Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Saxton
The algorithm does try to balance each team's appearance on the red and blue alliances, but doesn't attempt to balance positions within each alliance.
|
Oh, I definitely understand that.
All I ask is that for next year, (if possible) for it to be stepped up just a bit to include randomization within the red or blue as well a bit more.
What fun is advancing the program, if it will stay the same every year?
I guess I'm just an Engineer by nature (but not degree yet) and always want to see something improved. lol It's a curse... & a blessing all in one.
The jump from last year to this year's alliance pairing system was progress by leaps & bounds no doubt, and I congratulate you on that!!!
For next year, I only have that one request if possible with that said.
Just a suggestion!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Saxton
The red/blue balancing was added because some event arenas are asymmetric where it's better to view the match from one end or the other, so it's a pain if your team is always playing from the less desirable end. The schedules generated before FIRST asked for that (before the 2008 season) were *much* more imbalanced red/blue than what it does now.
|
I think the regional I went to this past weekend (CT Regional) is a perfect example of one of those where teams can play on the "less desirable end" as you noted.
The main screen which shows the field (and thus real time scoring, & video) is behind the Red Alliance station, so I can see where that request came from - Blue has an advantage in that scenario by being able to see the HUGE screen very nicely with a quick glace up forward, while the Red Alliance has a rather tiny LCD screen to glance over at in retrospect, or has to look behind the or rely on their coach to look behind them.
I guess it's true, every simple request has a good reason behind it!