paper: Scouting Program Results so far for Galileo

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

Scouting Program Results so far for Galileo
by: Bryany

The Galileo data gathered by 1094 using their MyScout program, up to match #123.

Here are the results of 1094’s scouting for Thurs-Fri in Galileo. (based upon which raw points have been scored by which teams, not by alliance) If you already have the MyScout program, you can use the attached .tmm file to access the sortable/markable list of all the teams and their stats (in average or total), attach/view photos of teams, have the complete schedule for past and upcoming matches, see which alliance/station you will be on for each match, view data of teams only playing your next match, receive strategy advice based on the same, print out simple sheets of team data however you want to sort it, export to an excel file, and continue to add scouting data to this file. If you don’t have the program, you can simply look at its excel file which I also have below. If you don’t have the program or have a version earlier than, you can download it from .

ChampionshipQuals.tmm (13.2 KB)
ChampionshipQuals.csv (3.61 KB)

This is the data we’ve collected thus far. It measures a team’s capabilities based on what they’ve actually scored/hung/deployed. 1094 played a lot of defense today, so we’re shown with a pretty low teleop record.

The only major problem I see is that the ubertubes aren’t counted for 9 points if a tube is hung on top of them, or 12 points if they’re part of a completed logo. This cuts auto-scores by up to half.

Those bonus points don’t really have much to do with capability, which is what this program focuses on. In most cases, it isn’t really that much harder to hang over an ubertube than on a blank peg. Forming a logo doesn’t mean your robot is better than another robot who placed 3 tubes on different racks, so the program doesn’t consider those either.

The issue has less to do with finishing a logo and more to do with how the teams are ranked based upon “total points contributed” and “total average points contributed”. If you’re only ever counting a top-tube as 3 points, regardless of whether it creates a logo or is on an ubertube, then perhaps teleop isn’t as skewed as I thought. Yet ubertubes really are worth 12 points in a full game analysis (especially when analyzing Einstein-capable robots), so discounting their value and then ranking teams based upon an overall " teleop+auton contribution score" is bound to be wrought with errors.

On the same note if we hung 4 tubes in a match, 2 on top and 2 on mid, simply because our alliance put up the other 4 tubes on top, then we’re penalized in this system. Relative to a robot who’s the only tube-scorer in a match that puts 4 up top by itself, we’re really about the same. It’s more a matter of circumstance than capability.

Granted, my team only ever hung 4 tubes in a single match and our ubertubes had an 80% score rate (I think we had 31 tubes total). Yet none of the ‘ranked’ statistics account for any of the non-quantifiable things that happen in a match – like being the partner in an alliance who’s simply ‘beaten’ back to the rack by a second, so in the interest of time we place on a lower rack.

It’s why our scouts simply lumped together mid/high tubes unless a robot could only get to the middle. Perhaps it’s something to think about moving into future years.