Strategy Sub-Team

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Basel A

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.

Or, it could make you write off a team as useless. If that 90% cheese robot manages to shut you down, particularly if you wrote it off due to your pit scouting, I'd suspect that you'd have a little whey on your face.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by EricH

... You cannot change my mind on this.

Ungracious Iconoclast Alert!!!!

You would be telling oh-so-many people that they have wasted oh-so-much of their own time, and oh-so-much time of the people they were interviewing.

You can't do that without expecting a full pitchforks & torches parade in your honor.

But what if it really was true??? (or 80% true?)

Empires would fall. Seas would boil. Cities would crumble and be swept into the sea. Flocks of black helicopters would emerge from Hollow Earth. Cats and dogs would start getting along. ...

And many teams could invest more of their students' talents, and precious time, in something that would pay greater dividends?

Blake

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by Gregor

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).

I think 3rd picks at champs can be crucial for a successful Einstein alliance. Take a look at TBA and you'll see that. Take the Hopper division winners and Einstein finalists for example(successful in my book). 2512 was a third pick and yet they were crucial for using 987's cheesecake to grab cans from the center and utilizing the other HP station to make stacks.

Many alliances won their division because of 3rd picks as well this year. Take the carson division winners as an example. 1711 was crucial to their Einstein appearance this year by grabbing cans from the center. Tesla division winners as well with 2526 as their 3rd pick.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by EricH

Or, it could make you write off a team as useless. If that 90% cheese robot manages to shut you down, particularly if you wrote it off due to your pit scouting, I'd suspect that you'd have a little whey on your face.

Except if you're doing good scouting, this doesn't happen. It's also why you don't eliminate teams solely based on their pit scouting data.

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

So what if it doesn't matter most years? Weight mattered this year.

It's a given that your performance is based on how you use your robot, but having what would be most productive for the alliance is also important. I've seen a rookie team with a 2CIM drivetrain picked by the first seed alliance because their driving was that good. In 2014 we picked 2 partners both with mecanum, who both had some amount of a defensive role. Sounds like a terrible idea, I know, but as the 8th seed alliance captain up against the two top robots at the event, we knew we have to try something daring if we even wanted a chance. We knew both of these teams could use their tall robots and mecanum drives to get in front of the much shorter high-scoring robot we would face. Instead of pushing, they just stayed in front of the opposing shooter. We were surprisingly effective, considering we were the 8th seed alliance on a field that was basically 5 teams deep. How these teams used their robots was very effective, but the fact that we knew what they actually had allowed us to better compare them to other robots with similar defensive abilities, who would not have performed as well because of what they had. Sure, the "how" is vital, but that's picked up in qualitative data reliably. Pit scouting is about the what- the basic criteria. It isn't about deciding who's better, it's about being able to easily sort out robots by their physical features.

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

Obviously, our questions vary with the context of the game. Obviously, asking how many motors are on your drivetrain was not relevant to RR, and it was not something we asked this year. However, in 2014 it would have been important when looking for a pusher.

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.

Believe me, I know. 1089 got us our only step can through all of Einstein semis. (also, thanks to 548 for the cheesecake)

Long story short, pit scouting is all about the what. It's just a simple little criteria that can be used to sort teams by their physical attributes, not by how well they do it. The how is determined by qualitative and quantitative match data. Pit scouting questions are adapted to the context of the game, for obvious reasons.

[evanperryg]

Also, more to the topic of this thread, Amit3339 if you'd like more detail on any aspect of how our scouting team is managed, feel free to PM me.

[Michael Corsetto]

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.

In an ideal world, with perfect scouting, strategy and foresight, I'm sure this holds true. Makes sense you don't want to deviate from this theory.

However, I want to emphasize that, in practice, filtering pick lists based off of pit data can be very helpful. I call it "strategic generalization".

For 2010-2014 era games, 1678 found that making an initial filter based on drivetrain type improved the quality of our 2nd pick. I think this is what Gregor was talking about.

