Chief Delphi
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Galileo - The Champion's Division (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121811)

Alan Anderson 29-11-2013 14:29
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1306902)
I think any attempt by FIRST to sort divisions by some sort of competitive metric will be a complete failure; FIRST simply isn't tuned into that kind of stuff.

Remember a few years ago when they tried to "balance" quals by sorting teams into three groups.
Who do you mean by "they"? I don't think you can blame FIRST for the Alliance Algorithm of Doom.

AdamHeard 29-11-2013 14:37
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1307045)
Who do you mean by "they"? I don't think you can blame FIRST for the Alliance Algorithm of Doom.
That is a separate failure, and I believe only affected week 1 regionals? The alliance of doom looped you against the teams immediately adjacent to you in team number if I recall correctly.

Chris is me 29-11-2013 15:24
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
This old post by Dave Lavery might be relevant to your discussion of the 2007 match algorithm. Apparently the algorithm designers essentially decided independent of FIRST what their priorities in assigning partners were. It seems like this post is referencing both the week 1 clustering of teams and the general "low / mid / high number vs low / mid / high number" algorithm. Apparently the latter was never fixed in 2007 despite FIRST's requests.

EricH 29-11-2013 18:22
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1307046)
That is a separate failure, and I believe only affected week 1 regionals? The alliance of doom looped you against the teams immediately adjacent to you in team number if I recall correctly.
As I recall, the Algorithm of Doom was exactly what Alan said it was. Now, some of the events MAY have had the result you described--but that was due to being smaller events.

Typical Algorithm of Doom match would be that you were against one or two really good teams for half your matches, and never with them.

FIRST did release a fix, but it took a few weeks and didn't do much for smaller events, IIRC.

AdamHeard 29-11-2013 18:23
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1307093)
As I recall, the Algorithm of Doom was exactly what Alan said it was. Now, some of the events MAY have had the result you described--but that was due to being smaller events.

Typical Algorithm of Doom match would be that you were against one or two really good teams for half your matches, and never with them.

FIRST did release a fix, but it took a few weeks and didn't do much for smaller events, IIRC.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=32

EricH 29-11-2013 18:44
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1307094)
Sorry, Adam, but you're not adding anything new. If you have new information that you didn't ALREADY state (and which I was responding to). The discussion I remember applied the term "Algorithm of Doom" to the 3-group qual setup system, partly because if you were in the same group as [insert powerhouse] you would never be with them, and probably be against them 3 or 4 times. It wasn't fixed. IIRC, there was some modification AFTER a few weeks that was a slight improvement, but not enough to make much difference.


You may be thinking of 2010, where there was a change to the seeding structure after Week 1 produced a number of 6v0 matches.

AdamHeard 29-11-2013 19:16
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1307098)
Sorry, Adam, but you're not adding anything new. If you have new information that you didn't ALREADY state (and which I was responding to). The discussion I remember applied the term "Algorithm of Doom" to the 3-group qual setup system, partly because if you were in the same group as [insert powerhouse] you would never be with them, and probably be against them 3 or 4 times. It wasn't fixed. IIRC, there was some modification AFTER a few weeks that was a slight improvement, but not enough to make much difference.


You may be thinking of 2010, where there was a change to the seeding structure after Week 1 produced a number of 6v0 matches.
Week 1 of 2007 the doom scheduler had you play with/against the team above or below you in team number every match.

Later in season, Champs for sure, teams were clearly lumped into 3 groups (in order of team number) with each qual alliance having a team from each group. Punishing low number teams that were not elite, and favoring high number teams that were elite.

EricH 29-11-2013 19:30
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1307107)
Week 1 of 2007 the doom scheduler had you play with/against the team above or below you in team number every match.

Later in season, Champs for sure, teams were clearly lumped into 3 groups (in order of team number) with each qual alliance having a team from each group. Punishing low number teams that were not elite, and favoring high number teams that were elite.
Didn't remember the first part. As a matter of fact, this is the first I remember hearing about it. What I remember is the 2nd part being throughout the season--and, as a note, the 1st part could be an artifact of the 2nd part, to an extent.

geomapguy 30-11-2013 13:59
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
One interesting Einstein winning alliance was the IFI alliance in 2008.

1114
217
148

It was all coincidence how it worked out.

themccannman 30-11-2013 17:24
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DampRobot (Post 1306993)
Fair enough. I'll give you that OPR was quite good last year. On the other hand, there were some years (like 2012) when it was absolutely terrible. Personally, I like OPR a fair bit, but it certainly can't tell you all there is to know about a team, and often tells you significantly less than what is important (at least, important for alliance selection).

I was commenting more from the perspective that there seems to be an irrational hatred of OPR among some veteran members of the FRC community, and that those people might be against a metric like OPR controlling divisions.
I agree, opr is often not well received, and understandably so. It's not the best, or most accurate metric, but it's better than whatever they currently use and arguably the best option that can be used to measure every single team in frc since I doubt we can get real scouting data on every single team.

Michael Corsetto 30-11-2013 17:34
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1307113)
Didn't remember the first part. As a matter of fact, this is the first I remember hearing about it. What I remember is the 2nd part being throughout the season--and, as a note, the 1st part could be an artifact of the 2nd part, to an extent.
Check out 114's schedule at PNW 2007: http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/114/2007

AdamHeard 30-11-2013 17:37
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1307323)
Check out 114's schedule at PNW 2007: http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/114/2007
It also only existed at week 1 events, and wasn't an issue at week 2. I remember this very well as we would either have played 254 or 330 in every single match, and that didn't happen.

Akash Rastogi 30-11-2013 17:41
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1307324)
It also only existed at week 1 events, and wasn't an issue at week 2. I remember this very well as we would either have played 254 or 330 in every single match, and that didn't happen.
We had that issue at Trenton in 07.

Check out who we played a bunch!
http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/11/2007

BrendanB 30-11-2013 18:02
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1307324)
It also only existed at week 1 events, and wasn't an issue at week 2. I remember this very well as we would either have played 254 or 330 in every single match, and that didn't happen.
I remember that issue! At GSR, 1058 played 1073 every single qualification match with 1277 bouncing between alliances.

It was such a shame because both were fantastic machines that would have done better if they didn't have to play each other every match.

DampRobot 30-11-2013 18:09
Re: Galileo - The Champion's Division
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1307323)
Check out 114's schedule at PNW 2007: http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/114/2007
192 much?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54.
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi