Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Simple. You could write a code that you can change variables based on those 3 principals that nuggetsyl suggest so it works better for each regional.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

As a reply to BlondeNerd. What ever will happen to coopetition?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

OK we keep talking about the problem. Now lets work to fix this. Programing challenge. Make a system first can use to set matches. I am not a programer but can something like this work?

1 can only play with a team once
2 can only go againts a team once
3 must have 6 matches between rounds (or 5 if it works better)

One other thing to consider is that FIRST likes to have rookie teams on an alliance with veteran teams so that they can gain experience. You also want to avoid having an alliance made up entirely of rookie teams.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Another thing that the system affects is alliance selection from the point of view of the teams picking. Sure good scouting can tell you what teams can put up how many points and so on, but you really are in the dark about a lot of team's cooperative abilities.

Anyone with ramps is ineffective if their partners can't get up. Sure, you can look and physically see if their drivetrain can do it, but are the drivers good enough? will they come back to get on? will they listen to specific instructions on how to get up?

Until you play with them, it's difficult to tell if you can actually work well with them, which is especially important in a game that requires as much cooperation and coordination as this.

for the record, I am not complaining about either of our alliance partners (you guys were great). As one of the main scouts however, it was very frustrating when putting our list together of teams we would like to work with, since we had very little information on so many teams.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

This was definitely the worst match sheet I've seen. It made so many matches so much easier than others. I heard that it was suppose to average the totals of all the teams in the alliance and then get a similar average against. It made qualifications significantly easier for certain teams, and near impossible for others. It got very boring throughout the day. It made matches very predictable, and again, simple to win for certain teams.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I was just looking at the St. Louis Regional thread, and after reading RoboPhantom's post, I think I see a problem in the way the surrogates are assigned. Would anyone care to check my reasoning?

Basically, it looks like the rules require surrogates that aren't necessarily needed, and the number of surrogate assignments in St. Louis was excessive.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

People keep asking about FIRST's intent with the programming change. In 2005 (at smaller regionals), situations arose in which teams would have to play matches that would be only 2 apart from one another. If everyone looks at their match schedules from week 1, it is apparent that FIRST has done everything they could to maximize the time between matches where the same teams are involved (hence giving teams more time to repair and prepare). The repeated comments of people having match schedules of #9, #19, #29, #39.... etc. tells us that they have succeeded in this optimization.

Unfortunately, we have a second equally important constraint in which teams do not want to have to play with or against the same teams for every match. So now we have 2 separate constraints. First is the time between matches and second is the number of common partners. From this, we want to minimize the following:

Min: (time between matches) + (number of common teams from previous matches)

To successfully complete this, we have to apply weights to either side (to use the weighted sum method).

So the equation becomes:

Min: a*(time between matches) + b*(number of common teams from previous matches)

where "a" and "b" are weights and where a+b=1.

In 2005, it seems that a higher value was set for "b" than "a." Conversely, it seems that "a" was maximized for the week 1 2007 match schedules. The solution would involve finding appropriate values for "a" and "b" that bring the solution to somewhere more reasonable.

Unfortunately, this analysis is just that... and analysis. I have absolutely no understanding of how to set up team schedules based on this method, only how to evaluate how good a given match schedule is.

Also, Lucas. That idea sounds amazing. If generic schedules were made for every possible number of teams attending a regional (say from 24 to 80), then these could be used based on how many teams register. For people who are afraid that this would eliminate randomness and that you'd play the same teams every year at the same original... have no fear. At the drivers meeting, teams could have a representative pull a number from a hat held by the head referee to determine their seeding into the "optimized pairing matrix."

Just my 2 cents.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

[This is long, so I'll bold the important parts.]

I think that the original idea was probably to space the matches apart as far as possible (something my team noted happily), but we didn't appreciate it when, after we complained to the organizers, they handed out "entirely new" match sheets, asking us to rip up our old ones in front of them first, in which the only change was that teams previously listed under "blue alliance" were now under "red alliance." I would rather have been told that there was nothing they could do rather than being tricked. I don't really know what the reasoning behind the new match sheets was, and I don't mean to whine, but it really wasn't very nice.

Also, I think the most important side effect of the new pairing system was stated at the top of page four by Cuog (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...t=55178&page=4): at Trenton 694 faced 637 for all seven of our matches. 637 was a purely defensive robot, and we formed our match strategies around the fact that we would be defending our strongest cappers against them every match. It didn't help that we were conspiring against them (and probably vice versa) and our pits were right next to each other. I thought that they were a great team with really nice people and I really hope nobody holds any grudges, because I know that there were people on my team that regarded them very aggressively during matches (and vice versa). I feel like the point of these competitions is to make people feel good about their robots, not bad about other robots.

****Most importantly, we should aim to win matches based on the strengths that we built into our machines. We shouldn't have to win them by picking on other robots' weaknesses. We didn't get to cap a tube or deploy our ramps successfully more than once because we had to play defense, and this was what we had built our robot to do.


637 and 694 will see each other in at least one other regional, and I really hope the algorithm for match selections changes by then. I think the best and quickest solution would be to revert to last year's algorithm. Perhaps there are pros to the new system, but the cons outweigh them by far. I'd rather have three minutes between my matches than have to spend a year raising money just to face one other team again and again.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

C'mon Dave, please comment on this thread and provide us some insight to the intent and/or if there will be any changes.


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

612 played 611 every match, we were so unhappy because team 611 was such a great team and didn't get a chance to show off there robot as much as they could of.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

While those are some great thoughts, it makes the regional unfair without an effort of being fair either. By following nuggetsyl's system, they are bound to end up with atleast one veteran team in atleast one of their matches. It is more preferable to the majority of the teams and makes the rankings at the end of the day much more fair. The alliance pairing was horrible but I can say one thing. If there is one team I have scouted very well, it is our fellow team 11. They were in the pits right next to us and against us on the field. I am sure they can say the same for us :p.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I'm really hoping this problem gets fixed. I do call it a problem, because it ruined the regional for me. I was very thankful to be chosen for the Elimination rounds, but the composition of teams selecting alliances was baffling. On there was a team whose arm scored a total of 4 tubes the entire Qualifiers, and whose drivetrain was able to be pushed around by a bot on Mechanums. Our team was paired every match with a defensive powerhouse, which made every match into a pushing game. It got to the point where we said as we went to the filed "Oh goody... time to wear down some more expensive tread for nothing."

