View Single Post
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2014, 16:33
MikeE's Avatar
MikeE MikeE is offline
Wrecking nice beaches since 1990
no team (Volunteer)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: New England -> Alaska
Posts: 381
MikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Computer generated initial alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by itsjustmrb View Post
I am not going to get into the debate about whether an older team (lower number) is better or not, but I have noticed the match schedule seems to lump lower number teams together a little more often.(As well as bunch the higher numbers) For example, in the Curie Division last year, there were 50 teams numbered above 2130 and 49 below.
We played 8 matches against 24 teams, 11 of which were numbered over 2130 and 13 were below. Of the 16 alliance partners, 13 were numbered above and only 3 were below.
Maybe the schedule generator should randomize the numbers before the teams are dumped in the schedule instead of sequentially.
That description describes the initial seeding, which is followed by hundreds of thousands of iterations to find a better schedule.

In fact using the test you suggest (for each match on Curie 2013 how many teams are >2130) the distribution is close to the expected distribution.
Stating it more precisely there is no significant evidence to suggest that the alliance pairings are non-random.