Re: Computer generated initial alliances
 

I hate to say it, but applying a random shuffle to something that will already be shuffled randomly (The schedule is a permutation of the list of teams based on an RNG) is equally random. You can't make the outcome better by shuffling teams, because then other teams will see the pattern than currently do. In order to fix the issue, you would need to change the actual algorithm that permutes the list and/or that which scores the permuted list.

Re: Computer generated initial alliances
 

As Jordan said above, from a process point of view putting teams in a standard order at initial seeding doesn't matter to the final outcome. The order gets permuted literally hundreds of thousands of times during schedule optimization.

My point about Curie is that testing the statistic of high vs low number teams indicates that the algorithm is doing the right thing, or at least shows there's no evidence that it's doing the wrong thing. The experience of your team is completely expected.

Re: Computer generated initial alliances
 

It should be noted that in 2008, the schedule did not get permuted enough, and there was a correlation between team numbers that was not intentional. See http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=66983 and http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=67108