As for the scoring system on the field that I've heard mentioned, it worked very well, so mad props to FIRST for that.

But I sincerely hope this issue gets resolved for later regionals...

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

In NJ,
25 vs 11, 3 of 6 matches.
25 vs 41, 3 of 6 matches.

(im on 41)
ALSO the other 3 matches we played 75. Every other match we were paired AGAINST both our pit neighbors and 2 of the top 8 teams. We finished last, yes our robot failed this year, and our crab drive was a flop, but this was just a great way for first to kick sand in our faces.

0-6-1
'07 Judges Award Winners (hah)

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Like most other voices on this thread, I think there is a big problem with the way the system is currently set. Teams should not be forced to compete against similarly numbered teams every time. This is not what we paid for, and not what we worked a month a half during build season for. Teams deserve to compete against all opponents, to get a feel for what many teams can do.

I also believe that writing a new algorithm before the next set of regionals is not only possible, but also a necesity. I am currently working on a new algorithm myself. I don't expect my code to be used - I have under a year of experience in Java (in which I'm writing the code) and only a few years of programming experience overall. My belief is that if I can write a code that will behave correctly in a few hours today and some testing tomorrow, then someone of the hunders of professional programmers, or the thousands of college students, or the dozens of thousands of high school students that are affiliated with FIRST can write something better than I did. And hence, there is no reason for the current algorithm to be used for another set of regionals.

I will post my code tomorrow, after I get around to testing it, if I believe it is worthwhile.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Has/Is anyone planning to contact first about this issue? We went up against 540 every single round in the VCU competition and while we only lost a couple of times we really disliked this schedule and would hate to be in the rough side of the deal. (It worked out ok for 540 in the end). Additionally I know for a fact that 611 was a good robot, but 612 was simply a huge ramp and there was very little 611 could do, hence they lost almost every round. Does anyone have any plans to try and do something about this before the next set regionals?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Craig has a point. Everyone who was affected by this and think it should change should probably write their local FIRST coordinator and express their concerns. If enough people do it, perhaps they'll be able to adjust the algorithm by next week. Depending on how it is written, it may be as simple as adjusting some constants. It is entirely possible that the right people don't read Chiefdelphi on a regular basis and furthermore may not be reading this thread.

Contact info:
States A-L
States M-O
States P-Z
Outside the US

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Just sent an email to the LA regional planner; I will post any insight I receive.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I just sent a message to the CT contact. I will try to contact some other people I know on Monday.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I emailed the Northern California contact, and will post any response I get.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Jim Beck promptly replied (for LA and San Diego) saying he would look into it. Hopefully they can resolve this.

I still wish someone high up like would give us some information on this.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I am glad that someone else notice that Mr. Lavery has not commented on this issue. Last year he was all over Hatch for every little problem. Is there a reason that he is not commenting. At the Winter War Zone scrimmage the guys from IFI told us that Dave Lavery and Tony Norman convinced FIRST to hire this group to write this years system.

We will just have to add 2007 to list of years were the 1st week of regionals had issues. (In my 10 years in FIRST I can not remember a year we did not have problems on week #1. Writing a scoring/field control system is not as easy as everyone thinks. And this years field is simple, no automation.)

The other thing we need to remember is that FIRST has all new engineers. There is not one engineer who has any previous FIRST experience. I am sure that next week will be better.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Perhaps Mr. Lavery is too busy volunteering his time to FIRST, to be posting his thoughts about this issue on Chief Delphi. I also find it borderline hilarious that you feel the need to call Mr. Lavery out, in a public forum, on a regular basis, but do so from an anonymous account.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Since I posted a similar statement I feel the need to say this.

I was not calling out Dave Lavery or accusing him of anything. I just knew that historically he was rather active here on CD and usually offers helpful (although sometimes baffling) insight. It's just nice to hear things from Dave Lavery rather than speculation because his words carry some weight, and speculation is... well just speculation.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I wonder how much FIRST pays for the software in the "system". I could probably become very tempted to bid on that contract. Does anyone reading this have any idea how that opportunity is advertised? If "Yes.", would you care to share it with me in a PM?

Blake

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

yes random match scheduling doesn't seem to be that random... 1676 played against Team 1689 (a team we helped out in the pits) in 5 out of our 6 matches. that is one heck of a coincidence.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Dont forget 1983 vs. 2002 in every match at the PNW regional

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I have a couple of questions for the people posting in this thread.
1) Why does Dave Lavery have to post to this thread? Is there an actual rational reason?
2) Honestly, do you not believe that FIRST is aware of the problem, and working to fix it?

In my experience with working with FIRST, they have always tried their best to fix bugs in the software. And seriously, in seven years I cannot remember a year where there wasn't a bug in the software somewhere. I'm sure that they appreciate all of the offers to help, however keep in mind, software is not always a simple plug and play system. Correcting software is not always as simple as changing a broken physical part in a robot, or a piece that has malfunctioned. Anybody who has experience programming anything major will have also had issues where they had to track down bugs in the software, or where their software doesn't work the way that they expected it to. And tracing why the software isn't working the way that they want it to can sometimes be a tricky proposition.

I do have one request for everybody though, and those who were at PNW will possibly know why I'm saying this. As upset as you might be with FIRST, or with the way that the match scheduling comes out, please don't take out this anger on the volunteers in the pit. On a personal level, and as somebody who has competed before, I KNOW that I understood completely how upset the teams were, and I understood why they were upset, I was upset myself. It was very hard to stand and say, no I don't know of anything that I can do to solve this problem, and I sat there and wished I had a better answer to give then that, one that said that the problem was fixed, or that it was a simple fluke that wouldn't be permanent. And from experience, I cannot see FIRST letting it stand by this.
I'd also like to point out something. Quite often, we focus on what is so negative about something. But as has been pointed out before, FIRST also had something that worked right this time, and that is the field/scoring system. And for that...even with the current problems...I congratulate them.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Ashlee,

While I agree with the gist of your post, this is not a bug. Someone (or a group of someone's) intentionally made it so that the alliance pairings are not random. Whether or not FIRST or the GDC intended the game to be played this way is another story.

Whatever the answer is, let's hope we get a better system this week (if not, then next).