2015 was a real outlier in terms of 2nd picks. We used no match scouting data for all three of our regional 2nd picks, only cheesecake pit scouting data. We initially filtered teams based off of code type, weight, willingness to work with us, etc., all data collected in the pit.

Lesson learned from 2015, past generalizations will not always apply to future games. The key is not "will you generalize?" but "what will you generalize?"

I won't try to change your mind, but hopefully others find some value in the practice of strategic generalization.

You can hold on to your ideas and I'll hold on to my blue banners.

-Mike

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Well that and caffeine...

Delivered using multiple pathways.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

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.

Last year, despite being the alliance captain, I believe that we did not score a single goal during the Champs playoffs. We did score truss points as that was our primary design role. I think 1640 scored more than us (1 goal on Einstein.) We scored 232 in a regionals qual match where we scored only 1 point goals.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

...
For 2010-2014 era games, 1678 found that making an initial filter based on drivetrain type improved the quality of our 2nd pick. I think this is what Gregor was talking about.

Do you suppose that it's possible that an even more effective and useful filtering or ranking could have been done using accurate observations of how the drivetrains (and drivers) performed on the field, instead of using the results of your pit scouting?

I'll wager a nice dinner that it is more than just possible; and I think that is what EricH was talking about.

I'll let you guys debate which methods get you to your desired end goals at the lowest costs (in terms of team resources expended), and in the time frames when initial and final estimates are required.

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

... You can hold on to your ideas and I'll hold on to my blue banners.

In my best Jar-Jar Binks voice, "How wude!"

That last line came across a little harshly, especially when earning your blue banners is affected by much more than just scouting accuracy. Good enough scouting is important, and pretty close to being necessary; but it is way far away from being sufficient.

Blake

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by gblake

Do you suppose that it's possible that an even more effective and useful filtering or ranking could have been done using accurate observations of how the drivetrains (and drivers) performed on the field, instead of using the results of your pit scouting?

Can the answer be both? Notice I said our "initial" filtering was based off drivetrain type aka. pit scouting. Our second filter was based on "accurate observations of how the drivetrains (and drivers) performed on the field." The primary filter made our second filter easier to perform.

Richard can talk more about how we implemented our second filter based on field performance, I don't understand half of how they do it!

Originally Posted by gblake

In my best Jar-Jar Binks voice, "How wude!"

That last line came across a little harshly, especially when earning your blue banners is affected by much more than just scouting accuracy. Good enough scouting is important, and pretty close to being necessary; but it is way far away from being sufficient.

Definitely agree, winning in FRC is a many-dimensional challenge.

On topics like scouting, with a wide range of opinions, voices and methods, we prefer to "steal from the best, invent the rest." We follow that motto in all aspects of our team's operations, and it's definitely worked out for us. YBBMV (Your Blue Banners May Vary)

-Mike

PS. For 1678, "the best" almost always refers to 254 or 973. We copy them a lot.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by gblake

Do you suppose that it's possible that an even more effective and useful filtering or ranking could have been done using accurate observations of how the drivetrains (and drivers) performed on the field, instead of using the results of your pit scouting?

No, because we do both. We pre-filter based on what their drivetrain is and weight it with their on field performance. It is never black and white, but many different shades on a grey scale when it comes to us comparing robots. Though some of those shades can be practically indistinguishable from black and white, they are in fact at least a little grey.

Edit: Dang Mike, you post sniped me!

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

That last line came across a little harshly, especially when earning your blue banners is affected by much more than just scouting accuracy. Good enough scouting is important, and pretty close to being necessary; but it is way far away from being sufficient.

Without commenting on verbiage, having had first-hand experience with a 1678 blue banner I can say that it absolutely is about scouting. Not that it isn't also about other things, but I'm utterly positive that these nice folks would would have fewer medals (and so would we!) if not for their incredible scouting work. It's not sufficient, but it is absolutely necessary the way they play. I suspect that Mike was implying necessity rather than sufficiency with that comment.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Can the answer be both? Notice I said our "initial" filtering was based off drivetrain type aka. pit scouting. Our second filter was based on "accurate observations of how the drivetrains (and drivers) performed on the field." The primary filter made our second filter easier to perform.

