I love Autonomous Mode: How we’re doin’ it wrong
January 21, 2013 • 2 notes • ∞
I LOVE AUTONOMOUS MODE! - Team 11 (<– Read the link)
To be fair, autonomous mode in 2005 was probably the hardest and least worthwhile task auto mode has ever seen. Consider this was one of the most impressive auto periods that year, and this is what autonomous looked like on Einstein. In retrospect, it was interesting because teams could decided how to best prepare for teleop, but it is very different from the flurry of points that autonomous was born in, or that we’ve been use to in recent years.
In Rebound Rumble, the top, middle, and bottom goals were worth 6, 5, and 4 points respectively. Each robot started the match with up to 2 preloaded balls. There were also balls that started the match on the bridge, and top tier alliances would occasionally score those.
In Ultimate Ascent, the top, middle, and bottom goals are worth 6, 4, and 2 points respectively. Each robot can start the match with 2 frisbees if you want a close shot, and 3 if you are willing to shoot from farther away. There are also frisbees on the ground, and if history holds a small percentage of teams will also pick these up in autonomous.
It is very clear from the histogram below that teams were aiming predominantly for the high goal and that lots of balls were not being shot or were being missed. It would be very interesting to see some actual scouting data to see what percentage of the field was not shooting, versus the percentage that was shooting and missing.

But we already knew teams weren’t scoring a ton of points in autonomous mode. The important question is how do teams to better this year? We think the answer is to get right up to the goal and shoot for the insanely large target (the 2 pt goal). Maximizing points is all about maximizing expected value, that is the reward of a task times the probability of success. We would guess that most teams maximize that number by doing something easy, even if it is worth less points per completion. Consider the following:
Inside Auto Zone / Middle Goal
(2 frisbees) x (80% success rate) x (4 pts) = 6.4 pts
Outside Auto Zone / High Goal
(3 frisbees) x (30% success rate) x (6 pts) = 5.4 pts
Is that a contrived example we made up to fit our point? We’re going to shamelessly admit that it is. The math for your team will depend entirely on your scoring mechanism testing. However, in our years of FIRST we have seen much more aiming high and missing than aiming lower and scoring.
I live my life 15 seconds at a time.