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I was about to post the same thing. Another good thing to know is that (I forget what thread I read this in, might have been this one) the software was tested at a scrimmage this year, someone pointed out that the matches had not been random, and FIRST chose not to fix the problem then. Hopefully if someone sees that more than that one person at the scrimmage don't like it then they will change their minds.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I pointed out something earlier, and I would like to reiterate it before we get too much further in this thread. Please do not assume just because we do not have a fix for the scheduling in the system yet, that FIRST is not working on the problem. Whether you term it as a bug or not is a point of view. I term a bug to be something that the end product user, which would be FIRST and the teams using it, did not intend for the system.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I have gotten an initial response back from my regional contact and the problem does not appear to be a bug. The schedule is motivatied by someone's idea of co-opertition. Also, the complaints that were voiced at the scrimmage never got to him, so he was unaware that anyone was concerned. I advise two things if you are concerned:

1) Contact your FIRST representative and or team leader so they can.

2) Do not assume that because you said something to the people running the field that that will be passed along.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Don't believe for one minute that FIRST did not test the algorithm and know what the alliance pairings would look like. If it is what you see is what you get then we have no choice but to live with it. The kids on the team I mentor are really upset. We did fund raising this weekend for nationals and the match pairings became a real sore spot. The mentors present tried their best to make them believe that it will be OK and fixed by the time we have our first regional. If we always go against a team that is slightly better than us we will never have a chance to win a match, what fun is that? And if we happen to be really good, what fun is there in defeating the same team over and over again? Another comment read in this thread that really hits the mark was about a team that designed an arm and a ramp and did not get to use them because all they did was play defense against a really good offensive robot. So much for creativity and hard work, not to mention all the time and money spent by sponsors. Our team basically has a drive system funded one sponsor, an arm funded by another and ramps funded by yet another. I am certain that each wants to see how their contribution performs. Not to mention the other mentors/sponsors that programed, worked on the camera etc. etc. The kids on the team I mentor want to be paired with and against as many teams as possible, not test thier GP by having the same opponent every time they go out. The best solution I have seen here is to manually create pairings for 24-80 teams and then on the first morning draw slots to place your team number in. That should not take more than ten minutes to do and another five minutes to print and distribute schedules. No one could ever say that anything was unfair about the pairings as the draw would be completely up to chance. I really have to bite my pen here, some random thought about how match pairings have not been perceived as fair in the past keeps coming to mind. Totally random, no perpetual opponent, as many allies and opponents as possible. It that really too much to ask for?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

We experienced a similar problem.

Every match at the NJ Regional was 836 vs 834

another interesting thing that happened was that one of our alliance partners for one match would be on the opposing alliance the next.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

But this isn't a point of view. It's not a bug. I was told by a volunteer that FIRST intentionally paired a low number, a mid number, and a high number team together on an alliance. Many people I know felt that the least they could do is create a pool of what constitutes as a "low number," "mid number," or "high number" and let us compete with and against as many of those as possible.

I just hate being misled. I personally feel that if FIRST decides to not REALLY randomize the matches, then they should not use the adjective "random" to describe them.

I mean, what are the odds that my team went up against 435 in all eight seeding matches? Or that we go every 11 matches?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Folks, why don't we cool it for a bit. There is a lot of hear say going on and blaming FIRST for things that may or may not be true. There are MANY people concerned over the reports from last weekend. FIRST is being contacted and hopefully there will be some answers early this week. I am one that believes that we should all get to play with as many teams as possible. I am also going to wait to see what happens now that FIRST knows our feelings. FIRST is a great organization and I believe in it. Let's all see how they respond.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I've emailed Paul Woloshin, the FIRST Northern California regional director. He said that

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Our team, 611, just got back from the VCU regional and we played against team 612 in every single one of our matches. This wasn't too good for us because they had a 12 inch ramp bot that lifted both of their alliance partners, so our record ended up being 3 and 5. I have total respect for their team and their robot is cool, but i would have been happy if we played them once then got to play other teams instead of the same one over and over again. That being said, the trip was still crazy fun.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I would suggest not to email regional contacts, they have enough on their plates this time of the year and have no control over the Field Management System. The people who need to know about this issue, were aware of it on Friday, they are busy at work fixing this.

[edit] After discussing the Issue with others, the thread has been reopened. Keep an eye out over the next few days for an official update on the situation. [/edit]

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Dez,
Thanks for the short cooling off period - sometimes that is a good idea.

All to often, in the heat of the moment usually, a thread topic like this disintegrates into flames.

Thanks everyone for not letting that happen to this one.

Be patient and I'm sure we'll hear more soon - from FIRST.

Keep up the good work - FIRST community on CD.

Mike Aubry
Team 47 - Chief Delphi

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

What is your source for this, out of curiosity.

Also, to keep this thread shorter. Lets refrain from unnecessary post. It is no longer necessary to mention team xxx played team yyy z number of times.

Lets keep it to official information only.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Wow. I take a few days off to work on my real job, and come back to find quite a little firestorm going on here.

I won’t make any attempt to answer all the points that have been discussed here, but will try to hit a few of the highlights.

FIRST is already VERY aware of the problem with the match pairing algorithm. When the alliance assignments for the first set of matches was generated last Thursday evening, the issue became obvious, and they started to pursue a solution to the problem.

There is no need to call your Regional Director, yell at the Event Managers, telegraph your Senior Mentor, e-mail FIRST Headquarters, or petition your Congressional Representatives about your displeasure with the issue. FIRST already gets it. They can spend their very limited time reading your correspondence or solving the problem, but not both. Where do you want to have them focus their energies?

The match pairing algorithm is working exactly as it was designed, and it is not generating the match pairings by mistake. Unfortunately, the algorithm itself is fundamentally flawed, and was not developed with the appropriate constraints and priorities as defined by FIRST (random mixing of partners/opponents, reasonable time between matches for each team, scalability for various numbers of teams, variable match-to-match cycle time, etc. etc. etc.) factored in to the algorithm.

The new software developers implemented the algorithm based on their own set of heuristics for a "desirable" mix of teams in the alliance assignments. These heuristics are inconsistent with those used by FIRST, and were not what either FIRST or the GDC intended. Whether this happened by miscommunication, oversight, or misinformation, I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that FIRST recognizes their heuristics were not used, they recognize that the situation needs to be fixed, and they have communicated that to the software developers.

Keep an eye out for the next Team Update for information from FIRST regarding their plans to get the problem solved. My understanding is that FIRST has committed to making sure that the situation is corrected, that their priorities for match pairings will be used, and the match pairings for Week 2 competitions will be significantly improved.

-dave

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Thank you for a reply on this. I have to admit, I wasn't looking forward to the match pairings this weekend in Phoenix (possibly seeing the same opponent every match). Thank you.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Thank you, Dave. :)

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Thanks Dave. We all pretty much thought FIRST was working on a fix, but when there is silence it leads to unchecked speculation. Sorry if we annoyed you at all;) .


Could we close this thread until the next team update so we don't get an absurd amount of random posts?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

[Huge sarcasm] Oh darn, now we have to scout all the teams for quals, not just 15 or so. [/huge sarcasm]

Its a huge relief to know that FIRST is working on it. Im glad that they, like BaneBots, are willing to recognize their mistakes and fix them rather than smooth them over like other organizations might be tempted to do.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I would like to thank FIRST for living up to my expectations. There was a problem. We complained. They listened. There's not much more we can ask them for. So thank you Dave, and thank you FIRST.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

FIRST cares.
Sometimes when we get headed towards a firestorm as Dave aptly put it - we should make a 'FIRST cares' sticker and put it where we can see it before we press the 'send' or 'reply' button. Discussion = good, firestorms = worrisome.
Jane

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

We were at the Pacific Northwest Regional in Portland. We immediately noticed that we were up against 360 in every round and they were almost right next to us in the pits. I think it is very unfair and short sighted that FIRST has decided to seed the rounds like this. This was so pervasive at PNR that it had to be intentional. There were many other vets teams in this position.

In the past at our home regional in Philadelphia we were never able to play with many vet teams because of this "random" system. I know we all go out to win and 360 was a very good competitor, but going up against the same team means you may get to exploit something you may find with their robot. This is really un-fair.

I guess we need to let FIRST know this is unnacceptable. It seems to me they are striving for political correctness instead of competition. Looks like someone doesn't think this is important or understand what we are doing here. It's actually pretty sad.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I just read Dave's message...I am now more confused...
I am in software development... Who tested the results? Why did someone wait until Thursday night of the First regionals to check?

Why not ask us, the people who care the most? Generate a test sample weeks before, send it out and ask us to check it. I do this with the FLL competition I have run for 9 years. The teams check everyting from the schedules to the table assignments. They let me know of problems. I know there are few official "FIRST" people, but there are thousands of us. Ask us, we can help.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Thank you Dave for posting and clarifying the issue. I'm looking forwards to the next team update to see what are FIRST planning to do.

-Guy Davidson

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

According to what Dave just told us, the results were exactly what they were designed to be. No amount of testing against the design will reveal problems with the design itself. [edit]The problem was that the design didn't match the specification, or perhaps there was never a formal specification to begin with.[/edit]

I too admit confusion, however. If you all will forgive a bit of rumor/hearsay: I heard at St. Louis from several people that the exact same issue was noticed and complained about in pre-kickoff tests, and that the complaints were dismissed because "That's the way FIRST wants it to be." Obviously the miscommunication occurred at a fundamental level.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Alan's conclusion matches what we (FTA, Lead Scorekeeper, and event staff in St. Louis) were told on Thursday night when we contacted FIRST to ask why the "perpetual opponent" schedule kept coming up no matter what we tried to change it.

Dave has told us this will be fixed for Week 2. That's good enough for me. :)

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Well, I started this whole thread... Now that we all have the answer we were looking for, maybe I can nudge this in a different direction.

(Moderators, please let me know if I should make this a new thread...)

If teams were constantly playing with/against the same alliances, how come the rankings stayed at it's typical distribution? Why didn't every team either go 8-0 or 0-8? Did this have to do with alliances switching up the strategy? Was it due to mechanical/electrical problems or improvements? Driver practice and improvement over the course of the regional?

I'm looking for specific answers from only the teams and drive/strategy teams that competed last weekend. If you don't have first hand knowledge of strategy sessions, driver improvements, or robot problems/improvements, please don't add what you "think" happened. (Sorry to be so blunt about this...)

Thanks,

BEN

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Well, the whole alliance was never the same, just one team over and over again. So if one team was dominant over their "continual partner", they tended to end up on the opposite sides of the rankings, but this wasn't an assurance that the same thing would happen every match. In our case, we went 5-2-1 vs 192, and a lot of how the matches played out had to do with our alliance partners, not just 114 vs 192 battling it out solo on the field. So I think in a way FIRST got a little lucky that the matches weren't so lopsided, but I do feel really bad for the teams that played against the same dominant team every match. I would freak out if I knew we had to play someone like the Poofs every qualifier :ahh:

I'm glad that FIRST realizes the issue and I hope we will see significant improvements in the weeks to come.

Mike C.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Team 488 played against team 492 every match from the beginning of thursday to the end of qualifiers on Saturday. We ended up winning most of our matches, but not all because sure enough, two robots do not decide the outcome of a 3v3 match. Not only that, but if a team gets the opportunity to play against the same alliance every single match they will be forced to come up with some unique and creative strategies to change the outcome.

We lost a match due to the (at the time) brand new tactic of deploying a ramp in the alley beside the rack to completely prevent us from getting back to our home zone to deploy and lift. This definitely caught us off guard. After this strategy started popping up and with how powerful lifting points became more and more teams started playing heavy defense. This is what lead to our two low points ties at the end of qualifiers and having both 1540 and 948 (two of the best pnw ringers) both play defense against us nearly the entire time during two of our elimination matches.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

lol, pretty funny, i wish

thank you dave, and yes, the update has been released, it is avalable on the website. i just saw it like 10 min ago

second of all, thank you FIRST for fixing a problem so quickly, hopefully everything turns out better for all of us later this week

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

This coming week should go off without a hitch, they will be implimenting an entirely new algorithm. Evidently the current one was written to such constraints that with any drastic modification it could break other things in the process. If this is all people have to point out about the first week of regionals, then I believe we're in best shape to start a season in almost 4 or 5 years. The only other issue that I noticed at the event that I attended was that the iPaq's that were used for automated scoring had a tendency to either drop their network connection or IIS would need to be restarted. The whole process took a round or two to get fixed, but was seemless to the audience.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Here, here! Again as many people have said, THANK YOU DAVE FOR THE CLARIFICATION OF WHAT'S GOING ON! And I'm just happy it'll be fixed! :)

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Well, our team has been tracking this and other threads like it for a while now. We'll just have to wait and see what comes up at the NY Regional. Hope to see some of you there.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

yeah it was pretty disappointing to see that trend happening in the practice matches today but we talked to some of the higher ups and their working on solving the problem before qualifiers tomorrow at Bayou.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

one of our mentors was a volunteer (he was the announcer) at the vcu regional. he said there was a glich in the program. they were trying to pair a veteran team with a middle team with a rookie team. they messed up somewhere in the middle. and at the crossover point of the verteran/middle teams, they were paired together in every match.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Looks like the event staff will be able to use one of two different algorithms to set matches up. One is the perpetual opponent and the other the random opponent. See this post in the Q and A.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=6163

For further details. A big thank you to FIRST for giving us a choice! Hopefully your individual event staffers will use random.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Thank you FIRST! :D

Now if only we can strike a truce over the band saw and drill press fiasco, I will be completely relieved. ;)

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Looks like Pittsburgh successfully chose the "random" match generation mode, rather than "perpetual opponent".

Looking at two "senior" teams 48 and 49 and their "senior" opponents in matches so far: (as of about noon Eastern time)

48: 49, 158, 395, 291

49: 48, 117, 247, 123

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

In my opinion pittsburgh is hardly random. My team was almost always on the field at the sametime as 117 and 337. Most of the time we were on their alliance. We also seemed to play agianst the same few robots over and over agian.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I've done a thorough analysis of the "perpetual opponent" algorithm and implemented a better way of scheduling matches. The results and description of my algorithm are in a white paper here:

http://www.issaquahrobotics.org/MatchMaker/

In looking at the Friday schedules for Florida, Bayou, and Great Lakes regionals, it seems that the "random" method may improve the problems with opponent duplication, but sacrifices both partner duplication and minimum gap between matches. Lots of teams have as few as two intervening matches between their closest matches, which isn't much time to get back in line. I won't know for sure how the algorithm does over the full schedule until Saturday's schedules are posted.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I'm here in Pittsburgh, and it's really not looking like that for some teams. We saw a lot of the same opponents and partners several times today, and I know we didn't get the worst draw. In general, it looks a little better than last week, but it doesn't feel like it's outside the bounds of statistical error. However, I'm pretty much at peace with that. It wasn't an uncommon sight for us in previous years. The biggest deal for me is that we never were allied with a team number greater than 677. (For historical purposes, I am on 1743.) Why do we never get to play with a 1038, or a 1249, or a 1629? These teams are among the best here... team number is not a factor. I'd also love to play against a strong pair like 291/306 or 375/379, but it's not going to happen. It *can't* happen.

There's a big difference between random and arbitrary. While the algorithm may be improved, it's definitely not random, and to call it that is misleading. I expect that this is how it will be for the remainder of the season, but without a compelling argument in favor, I really would not want to see this algorithm back next year.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Here's my analysis of the Pittsburg schedule so far.

http://www.issaquahrobotics.org/Matc.../pit-fri.shtml

It's similar to the other week-two regionals that I've looked at with lots of teams having matches very close together and still more duplication than is necessary.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Man, I'm really nervous as to how SVR and Davis match pairing is going to turn out. I never got to play with/against a lot of the great teams at PNW, and I fear that even with this "improved" algorithm we still we only be seeing 1/3 of the competition at our next events. Which to me just takes all the fun out of seeing how our robot performs with and against a wide variety of strategies. I distinctly remember doing scouting review on friday night at PNW and not recognizing half of the robots our team had taken pictures of, and I feel like I missed out on all the awesome work the other teams did. Where is the inspiration in seeing the same robots over and over?

I would really like to know how FIRST rationalizes lower team numbers as "better", because in our 11 year team history we have yet to win a regional (emphasis on the "yet" ;)) So please, please FIRST, bring back truly random matches. I understand the constraints that need to be made so that teams are not having back to back matches, but other than that, just let the teams play.

I think FIRST made a step forward with week two, but they already took two steps back at week one, so IMO they still have a little ways to go.

Mike C.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

The algorithm worked pretty well at LA.


except being against 330 match 1, 254 match 2 and 968 in math 3.

The only three matches we were running before the banebots gearboxes completely siezed up.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I think there is still some ambiguity as to whether FIRST has actually stated that lower numbered teams are "better"... certainly they did not fare any better under the scheduling system for the first week regionals... but that could well be due to the scheduling system itself.

As for determining what a "better" team is, I know you mean in the sense of winning qualification matches, but the way you guys helped out the rookies next to you (for those who don't know, they not only lent them their robot cart, but then went and built a new one and gave it to the rookies) and played at PNW certainly makes you one of the "better" teams in the big picture. I've already forgotten which teams, exactly, won the championship, (although the final match has got to go down as a classic) but it will be a long time before I forget the way you welcomed a new team to FIRST.

Well done, and I hope you get to see a wide variety of teams at your future regionals.

Jason

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

The LA regional is better than the other week two regionals I've looked at.

http://www.issaquahrobotics.org/MatchMaker/la-fri.shtml

It still has issues with very short match separations and partner distribution is reduced, but the opponent duplication is better.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

They call this kind of scheduling random?!? At Pittsburgh, we faced the same teams in almost the same alliances numerous times! It is much worse than past years...What is going on?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

At 35 teams, Pittsburgh Regional is a small regional, and the new randomizing algorithm needs a certain number of teams to be effective. With a large regional, you have a much larger pool of teams to randomly draw from for generating the match schedules than a small regional, which is why Pittsburgh has many similar alliances.

Small number of teams at a regional = small pool of potential teams to compete in any match.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

It appears that neither the new nor the old algorithm are random, but are different versions of controled permutations of team assignments. There is still seeding based on team number. The first step is to divide the team list into 3 pools by increasing team number. Then to create each alliance, a team is selected from each pool, although assignment to Red or Blue appears to be random. Each alliance always has one team from the lowest third of numbers, one from the middle, and one from the top. The old algorithm stressed maximum separation between matches, which created the maximum number of repeat partners and opponents. The new algorithm has relaxed that separation a bit, but it appears that smaller regionals with fewer matches per round still hit up against the limits.

