View Single Post
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-03-2015, 12:26
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: Match Scheduling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Potato View Post
Currently, there is an algorithm that decides match scheduling, at least for regionals, and it tries to do just that. However, minimizing repeated alliance partners / opponents is only second order sort behind maximizing time between matches. Also, I worry that for the larger events, it may be unreasonable to do so many matches, and scheduling would be difficult without a significant number of surrogates. Unsure how this works at districts, though, but I presume the algorithm is the same.
The same scheduling algorithm is used in Districts and Regionals.
I don't think your description of the algorithm is correct. The cost function at the core of the optimization procedure prioritizes minimizing repeated alliance partners over repeated opponents. Time between matches is not part of the cost function at all, but the algorithm only considers solutions that satisfy a minimum match separation.
After generating the schedule the FMS provides overall statistics, which in my experience at District sized events does typically show the maximum number of distinct partners for most teams.
__________________
no stranger to the working end of a pencil
Reply With Quote