When reading through/conversing on the Viper scouting app thread for this year there is a bit of difficulty with this year’s game that hasn’t really arisin for a few years (since 2017 or 2014 maybe)
The human payer (HP) could be responsible for a LOT of points. Who should scout them if scouts are supposed to be looking at robots?
It make sense to pay attention to the HP. But most teams dedicate a max of 6 folks to scouting, (with maybe a master scout to handle wrangling data/people).
Irrelevant of how we collect data (using TBA api or “manual”), It is my opinion that we can automate most of this away by:
Processor count - (Barge count - those scored by bots) = Algae Score Differential from the HP
No tracking of the HP required during the match, we only need to make note of which team supplied the HP - this should be easy enough.
Now this approach is not without its issues.
Misses reintroduce algae onto the field, leaving them in the processor does not
If 5 algae are scored in the processor but the sensor can only read some of them (due to it being located “downstream” of the opening) how do we handle that (and how is that even scored, does that 5th one count)? edit: see below, still raises a few issues with data collection
We must collect bot scored Algae and note who the HP is so we can separate things out later. The api can only provide processor counts and barge counts. Bot info and HP info is needed.
Is there some incompatible processor meta that may break this ? Q&A updates on clearing out the processor that may break this?
It does not count, per the game manual the algae has to pass the sensor array to count as scored.
An ALGAE is scored in a PROCESSOR once it has passed through the opening of the PROCESSOR and by the sensor array. An ALGAE is scored in a NET if it is above the NET and within the perimeter of the NET.
Scouters can’t be expected to see or know if actually passes through the sensor. I think this will be a source of error in the scouting data to some extent.
It isn’t going to be as bad as amplified/unamplified speaker shots last season. That was by far the thing that caused our score estimates based on scouting data to differ the most from the scores reported in the API.
I think it will be very minor error source, because that algae will be count ed when the processor is emptied out at the last second in endgame (it makes sense to empty it out in endgame, even though I am sure there will be instances where it is not…)
If the processor is “full” for most of the match there is no way for the opposing alliance to score in it, so obviously will not be used.
In Viper we have a 7th scouter we call our “subjective scouter”. That job is typically taken by somebody from the strategy subgroup that knows the rules very well and give meaningful opinions about how robots are performing, what strategies they are using, and what penalties they get. Last year that scouter collected path information during auto. We may end up giving them the job of recording the human player.
We could also create a new scouting position, just for watching the human players if we need to.
Good point. One thing I want to start early this year is making sure the scouters are able to know exactly what is going on and scouting week 0 matches. If everyone knows what going on the we can start scouting the human players.
I don’t think you want to take this approach, for a few reasons.
Success rate matters more
I’m much more concerned with the success rate of the Human Player than the final number. Your method would tell me “HP scored 3 ALGAE” but I won’t know if that was 3/3, 3/5, or 3/15. The absolute number the Human Player can score will be limited by the performance of the opposing Alliance’s robots, so I can’t compare the quality of the Human Player unless I do a lot of math to account for the quality of the robots, too.
Picking teams based on the HP is usually wrong
This might be a hot take, but I don’t think you really want to be picking teams based on the quality of their Human Player. Yes, Human Players can make or break close matches (or not close matches, when the scoring is off, which I don’t think it is in this game). However, I think you ought to pick the best robot for the job, and a Human Player is a tiebreaker at best (at which point, go watch a match for each of the couple teams in question).
Rethinking the 6 scouter:6 robot paradigm
Maybe this is the game to rethink the traditional 6 scouter:6 robot paradigm for scouting. If you do want to collect data for the Barge, you’re going to need someone watching what is robot vs. human player, without a doubt. Maybe this is the game to watch by location:
Scouter A - Watching the BARGE, counting who scores ALGAE (all robots and the HP), notating who can fit under the CAGES, and tracking the endgame.
Scouter B - Watching the REEF – do what the official scorer does (counting where CORAL is scored) but attribute each piece to an individual robot
Scouter C - Everything else – who can intake and from where, who plays defense, and other observations.
I’d guess that most people scouting human players are doing it for qualification match strategy, not for a picklist.
Our team has always scouted “important” human player roles (2015, 2017, 2024, etc.) Not for the purpose of a picklist, but for active use during match strategy in quals. Having good data on which of 3 potential human players is the best at scoring is pretty important in match strategy, especially if you’re working with another team’s human player that really, really wants to throw things but might be less consistent than the other 2 options.
This year we don’t have enough students to field 6 scouters, but we’re already planning on assigning someone to specifically document the human players and auto routines of our future alliance partners, so we have data to point to in the pits. (I might also steal bits of your zone-based idea to pitch to our students )
I think you’ll have to look at your qualification and playoff strategy before deciding if you need to scout human players. If scoring in the processor isn’t a significant part of your strategy, I think you can skip it. If you are an algae focused robot that can do processor and directly into the net, then it may make sense (if opponents have good HP, go directly in net. If not, processor). I know others feel differently, but IMO the point of scouting isn’t to see how close you can get to predict match scores but gather data to make more informed decisions.
We haven’t talked about what data we want to collect, but I suspect this will fall into the “let’s hold off until we see if we need” category.
1000% this
In general, I think the typical freshman/sophomore scout would struggle with this type of scouting. If you know the teams without looking at the number on their bumpers and have an idea who the robots are then it’s possible. (ie: I’m watching the reef and I know 1678 is a really good reef bot, so I’ll be ready to add alot of their ‘reef score count’). But I worry it becomes too complex if all 3 robots are scoring and scouts need to look at their bumpers and then down at their tablet/paper.
I’ve taken that exact approach for most of the scouting teams I’ve helped run over the years, though I’ve always called them “qualitative scouts” (as opposed to “quantitative scouts”).
Back when I was on 2338, we’d have 2 qualitatives watching each match, in addition to the usual 6 quantitative scouts. Regardless of what kind of scout you were, you’d be assigned one robot per match. Sure, we only captured notes for two robots per match, but we still ended up with plenty of notes for every team. Since the qualitative scouts were focused on a single robot, they could provide some really deep insights.
Another upshot of the “dedicated note-takers” approach is that you have extra people in the stands who can sub in for a scout who doesn’t show up for their shift.
Regarding HP scouting: the trough is > 2 balls wide, and as deep as… 7 balls? 9? I don’t remember right now. In any case, it’s a huge target. I doubt that any HP who’s at least 5’ 10" is going to miss that target frequently enough for it to matter.
)