The biggest mistake, in my opinion, was decision to create the 3 pools in the first place. It completely eliminates the possibility of super-strong alliances consisting of all long-term veterans, which is probably the intent. For example, there could never have been an alliance of 33, 67 and 70 at GLR - regardless of how well those teams did or didn't perform. This penalizes teams that are in the lowest-numbered third that do not happen to have a strong robot that year. We all know there are teams that go through rotations of personnel, or have a fatal design flaw that isn't discovered until it's too late to correct, or don't perform as well as usual due to any number of reasons. Worse, this gives an extreme advantage to great performing teams in the 2nd or 3rd pool, who are now always paired with a veteran.

I hope they come up with something different for Atlanta, because almost everyone who comes to the Championship can be considered a veteran, or at least should be a well-performing team. Even the rookies that get there because they were in a winning alliance, or because they are Rookie All-Stars, deserve to be considered equal competitors.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

AD4 - I think it is worth noticing that with 36 teams in a regional, and with no other constraints other than minimizing repeat allies and opponents, it is possible for a team to play a full 7 matches without ever seeing a repeat among the other 5 robots on the field.

In a 36 team Regional one should expect to have to hustle between matches because there are fewer teams that need to go out on the field before your own team is "up" again; but there is no reason to expect to see lots of repeat allies and opponents just because "only" 36 teams are present.

When you choose to maximize the smallest time between each team's matches, that starts to make things hard. When you allow teams to see other teams twice on the field, so long as that other team is an ally once and an opponent the other time; your ability to schedule matches starts to improve,,,

Bottom line: A small population of teams is not a reason to say that alliances will repeat or nearly repeat often. On the other hand, using a method that forms alliances from small medium and large team numbers does throw a pretty large wrench (i.e. constraint) into things....

Blake
PS: Once a match scheduling algorithm (suggested in this forum or elsewhere) that doesn't depend on team number is implemented; it is a trivial exercise to run it once for each possible number of teams from 1 to 100. After those results are reviewed and found correct, at each/any regional, the organizers just randomly assign the participating teams to fill the slots in the appropriate pre-generated schedule. Done.... No one will know who their opponents and allies are until the results of the random assignments are announced. Everyone will know the patterns in the match schedule beforehand; but who cares? The "worst" that could happen is that they detect a flaw in the algorithm ahead of time....

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Okay, big Pittsburgh feedback post.

First of all, though Pittsburgh is a small regional and it's quite reasonable to say that there will be a few teams who play against the same teams all the time, it was pretty bad. It didn't affect us too much, but we were with or against 1629 in ~75% of matches, and others often as well. We didn't mind it, and I still thought our match scheduling was okay, but for others, not so much. I saw at least thee teams go back to back or every-other-match a couple of times, and they were still playing the same teams. Again, we didn't notice it alot, but other teams had a hard time.


Rookie advantage time. Our choosing alliance partner, though an excellent team that was alot of fun, not to mention having built their robot in only four weeks, and shaving 80 pounds practice day, was seeded #1 alliance.
Their robot however, was not so good. Literally a box bot, they could not score, descore, or climb too many ramps effectively. At least one qualifying match they did not run at all. So, their contribution to their seeding was limited to the few times that they climbed ramps. It appears that they could not have seeded any lower if they wanted to. They were basically in the top eight regardless of if they ran or not.

In the long run though, being first alliance actually put them at a disadvantage. They had first pick, and could pick what they felt was the best possible alliance partner from the beginning, but they could not pick again until last. So, effectively, they had one excellent hybrid robot, an excellent defending robot(#1990, thanks!), and themselves. They had no chance to pick a scoring robot second choice(all gone by that time), and as a result, they had one robot who could score and ramp, and two screening robots, only one of which could quickly climb the ramp. Had they been seeded lower or had been picked, they would have been on an alliance with two strong robots to start with. Their alliance didn't really have a chance.

And therein lies the problem with a non-random match selection process. A similar thing happened another alliance, who was a rookie box carried into the top eight by "random" selection. There are consequential reasons why rookies should not be helped into the top eight. If they score and win their way in, more power to them. However, if they do not, they actually stand a better chance of winning if they are not put there.


Again, we had a great time and I had more fun than I've ever had at a regional I think, but when the cards are stacked against an alliance with no way to reverse it, it's not really a good thing.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Here are the stats on the Pittsburgh regional schedule. As previous posters have noted, the gaps between teams' matches got pretty tight, with one team having to play back-to-back matches. There's rampant duplication among both opponents and partners, with teams 123 and 314 paired as partners in half of their matches. Teams saw between 23 and 29 of the other 35 teams.

I've posted a white paper on the scheduling issues and a better solution to the problem.

Even in a small regional, a much better schedule is possible, with a minimum match delta of 4, no partner duplication, much less opponent duplication and teams get to see between 29 and 34 of the other 35 teams.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

My team, 830, managed to get matched up against both Martian teams 3 times apiece at GLR. We played 2 matches against 494, 2 against 70, and one against both of them. Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right...

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Yea, we played 1503 3 times in a row, which is VERY strange because there were 60 teams there. So....Can someone clarify why this is happening?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Of course its not random. My team played in the 9th match of every group of 10 for the entire qualifier. They have to change it soon.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Sounds like there is still a lot of emphasis on time between matches, but improvements have been made. As I understand how any program that sets the matches will work, if you limit the time between matches to 8-12 rounds (for a field of 60), then you will be "randomly" matched with no more than 30 different teams and probably less. It probably is not practical to have a 5 round spread for smaller fields, so the number of "random" teams will decrease dramatically on small fields. I recall being frustrated at a small field regional a couple years ago, because we faced or teamed with the same team many times and did not play quite a few of the other teams. Anyway, the matches seem more mixed when the opponents are allowed to shuffle. The perpetual opponent algorithm makes an imperfect system worse, in my opinion, so I hope the event staffs are using the other option.

Let's try to have some fun out there :)

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Well both of first problems this year bit us. In our last 5 matchs we had the same alliance partner. They either could not move or did not show because of a failed banebot. This made us have a 3 vs 2 match and we lost 3 out of 5. We droped for 2nd in the rankings to 17 witch hurt in the final selections. Please make the match selections more "random".