Richard can talk more about how we implemented our second filter based on field performance, I don't understand half of how they do it!

Right, and that is our violent agreement about me stepping aside if folks want to discuss whether the resources consumed in their own team's pit scouting is worth trouble.

Spending a little time and having the downstream work get a lot easier means it is worth the trouble. Spending a lot of time and only getting a minor simplification later would not be worth the trouble. I don't think outside observers can make useful generalizations about that, for other teams. There are a lot of implementation details in play.

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Definitely agree, winning in FRC is a many-dimensional challenge.

A little more violent agreement.

Originally Posted by RoboChair

No, because we do both. We pre-filter based on what their drivetrain is and weight it with their on field performance. It is never black and white, but many different shades on a grey scale when it comes to us comparing robots. Though some of those shades can be practically indistinguishable from black and white, they are in fact at least a little grey.

What you wrote here doesn't support your answer of "No".

If a team is prefiltered to the bottom of the heap because of robot implementation, and does well on the field, do you keep them ranked lower than teams that do worse than them on the field?

If a team is prefiltered to the top of the heap because of robot implementation, and does poorly on the field, do you keep them ranked higher than teams that do better than them on the field?

My belief is that as the quals draw to a close, accurately assessing on-field performance, plus making a small investment in the pits near the end of quals (to find out if a team finally starts hitting on all cylinders (they fix a software bug, or complete a mechanical change, or swap drivers, or ...)), swamps any investment in early pit scouting.

I think Michael wrote that pit scouting helps you a bit with deciding who gets the most scouting attention while on the field. That makes sense.

However, it sounds like you are trying to tell me that in your method, at the end of quals, if you ranked the teams according to the on-field performance your scouts see, you would then also adjust those ranks non-trivially based on pit-scouting data. That sounds a bit odd. I can certainly see making a case for it because the number of qual matches played usually isn't enough to supply an excellent assessment of each teams abilities. But ... with that in mind, I think we might at least agree that as the number of qual matches increases (and for the sake of argument, lets assume everything else is constant), the value of pit-scouting data steadily declines.

What I was saying in support of what I think EricH was saying, is that by the end of a typical tournament, I would side with him and be unlikely to let early pit-scouting data significantly alter any ranking I had created using on-the-field scouting.

If you guys do let pit-scouting data significantly affect your end-of-quals rankings I'm surprised. And, if you do, maybe that has helped you win, or maybe you have won regardless of any possible harm done by those changes. Get out a ouija to answer that one.

Regardless, congrats on the wins.
Blake
PS: In all of this I am setting aside aspects of team performance that depend on how well any two teams get along when they need to communicate/cooperate. For the sake this discussion, let's assume everyone is equal in that regard, and in other similar characteristics.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

... I'll hold on to my blue banners.

From my high school years on 330, doing scouting, that'd be 9 gold medals in my room (including 2x RCA), plus a trio of silvers. Just so you have a known point of comparison on that.

[Edit]: I did go and check on the banners Mike has won since high school. If high school were the only factor, I think I've got that hands down. But, if we're dealing with total, or current teams, he's got me by at least 3 depending on exact method used.

[RoboChair]

The reason that I said no in the first place is that we cannot make a fully informed decision without both. Every year the weights will change but we will always need both sets of data by the time all is said and done. We cannot make an fully informed decision with out a full set of information. It would be incredibly rare for a robot's drivetrain to change our choice of 1st pick, but by the time it comes back around for the 2nd pick things are rarely simple. The drivetrain a robot is running may drastically change our strategy as an alliance based solely on what it is best and worst at doing. Some years our pick list has contingencies, while others have contingencies within contingencies.