|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
It seems like there are some rather large problems with the pairings in some of the regionals. It seems like the best way to get matches random, though, is to get all the matches put together (in no particular order) and arrange them to have a fairly good spacing between them.
Given what I have heard from some teams, anything would be better than the system currently in place. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
it seems like they always had a good system in the past. They probably just need to work the bugs out of their filemaker system.
|
|
#3
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
It will depending on the score keeper.
Some of them will be willing to sit there for 2 hours looking over a list of over 94 matches and with 4 teams per match, and checking each of the 376 numbers just to make sure the matches are fair... Some of them will probably generate the list in half an hour, look at the statistics and try to make sure the matches aren't horribly similar... All I can say is, good luck. I am sure they did the best they can to make good matches for you. Also, I was messing around with the scoring program a little bit last night, and generated a match list with teams having at most 2 similar matches with same teams instead of the outrageous 6 or 7 we got at Sacramento the night before. It would've been so cool using that match list instead, but it just got to appear here instead of during one of the 30 tries at Sacramento. And also, thanks for the critism about this problem... FIRST is aware of it, and are trying to fix it from year to year. I think it's time for constructive critism, and tell FIRST something that can help them fix the problem, instead of just saying "anything would be better than the system currently in place". |
|
#4
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ok, been putting some thoughts into this.
How about, we generate a match list ahead of time, and making sure it have the most non-similar matches you can ever get? We would do one for each number of teams, ranging from 27 to 50. With an existing match list, here is what we can do: The match list will be for hypothetical teams from 1 to 27 or 1 to 50, etc. Then teams at the regional are randomly assigned to one of the numbers between 1 to 27 or 1 to 50. So, when the teams are assigned a number, they will be sure the matches are most non-similar, while having enough time in between. You will have the effect of playing with random teams. The only thing missing is that the top 4 teams and the last 4 teams might be paired together. But then again, you won't know the ranking before the matches starts, so that won't be a problem anyway. The matches isn't going to change when people start playing. Last edited by Ken Leung : 11-03-2003 at 13:38. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I really like that idea Ken L.
If someone(s) going to put a lot of time into making a list, they should only have to do it once. Also, you really aren't taking away the "randomness" of the matches, because when you put all the error checking into the list, you allready have removed pure randomness. Of course, different regionals would have different numbers of total matches. How one would deal with that, I don't know. Either way, I think, end the end, it would be a better system. The "key" list could be made as soon as the total number of matches is known, which could be weeks before. However, nothing could leak out because team numbers would not be assigned until the night before. Keep up the great job FIRST! ![]() |
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Why worry about the number when you can just make a match list for each number? So, ranging from 27 to 50, that's about 24 list. Given time ahead of competition, that can easily be done.
The randomness will still works because you are randomly picking teams to be one of the teams in the existing match list. Anyone else have any input? I really think this will work, and I am willing to suggest this to FIRST. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
we played against team 1090 3-4 times, and with them once. This does not strike me as random. Also, I feel we had bad luck with that random thinger, we only had two or three matches with alliance partners who were real good, and a few where they didn't work at all.
I'd like to see the whole random thing redone. We didn't qual, but I'm not really bitter, especially after our last match (110 @ Stl) where we dominated two teams at once . . . 1090(again) and 877 (#6 or 7 ranked). It was a good match, our partner protected our stack (and failed, although it was a great effort) and we got the boxes. After we knocked middle boxes down 877 and 1090 tried to come up the ramp, but we manhandled them both. the final score was disappointing (73-3), especially because we had agreed to let all four robots on top at the end . . but only our alliance robots could get there. Still, when you've won half your matches and are still out of the running, a sweep feels good. If only we could have managed to convince 877 to pick us as an alliance partner after that . . . . . . . . . . |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
ok Ken...
I'm not sure if we're thinking the same thing. If you could expalin your idea a little better, it might help. Here's what I think your trying to say: You're going to make a match list just how you do now. The only difference is that instead of using actual team numbers, you'll use the numbers 1-x (x being the total number of teams at the competition) You can do this weeks before, and have plenty of time to have lots of people hand tweek each match for plenty of seperation and to rarely ever see a team twice. Now, the night before the regional, you'll randomly assign each team attending one of the 1-x numbers. Then that team assigned their 1-x number will play wherever that number is. This way, the entire world could see the match list, but until teams are assigned numbers, no one would know who's palying who. Is this what you're trying say? |
|
#9
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Exactly, Jack.