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

We saw one team 4 out of 8 matches and many teams 2 or 3 times, even in a row. There were many, many teams we never saw. People were talking about this at GLR. Also we had one match we were on the floor and they were calling Last call for our next match (only two between them). We told the person at the gate that we were still on the floor and would be back soon. That was a fast one.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I just ran a lot of statistics from the VCU Regional. There were 66 teams.

The oldest third & newest third were against the same team each round. The pairings were done in numerical order. Example: 116 vs. 122 every match, 339 vs. 343 every match, 345 vs. 346 every match.

Each team in the middle third alternated rounds against the team right above them and the team right below them (in numerical order). So team 928 alternated rounds between teams 900 and 975. Since team 620 was the oldest team in the middle third & team 1522 was the newest team in the middle third they alternated against each other. So team 620 alternated between 623 & 1522, and team 1522 alternated between 620 & 1413.

The only thing "random" was which pairs were matched against which, keeping in mind that the 3 pools were completely separate.

Team 1731 was matched against 1655, & in each match every team in our alliance was newer than their opposing team (i.e. 346, 928, & 1731 vs. 345, 900, 1655). If FIRST honestly thinks that the lower the team # the better the robot then we should have lost every single match. How is this fair?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Sounds like what happened at PNW... Were the pits the same? (ie .. the teams that were always against each other removed by one pit)

ie team #1 (middle team #1) Team #2 (middle team #2)
Team #1 vs Team #2
middle team #1 vs middle team #2

At PNW it seemed that the top third and bottom third had the same problem... examples again: 272-360, 488-492, 957-997,956-955, 847-753, etc..... I am not sure of the specifics on the rookie teams but when we were alligned with them they seemed to be against one team alot.

Our team was in matches 70, 61, 52, 43, 34, 25, 16, and 7 ... Except for match 16 we were always on the red side... Always against 997

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Lots of people on this thread have said they want a random schedule, but really what they want is a schedule that lets them play many different teams with as few duplicates as possible. This doesn't happen with a random distribution, it requires an algorithm that specifically builds a schedule to minimize duplication while keeping successive matches far enough apart that teams can turn their robots around.

FIRST now has two match scheduling algorithms.

Most of the week one regionals used what's being called "perpetual opponent" which does the scheduling where all of the teams in the high and low third (by team number) are paired with an adjacent team who is their opponent in every match. The middle third teams have two teams and alternate matches with them as opponents. There is no duplication of partner teams and great spacing between successive matches for each team.

After all of the complaints about the week one schedules, FIRST added a second algorithm called "random" which does a better job (but not a good job) of mixing opponents, but also duplicates partners and schedules matches very close to each other, even back-to-back.

Two of us (my wife and I) have implemented an algorithm that produces the type of schedules that people are saying they want: minimum duplication of partners and opponents, and good separation between matches. An analysis of the problem and our proposed solution are documented in a white paper on our team site. We'd love to have FIRST use our algorithm. We've sent them mail but haven't heard back.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

So, has anyone heard anything official from FIRST about the Veteran/Intermediate/Rookie constraint that they sort of snuck into the "random" match pairing system this year?

As I've stated earlier, from the perspective of a slowly-improving, learn-as-you-go, student run team, this new system for forming alliances takes our low team number way out of context. I consider every team as a worthy adversary, and I base my evaluation of their performance on their robot, not some arbitrary number that FIRST assigns every team that registers for competition. Sure, some teams might have past successes (254 comes to mind :rolleyes:), but that in no way means that they will have a killer robot this year (which they do, but thats beside the point :p). And some teams, such as us, haven't even had "winning" success in past years, yet they treat us like we are the same level as the Poof's as one of the elite "A" teams.

If I was a rookie, I would be insulted that FIRST only considers you as a "C" team and that you need an "A" team to help you through your qualifying matches to make sure you don't lose badly every match. I saw plenty of inspiring rookie bots at PNW, 2046 sticks out to me, with their awesome autonomous mode that worked extremely well.

If FIRST was really trying to make this whole qualifying match thing fair, in order to rank the teams, they should go around the pits, look at every teams robot and see how they preform in their practice rounds. (Oh wait, isn't that what the scouts already do?)

I really don't see any legitimate reason for the qualifying match algorithm that FIRST has in place, and until they give concrete reasoning for this dramatic change, I will continue to try and bring back truly random qualifying matches. My team still has another $8,000 worth of regionals to attend this year, and I don't want to waste all that money on a bum schedule that limits what teams I will be able compete with and against.

I guess we'll all just have to wait until Update #17. :(

Mike C.

EDIT: So I guess truly random isn't quite what I'm looking for, more like random, but with a reasonable amount of space between matches (Mr. Saxton, very nice explanation of the yours and FIRST's algorithms, even I understood it :P. I really like the constraints you have in yours and I would love it if FIRST implemented it. Let us know what they say!). I don't see what's wrong with going back to the 2006 algorithm though. I understand that Hatch was in charge of it back then, but can't we just mimic that algorithm's results?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I agree that a wonderful program like first can be improved by looking at match scheduling. The issue that seems very fixable to me that has not been addressed is to insure that every team has at least two matches on any Saturday during a regional. I find it very unfair to families and friends of first teams that some schools have only one match on Saturday, while others have 3 matches. People do work and quite often Saturday is their only day to attend the regional events and cheer for their teams. If we want more support, we should enable the people of the community to support us.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

At the Flordia Regional Team 86 had several repeat pairings as follows:
Partners
1065 - three times
1592 - two times
Foes
1345 - two times
1649 - two times
There were 51 robots at this competition. I can believe that one repeat pairing is random, but this many repeat pairings points to a problem with the program.
:yikes: :eek: :rolleyes:

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

according to the algorithm, we will be playing 254, the cheesy poofs, almost every round in vegas!:eek:

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I'm thinking teams like 968, 1038, 1126, 1114, etc. are loving the fact FIRST considers them to be "mid" (or even high, depending on the event) level teams.....

The likelihood of them and any other quad digit team partnering with a solid low numbered veteran team is a lot greater than the likelihood of a 2 or 3 digit team being paired with a solid quad digit team.

So how is this algorithm benefitting all teams again?

