pick that will win you the event. It's the third as well. And then the lineups you use.

I can't think of a single successful Einstein alliance in the past 2 years that used their third pick for more than one match (although 900 and 5012's counter were certainly interesting, yet ultimately useless).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Gregor

When you're picking the 24th robot at a 30-36 team event, drivetrain and number of motors absolutely matters.

I maintain that it does not matter. Very simply: If a team can use whatever drivetrain that they have in a manner that benefits the alliance the best, it does not matter how many motors they have, or what type of drivetrain. Plain and simple. I can't say it any simpler. If a 2WD, 2CIM drivetrain is functional and its robot does the job that my alliance needs it to do better than any other robot out there, then darned if I ain't gonna pick that team regardless of however many 6CIM 8WD robots that do that job there are out there.

You cannot change my mind on this.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by EricH

I maintain that it does not matter. Very simply: If a team can use whatever drivetrain that they have in a manner that benefits the alliance the best, it does not matter how many motors they have, or what type of drivetrain. Plain and simple. I can't say it any simpler. If a 2WD, 2CIM drivetrain is functional and its robot does the job that my alliance needs it to do better than any other robot out there, then darned if I ain't gonna pick that team regardless of however many 6CIM 8WD robots that do that job there are out there.

You cannot change my mind on this.

Yes, and if a robot is 90% composed of cheese does the job that my alliance needs it to do better than any other robot out there, then I'll pick it. But the fact of the matter is that a robot 90% composed of cheese is unlikely to do any job well, particularly not the jobs often assigned to 3rd partners like "getting in the way of fast robots." A little pit scouting could save you time there.