Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

I dont think that there should be a SET number, but a rough guideline. I know that at VCU, one of the biggest reasons we try to get as many matches in as possible is to give each team all the play time that they can possibly have. I think that those regionals with lower team attendance shouldn't necessarily take more time inbetween matches. I agree that there should be sufficient time inbetween a teams matches, since i was a driver for my team, but also try to maximize the number of matches that a team can play. Doing this first basically gives the teams what they pay for, but it also helps teams to be able to help out their rank, esp those teams that are able to improve their robot greatly if they came in not up to par shape.

Also just to sum up how the match pairing is generated:
Hatch Technology developed the scoring program that they use at the competitions. The part of the scoring program has the algorithm that generates the matches. The inputs that the competition puts in before it generates the matches are:
-Time inbetween matches for teams
-Ideal number of matches for each team to play
-and, Start and End time for the competition day
I think that is about it, not to sure, can't really remember that well. After these inputs are put in, the program takes them and the list of the teams that is stored in the program for that event and generates the match schedule.

just my .02

Mike O'Brien

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

Im not saying we should speed up the timing between all matches.

Right now the 'random match generator' is programmed to ensure all teams have at least 3 or 4 matches between games.

Im proposing we take the randomness out of match selection, and use a fixed pattern instead, that will insure all teams will play both with and against all the other teams in at least one match.

This means you might have two matches back to back maybe once at a regional, and the rest would be spaced out more, with at least one pair spaced out by 15 or 16 matches in between.

So for that one back to back pair you would also end up a with a pair having an hour or more in between.

and you would know all this on thursday morning, so you could plan any major changes when you know you will have enough time.

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

At AZ (45 teams), we were against the same team twice in a row. This happened at least twice for two different teams.

At LA (50 teams), that didn't happen.

The quick solution: add something that says "If team x plays against team y, then team y cannot play against team x again on that day, but may play with them." Then add something similar for playing with and you are all set--until you run out of teams or matches to fill.

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

From what I hear, this year, FIRST used a minumum of 5 matches before each team could repeat. This (as others have suspected) would severly constrain the "randomness" at small regionals, because if you do the math, if you have 30 teams at an event (like FLR) and there are 6 robots, thats only 5 matches total, so there isnt much room to move the robots around at all.

Personally, I agree with the 2-3 matches, 3 being what I think would be ideal. I can remember in the "old days" where we had potential to have every other match (ie you get off the field and jump right into the loading station). This to me, while hectic and hard if you are damaged, was cool because you did play against so many more teams.

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

I like that idea, but here's another one that I thought of while reading:

When TeamA plays in a match, they cannot play in the next match that any three robots from their previous match were in.
Adding that ensures that only two teams from their previous match are in the next match they're in. This may cause some problems at smaller regionals where there aren't as many teams, but I'm sure teams won't mind if the number of matches decrease between a team coming up decreases to 3 or 4 if it ensures that the matches will be a bit more randomly paired.

Those two robots may not also be on the same alliance configuration that they were in last match either.
If TeamA was playing against TeamB and TeamC, one of those two must be on TeamA's alliance in the next match. If TeamA played with both of those teams, one of them must also be playing against TeamA. If TeamA was playing with TeamB and against TeamC, then TeamC must play with TeamA, and TeamB must play against.

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

Just for fun, and only for fun:

Wouldn't it be fun to make your own pairing algorythem. We could take all the team lists from this year and put them in - see what you get. It will be harder than you think. And if you don't use the same one over and over, then people will freak out next year when 1975, 1999, and 2001 go up against 33, 71, and 494.

By the way - those are the rookies for next year.
1975 - my birthday year
1999 - Party like it's
2001 - Space Oddesy

If I had more time, I'd work on it for fun.

But I'm in China right now. (The students on my team already told me to start a team over here in the 2 weeks I'm here.) (No, I didn't) (But it would be easy - you can buy a CNC mill out of the back of an OX Cart in the middle of the street.) (It seems almost EVERYONE welds) (Enough ()'s)

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

The whole issue with the random generator is that some people were not informed of what needed to be changed. I was at a 30 team regional and we had really good randomization. The only problem was that you sometimes ended up playing 3 games in 17 minutes. I did not hear many complaints about time intervals and none on randomization. We set the one decider on 3 game interval minimum.