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

We loved it all the way into third seed at GLR.
Don't know about ALL teams, but sixth seed sure got a bonus from that. ;) :o

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

maybe we will realize that advantage at buckeye....i didnt really notice it that much at FLR cause the teams we were continually paired with failed to show up to our matches.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

A match schedule should not benefit "all teams". It should definitely not benefit any team or category of teams in particular. It should benefit the competition.

The seeding matches are undeniably intended to produce a ranking of teams. It seems reasonable for that rank to reflect how well each team performs, with the better-playing robots at the top of the list. The "perpetual opponent" schedule certainly doesn't give that result. A very good team can be beaten by a marginally better team every time, placing the very good team near the bottom of the list.

Assuming that veterans are "more good" and rookies are "less good" is a shaky thing to do, but let's do it for the sake of argument. Any schedule which intentionally pits veterans against veterans along with rookies against rookies can skew the final rankings to carry a bunch of "less good" robots to the top of the list. And if the assumption isn't correct, such a schedule serves only to deny teams the opportunity to play against a wide variety of opponents.

I believe that qualification match alliances should be assigned entirely without regard for team age, team number, or prior performance. The goals should be primarily to maximize the number of different teams each team plays against and with, and secondarily to make the time between matches consistently long. There still can't be enough matches to establish a very high correlation between rank and robot "goodness", but it seems to have worked well enough in the past few years.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I think that in defining the "random" algorithm somebody (the GDC, 4FX?) was trying to get qualification matches where the opposing sides are relatively equally matched. This should, in theory, lead to more exciting qualification matches.

AYSO (American Youth Soccer Organization) years ago started ranking players and then assigning them to teams at random. There ceased to be a "draft". Coaches are just given a list of names. At the end of the season coaches are asked to rank their players as A-E. The next season these rankings are used to create ballanced teams. Each team will have one A player, a couple Bs, etc. The new coach is not told of the rankings, but a good one will figure it out pretty quick. This system works pretty well for producing balanced teams. In fact, the winningest coaches are the ones that improve their players skills the most. The ones that turn their C players into C+ or B players.

But robot teams are not soccer players. Soccer players tend to stay at pretty much the same level from year to year. They might move a grade or so in one direction or the other but not huge changes in performance. On the other hand many robot teams fluctuate wildly in their performance from year to year.

While there is a slight correlation between team age and performance on the field, it is not close enough to use to achieve the presumed goal. So I hope this turns out to be another experiment in Utopia (a la 2001) that is quickly abandoned.

Now to relate things from the match generator's side of things.

The match generator has about the same idea of what is happening that you do. In fact if you are reading these threads and he isn't you have far more idea. There are two "buttons" used on the screen to generate matches. One is the Week 1 algorithm and the other is the "new and improved" version. If the operator is not careful or is ignorant of the difference it would be easy to pick the wrong button.

Now let's look at the SoCal Regional. We had 52 teams which break up into two groups of 17 teams and one of 18. Each team had 8 matches. So each team would have played with at most 16 teams in "other" groups and 8 teams in the same group. If you put 17 marked beans into a sack, pull one out, record which one it was, throw it back in and repeat fifteen times, chances are pretty darn good that you will get a repeat or two.

The software does have means to check the number of "repeat" teams. At SoCal the most repeats was two teams playing each other 3 times. At least that's what the auditing software told us and we believed it. Most teams had two repeats, but we figured that was acceptable considering the situation. We did not think to check for time between matches before publishing the schedule. I'll try to do better in Davis, but the worst was one team that only had a one match break. I'm not sure we would have regenerated the match list even if we knewbecause it was so good in other ways. You can't save a list to se if you get a better one or not.

The auditing tab is not obvious and is a step that some events might have missed. But honestly, even having the same team from another group in four matches would not have been unreasonable given the pool size. Having the same team four times from the same group probably means the wrong algorithm was used.

So somebody made a mistake doing something on which they might or might not have recieved proper instruction. This was a last minute change and was not in the documentation on the system. Oh by the way they were probably using vacation time to be there and probably spent numerous hours before the event getting ready, learning the scoring system etc. So be gracious and thank them for their efforts.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

But if the person generating match lists has a bias or conflict of interest, then they could keep going till they got one they liked. A process that is to be repeated until "fair" can be perverted at will. The more likely event is that it will be perverted by someone who’s not even aware they are doing it. From what you say, there will always be something about one list or another that they do not like. But, from what you say, they will know a good list when they see it. :(

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

By "trying again until you get a better list" I meant getting a list that doesn't have more than two or three repeats for any team and that finishes rounds about the time you want.

Due to the randomness you get more or fewer matches sometimes due to the "extra" teams when the number of teams is not divisible by six. So your ending schedule bounces around a bit with different runs. It took us a while to figure out why that was.

Would it be possible for somebody to mess around with the schedule so they get an "easy" schedule while somebody else gets a "hard" one? I suppose.

We got the final team list around 3:30pm and needed to make the schedule by 5pm to allow for duplication. It took several tries to meet our operating parameters for schedule repeats. Continual regeneration to find a "soft" schedule for one team? It would be easier to get one close and edit it by hand, which can be done as well, though it isn't easy.

Another point, the people selected for this job are people who have been around FIRST for a while. People who have a track record for being fair and even handed. If they had noticable bias, then they wouldn't be there

In SoCal there were three of us, two from different teams and another volunteer who just does the regional who were present during the match generation. The only checks we made on the schedule were on the number of "repeats", and the start times for the final matches each day, which the program gives without revealing what teams are in what matches. A master was then printed and given to the Regional Director for duplication. If we'd messed with the schedule after that it would have been pretty obvious.

So while messing with the schedule is a possibility it is fairly improbable. But now that you mention it, it is probably best for multiple people with different loyalties to be involved in the process. One man can be bought, it is much riskier to buy two or three.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

I added an analysis of the LA regional to my site.

Re: "Random" match Schedules
 

Tom,

Thank you for your posting. It looks like the auditing software may need some auditing. That 4+ column was the one we were watching and it was empty on our screen. Either that or we have an IO (Idiot Operator:rolleyes: ) error.

At least only four teams were involved and one of the "repeat" matches was an "extra" match and didn't count for 968. By the way we had 52 teams and only 16 teams wih "extra" matches.

We tried.