Sharing information - not a good idea?

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Maybe the strategy is: On Day 1 of qualifications, tell scouting teams you will post the information on Day 2.

That way, you get one day of competition with the other teams not knowing. On day 2 interested teams will be able to get the info that may not have been revealed during day 1 of qualifications.

I wouldn't be opposed to this idea, regarding Outer Works. As a Drive Team, I'm going to want to get my data from their Drive Team and our field scouts anyway.

[MrJohnston]

I'll answer this based on what I'd be willing to share - and when - to meet the needs of our team....

* I figure that, right now, I'll share very little. We have a lot of functionality decisions to finalize yet, so that it's not likely that I could be accurate anyhow. Besides, if we come up with an especially clever idea we'd rather keep it quiet until other teams are far enough into the design process to mimic it. What would I share now? It looks like our primary purpose will be to damage defenses. We've also agreed that we'll be able to acquire a boulder and have room on the bot to put stickers for our sponsors. Everything else is on the table as we need to do some rough prototyping to see what combinations of options are available.

* Around week 4, it will be too late for most/all teams to completely change their designs and actually create a strong robot. Those with that capability will likely already have something as good as our bot (or better) anyhow.... So, I'd share the general concepts of what we can do and likely share some specifics. However, I'd keep a few things under wraps - such as which defenses we can most/least effectively damage.

* We aim to win our first district event. I'm certain we can be a team captain and will be in a position to do the choosing. So, we won't have to worry much about advertising our abilities. So, we'll share, throughout, information about our general functions, yet have some things kept quiet. (We typically have multiple autonomous routines, for instance. One is our "go-to" that we anticipate using most of the time. The others will be used in specialized situations - or when we need to do something unexpected.) Most years, we have a routine or two we never use. When we've been to Champs, we've had routines we've used for the very first time in eliminations.

* After our first district event, we'll be much more open. Teams that are really competitive will have already studied the videos on what we can/cannot do. Teams that are less competitive, well, are less competitive. Sharing openly with them, will help them the following season. Of course, we might have some functions that we are still keeping quiet at this point.


* NW Champs or Worlds? It will really depend on our self-assessment on how we stack up against everybody else.....

[Mr. Tatorscout]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Maybe the strategy is: On Day 1 of qualifications, tell scouting teams you will post the information on Day 2.

That way, you get one day of competition with the other teams not knowing. On day 2 interested teams will be able to get the info that may not have been revealed during day 1 of qualifications.

FIRST of all, The problem is when your alliance partners want to work up a strategy in advance, they can't until you are in the queue because you haven't told them anything.
Second, most pit scouting happens on the first day because once competitions start, the scouts are in the stands...so now you're making the record keeper beg kids to go back out and scout that last robot that wouldn't talk to them before.
Third, you run the risk of not being seen as a team player and get black-balled. "Which team was that again? OH, THEM!" How easy a team is to work with is one of the factors in picking an alliance partner.
Fourth, Gracious Professionalism...

[alopex_rex]

This would be more of an issue to think about if anything anyone ever said to pit scouters had any resemblance to the truth.

As another poster put it, it's not that anyone lies to pit scouters, it's just their answers are too unrealistically optimistic to mean much. I'm sure lots of teams will say that, in theory, they can do every defense, and then spend their entire first match stuck on the rocky terrain.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by alopex_rex

This would be more of an issue to think about if anything anyone ever said to pit scouters had any resemblance to the truth.

As another poster put it, it's not that anyone lies to pit scouters, it's just their answers are too unrealistically optimistic to mean much. I'm sure lots of teams will say that, in theory, they can do every defense, and then spend their entire first match stuck on the rocky terrain.

Well said! I have my "new-bees" (rookies) do the pit scouting. I do it so they get used to the idea of talking to other teams, hopefully building some relationships with other teams, and to ask robot specific questions - so they start to learn robot terminology. I had one come back and exclaim, "I know what a CIM looks like!"

From their scouting report, I need a good picture. Also maybe, what type of drivetrain they have. Everything else is usually an overly optimistic analysis of what they think they can do on a perfect day, if the laws of physics are relaxed, and they suddenly learn to optimize their performance. My match scouting is a much better indicator of what they really can do, not what is said in the pits.

[abigailthefox]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I don't think the answers to pit scouting questions have ever been particularly well correlated with robot ability. It seems the way psychology works your best match somehow becomes what you remember as average. Folks don't do it to be devious, they just honestly don't know how well their robot actually performs.

What happens on the field is the truth, everything else is subject to be Best Available Data.

Pit scouting is never very useful...
"Oh yeah, we can make two six stacks! And cap them!"
*match data indicates 1 5-stack on a good day...*

Honestly, it's in the spirit of FIRST to cooperate, and at the end of the day, teams want to be chosen for good alliances, so they'll probably talk up their abilities at least a little. Withholding everything does make you a little overly competitive/borderline paranoid, and honestly when it comes to alliance selection, unless you're a very strong team, it will hurt you more than help you.

[The other Gabe]

This is really not a good idea, really, especially if you happen to be a team that is going to be picked, instead of picking. as a scouting lead, I did base my choices at least partially off of which teams were honest, friendly, and willing to admit their flaws as well as their strengths (say there's two teams, nearly equal in how they compliment my team's robot, and I'm the 6th seeded robot. I'm gonna pick the team that knows where it is weak, because then we can make a strategy around that).

a team is gonna find out your weaknesses whether you want them to or not. better to be honest, both in the respect of gracious professionalism, and because it makes you look better.

Originally Posted by rich2202

Maybe the strategy is: On Day 1 of qualifications, tell scouting teams you will post the information on Day 2.