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

I disagree with you on this one and I know a couple of the other top teams will agree with me on this. We played at Pittsburgh with only 24 teams and saw far more randomness than at NYC. We wound up playing with teams 3+ times either allied or against, and others none. Sometimes allied twice and then agains once, or vice versa. There were some teams that we never played with on a field. This could be great for some teams, but horrible for others depending on the alliance strength. Furthermore, this throws the "Random Generator" Factor into seeding for some of the teams. Top performers should stay on top, but there were some non-scoring bots and sometimes non-driving bots that made the top 8 due to their alliance partners performance. The Master Puppeteer Theory is something we partially believe, our first 2 matches were against 375, NJ #2 Seed, and our Regional Championship Alliance partner 2 years in a row. I'm in agreement with the other engineers/mentors, at smaller Regionals space the matches out further, even if it means playing fewer matches we should play at least all of the teams once.
Best,
Wayne

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

random-ness doent mean that your team will play against many other teams - random-ness means it could go both ways, you could have different alliances and opponents on every match, or you could have the same alliance for EVERY match - both are possible when teams are selected at random. The odds against that may be very high, but people win the lottery every day against much higher odds.

Which is why Im saying I dont think we really want a random match selector - I would rather see a match assignment process where every team gets to play both with and against every other team at least once.

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

Wayne you can blame joshua who was behind the scenes putting all the figures in for the match schedule =).
I'll stand by my opinion that matches do need to be randominized and will settle on the fact the way FIRST and Hatch should do it should be changed. There have been some pretty good idea(s) on how this can be accomplished and when the end of the season thread opens up this should be one of the items brought up. Hopefully there will be more teams attending each regional so maybe there will be some more randominzation of a different way. And I also agree with Ken so he's not insane ;-)

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

Here's a thouht that many of you have already alluded to - how about NO randomness in match pairings? Like some of you have already said, why not have a set match rotation that ensures that each team at any given event plays both with and against every other team there?

Regardless of the time between matches (yes, I do value my sanity and prefer a little more time as well) or the number of matches played or the length of the day, I think giving teams the opportunity to play with and against all other teams will make for a more exciting event and will really allow the cream to rise to the top. A case in point is last year's Boilermaker where we had just plain bad luck and wound up seeded dead last. Our robot worked fine but we ended up playing against Beatty three times and never played with them. Had the alliance been the other way where we played WITH them three times, we would have possibly seeded higher. Fortunately we were selected for elims by team 135 who recognized our abilities despite our ranking.

Bottom line, I think you get a better feel for the capabilities of each team's robot and a more accurate indication of which teams stand out if there is a systematic pairing of teams that allows all to play with and against each other.

Sean

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

my team has also noticed that a newer team (past 3-4 years) will often get paired together and face an alliance with three veteran teams (older than 3 years) this happened a lot at Boston, we were often paired up with newer teams (no offense we were all good) but still we were no match for the likes of 233, 121, 40, 126, etc...what i am trying to say is: sometimes it seems that alliances are really not random, and that sometimes they favor the vetran teams, however:

this sort of applied to us this year, where we were ranked 40 out of 45 at boston, but 121 and 233 recognized us for our defensive skills and we helped win the regional

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

At Boilermaker, Team 1501 always played on the RED side during quialifying matches. Never in match on BLUE.

http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/IN/matches.html

The first three matches we played, we played with team 461.
match 5, 10, 15

We also had several matches with 1018 as well.

We also had two matches in a row with team 829
match 34, 39

We never once got to play with team 135, which was the number 1 seed at Boilermaker. So we never found out if we were a good pair or not because we never got a match with them.

I thought this was very "strange".



-

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

I disagree completely, I broke teams up into new and old (I used 1200 as the division.

We were paired with 8 teams over 1200 and 10 teams under 1200

We were against 14 teams over 1200 and 13 teams under 1200

I would say that based on the age of the teams this was pretty even.

We were with 233 and never against them, we were against 121 but never with them (until eliminations) 40 and 126 we were against each once and with each once. I would say that those numbers wok out pretty well. It seems to me that elimination matches are randomn they just include some parameters such as minimum amount of time between matches that make it less likly for some teams to get paired up. The only way to fix this is to run a round then take a break and run another round, this however would take longer and you would get less matches. Other wise It could be done by predictably rotating through teams so it would be more even.

I have never had a problem with elimination pairings, you win some you lose some, in the end there are enough matches so the best teams come out on top.

Re: "Random" Match List Generation
 

There is one on on the volunteer staff to be blame. Please don't make statements that are not true.
The system automatically generated the list. I do not believe anyone on the NYC staff had anything to do with creating the match assignments.

On Friday morning, many of us did notice that certain teams were playing against or with the same group of teams several times in a roll. I brought the issue up with the Regional Director.
Also in a conversation later that day, the senior staff members discussed the possibilities of limiting the number of matches in small venues like NYC with 33 teams only.