Let's say a very simple example of 8 teams. A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H and it's a 1 vs 1 game. A vs B, C vs D, E vs F, G vs H then the next round, in order to keep it random and while having enough time in between matches, you would make the next rounds: A vs C, B vs D, E vs G, F vs H. If we are only doing 8 teams, with 8 qualifying matches total, that would be the way to do it. We have no ideas what 8 teams will be there, but at least we have a match list done already. It doesn't have to be all that random at all. From now on, for this situation, we wll always use A vs B, C vs D, E vs F, G vs H, A vs C, B vs D, E vs G, F vs H for our match list. Now, at the competition, we look at the 8 teams, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. It could be very easily be A =1, B=2, C=3, and so on, and that will make a match list of: 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4, 5 vs 7, 6 vs 8 Or we can do it A = 8, B = 1, C = 7, D = 2, E = 6, F = 3, G = 5, H = 4, and have a match list of: 8vs1, 7vs2, 6vs3, 5vs4, 8vs7, 1vs2, 6vs5, 3vs4. By randomly assigning the teams 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 to A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, you can create a lot of different combinations of teams in matches, while making sure the teams get enough break in between. The ABCDEFGH list will be done ahead of time, and the only work need to be done at regional is matching 12345678 to ABCDEFGH. This will make sure the ABCDEFGH list is as non-similar as possible, while the random matching between the two list will make the matches as random as possible each time. Make sense? |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
I looked into this the other day, and made a simple prgram that would take X amount of teams and randomly create matches...
I said 40 teams for 110 matches because that was a general average of the regionals. Since both were variables they can be changed. Then to insure teams had a break I created a queue. Team are randomly choosen from the available list then sent to a match and the queue. The queue was 16 teams so when the 17th got assigned the 1st was sent back into the available list. This insures teams are never double assigned and they have a 4 match break. I never got to the point of checking for duplicate matches. It works well until teams reach the max matches then they are permanently removes from the available teams. Well a few teams would have fewer matches and at the end 3 or 4 teams would play twice in the same match and back to back matches to make up. I tied insuring the majority of teams played 3 matches before lunch then 4 more before the end of teh first day. Still near the end there were always these oddball teams. The point is with all the checks its impossible for a computer to figure this out all by itself without a rediculous program. KenL suggested the lists are premade and that seems the best idea. There is probobly some pattern that can be applied to any list to create the matches. However some teams will play together twice if there are more matches than teams. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I am a student on team 648, we were at the St. Louis Regional this past weekend. We were paired against team 16 (the all-feared Baxter Bomb Squad) 3 times! And twice against team 45, the TechnoKats. This was definately not ramdom. Because of this, we won 0 matches and placed 54 out of 55.
Thank You, Budda648 |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Ken L... Great Idea! (Yep, we're on the same page)
I would definatly recommend it to FIRST. The problem with the old system is that you wanted to make the list the night before so the list wouldn't leak out. Now, you can make the list weeks in avdance, tweek it, and have much less to do during the actual competition. (Which I'm sure you would love )I can't really see a single con. Great Job FIRST & Keep it up! |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
A few years ago (2001 I believe), the scoring system actually did use a template-based system, and while I don't believe the templates were hand-tweaked, there were a few downfalls to it:
As I believe Ken has mentioned, there are 11 different pairings formulas available in the system this year. The trick is to find the system which works best for the particular number of teams and matches at any given event. I hope to, at the events I will be working at, have the opportunity to test every one of these pairing scenarios to see which works out the best for that particular event. And in regards to the comment made about modifying the match table, it is not done for a few reasons:
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pregenerated list with random team # assignments would solve the problem of a team not showing up also, you just go to the list with one less team. If First would generate a master list, with up to 100 teams playing however many matches the work would only have to be done once. After that the regional or Nationals would just reach in, get the correct number of teams and matches...and have a computer randomly assign a number to each team. The point is....the work would only have to be done a single time, it would be tough, but they could use it forever.
|
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Haven't read any of the aboves posts but a few... however, what I can say was we were paired again 56 three (or four) times and again 25 and 384 twice each... It was somewhat frustrating see other teams who were playing literally two vs zero matches and just getting freebie points. I'm going to work on an algorithm for it soon.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Random Pairings??? | DragnButt | General Forum | 11 | 23-03-2003 11:34 |
| Match List | Jack | OCCRA | 11 | 03-01-2003 12:33 |
| QUESTION - Random Alliance Pairings | archiver | 2001 | 2 | 24-06-2002 02:03 |
| Sound Levels Measured at the Nationals | archiver | 1999 | 8 | 23-06-2002 22:47 |
| How random is random???? | archiver | 1999 | 0 | 23-06-2002 21:59 |