That way, you get one day of competition with the other teams not knowing. On day 2 interested teams will be able to get the info that may not have been revealed during day 1 of qualifications.

Pit scouting is also used by strategists to figure out strategies within the team, and they dont really have time to hunt you down before their next match. this would be really annoying.

[blaze8902]

The team I work with has always been far more concerned with facilitating the long term success of the students in the area in a sustainable manner. Our priorities lie in helping everyone we can to achieve their potential.

That said, we care more about helping other teams grow by sharing our designs and resources, and increasing our own success through cooperation with our alliance.

This year we plan on continuing our tradition of maintaining as high a level of transparency as is feasible.

I know many other teams have a different, more competitive, philosophy that differs from our focus on cooperation and provision of resources and information.

To each their own, as long as students are learning and having fun you can approach FIRST however you like, but I believe this year we will maintain transparency.

As a side note, I do find it interesting that our method of pit scouting differs from a few teams who have spoken up in this thread. Rather than newer students, we generally have a mix of students who scout. We like to have mechanically experienced students teach others how to identify a robots capabilities visually, with a focus on asking other teams how their mechanisms work and what design decisions they made. We've found this to be more informative and educational on several fronts.

[Chief Hedgehog]

I really think that Pit-Scouting is more about gaining the general 'feel' of a team. Most of the scouting (at least the best info) comes from scouting teams on the field.

[blaze8902]

Agreed. If anything it's an opportunity to figure out what we're going to look out for in the stands.

Speaking with the students and looking at their robots is more of a learning experience than something used in the match.

That said, definitives like "can it shoot" or "What kind of drive train does it use?" can be answered, while questions like "How well does it say shoot?" is best saved for the stands.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by bduddy

In past FRC games, most teams have shared information about their own robots fairly freely with other teams, both to assist scouting and just as a general courtesy. However, in this game, alliances have a direct ability, through choosing defenses, to affect how difficult it is for the other alliance to gain points. Therefore, if I was in the pits and heard "What defenses can your robot cross?" or even "What does that arm do?" early on Friday, I'd think twice before answering... especially if I glanced at the schedule and saw that the team asking was a future opponent.

Any thoughts? Am I just overly competitive, or is this going to be a real issue?

On my team, pit scouting data is really only used as a filter on the quantitative data. Since we'll also be tracking what defenses teams actually cross in their matches, we'll be picking defenses that team struggles with, regardless of what that team tells the pit scouters.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

I really think that Pit-Scouting is more about gaining the general 'feel' of a team. Most of the scouting (at least the best info) comes from scouting teams on the field.

To me pit scouting is more about getting data that stand scouting can't collect, but yes the "best" or most useful information comes from stand scouting.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by bduddy

In past FRC games, most teams have shared information about their own robots fairly freely with other teams, both to assist scouting and just as a general courtesy. However, in this game, alliances have a direct ability, through choosing defenses, to affect how difficult it is for the other alliance to gain points. Therefore, if I was in the pits and heard "What defenses can your robot cross?" or even "What does that arm do?" early on Friday, I'd think twice before answering... especially if I glanced at the schedule and saw that the team asking was a future opponent.

Any thoughts? Am I just overly competitive, or is this going to be a real issue?

We've found pre-scouting to be a waste of time, except for taking pictures. Often teams inflate their own abilities or give inaccurate statements. That's not a negative on teams: it's just that they see that they completed some task in practice and decide they can do it in a real match. Or sometimes they just have a overly optimistic view of how good their robot might be.

If they don't do it in a match, then we assume they can't do it. Unless it's a team you know well and who has proven to be trustworthy in assessing their own abilities.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

Well said! I have my "new-bees" (rookies) do the pit scouting. I do it so they get used to the idea of talking to other teams, hopefully building some relationships with other teams, and to ask robot specific questions - so they start to learn robot terminology. I had one come back and exclaim, "I know what a CIM looks like!"

From their scouting report, I need a good picture. Also maybe, what type of drivetrain they have. Everything else is usually an overly optimistic analysis of what they think they can do on a perfect day, if the laws of physics are relaxed, and they suddenly learn to optimize their performance. My match scouting is a much better indicator of what they really can do, not what is said in the pits.

It also helps new students learn to smell BS from a mile away.

As Ian and Tom Line said, pit scouting is pretty useless for anything other than a nice picture and looking at what drive/gearing/motors a team has. My old scouts barely ever even asked questions, other than "can we take a photo?"

[Edxu]

While I'll never claim to be absolutely correct, I believe that it's correct to be honest and as realistic as possible with any scout that shows up at your pit, because it's a good measure of reliability and communication.

(2014 example) If a pit rep or team member tells you that they hit their 2-ball Hot Auto every single match, and scouting data shows that they only hit 1 of 2 balls, and only 30% hot, it shows that either that team member isn't watching matches and is misinformed about their team's performance, denoting lack of communication, or that they want to sway your scouting data a little bit in your favor, which may cause many problems if they don't at least semi-reliably deliver on their claim.

Last year, during the Recycle Rush Championships, I probably told 10-15 teams that we had matches with upfront that we were putting on a new mechanism, and we would either be crippled or of very little scoring use. I noticed that the response was much more positive, and our alliance partners were very gracious in adjusting the strategy to lessen the load on us. On the other hand, one of the most frustrating things that I've had to deal with during FRC is when an alliance partner tells us that they're able to do X task and would like to do it, in order to impress scouts in the stands, and after assuring us of their capability, they miss the shots, possibly costing us the match.

My opinion is that teams should try and be honest about their capabilities at competition.
Also, where's the fun in a game if the opposing alliance doesn't give you hard defenses? There are few better feelings than overcoming targeted defense.