|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree that they aren't random.
Here is team 639's match list at annapolis: match # - alliance partner - opponent/opponent 4 - 375 - 272/56 18 - 87 - 384/348 30 - 449 - 56/25 45 - 134 - 384/56 58 - 348 - 25/1027 72 - 484 - 204/768 84 - 596 - 384/1027 Now don't get me wrong, I'm not mad about this or anything - I just don't think it is random. At least we weren't paired with the same team as an alliance partner more then once, but I would've liked to play against more teams on the opposing alliance. We played with: 384 - 3 times 56 - 3 times 25 - 2 times 1025 - 2 times 348 - 2 times In only 7 matches. Random? Probably not. I think a better way needs to be found. My team would have gladly played 2 matches closer together or further apart to help mix things up. Its not that I don't mind playing with the same team more then twice, but with so many teams to possibly play with it's sad to only get to play with a few of them. Greg |
|
#47
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Gee- I'm hurt. I thought you liked us..... it WAS good to have the time between matches to make repairs (AKA- rebuild and modify drill gearboxes) But you are right- randomness wasn't always there. For example, Team 25 has yet to face or play alongside MOE in season competition! (YET!) We always look forward to that. (PS- great machine Code Red- way up on our list) WC ![]() |
|
#48
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19464
And.. I hope they don't use the same system to choose divisions down in Texas. I like the teams we have played with and against in NYC this weekend, but I don't want all of them to "randomly" end up in our division in Texas.. I want variety man!!! Last edited by Elgin Clock : 22-03-2003 at 21:29. |
|
#49
|
||||
|
||||
|
If teams are expected to be able to program an autonomous mode for a robot that was built in 6 weeks, then it should be fair to expect that a program could be written to help alleviate our concerns with these "non-random" pairings. Most teams do not want purely random pairings. They simply want an "IF" statement that checks to see if teams have already played previously in the same match.
While I understand that constraints like time between matches exist, there are some ways around this. All teams break for lunch on Friday as well as the break between Friday night and qualifying rounds Saturday morning. Could there be 3 groupings of teams (Fri AM, Fri PM and Sat PM) where the programs assigns matches based on the groups? This would allow time between matches, but also "shuffle the deck" so to speak? I know that we were frustrated seeing the same teams directly before our matches or in our matches at GLR. |
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
The problem with programming the algorithm isn't the requirements but makeing sure they always work.
Number of matches a team will play Number of matches a team will have to repair/recover Making sure a team will only play another team once We'll start by making a program that randomly assigns teams to matches. Making sure teams have 3 matches off. Well we first run into a problem because some teams will finish there matches quickly. Near the final matches teams start to ineligable because there done witha ll there matches. This means some teams will have to play again quickly in the end. At the very end if a team has very few matches then it may twice in the same match. Then check to see if teams duplicate matches. What happens near the end if a team has to play a team again. You'd have to back up and reassign matches over and over until it worked out perfectly. The point is computers aren't intuative. They do exactly what you tell them. RNG(Random number generators) don't evenly pump out numbers either. Try a simple excel spreadsheet. For example if i told a RNG to call a number between 1 and 10 until one of the numbers was called 10 times the results could look like. 1 5 2 6 3 3 4 8 5 6 6 9 7 3 8 10 9 2 10 7 The point is the fist 90 matches would be fine but the last 20 or so would start to look weird. Some teams may nto play at all while others play match after match without a break. Teams will play teams for a second or third time. The amount of team who have completed there matches will increase so the available pool of teams will decrease quickly and this is what causes errors. Instead of complaining figure it out. Many people have suggested making charts that list matches for regionals between 35 and 70 teams then FIRST could assign each team to a number. Be glad that you play the same people twice instead of playing matches back to back like what used to happen. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
we were against the same team 3 times in a row(team 696), but ironically our team was picked to be on their alliance for the playoffs, which was cool. but yes, we were against team 696 3 times, our sister school 989, twice and allianced with 898 twice. 3 or 4 matches our alliance parters either got knocked over, broken during autonomus, or didnt even show to the match (team 64 was having some major problems). so our bot had to go 2v1 for 3 or 4 matches, which made our matches low scoring, and all but one we lost. this made our rank very low (28th), but since we had a good, reliable robot, we were selected in the alliance selections. Our sister school, Palo Verde, 989, had great alliance teams during the qual rounds, which allowed them to get all the way up to 13th place, and be selected in the alliance selections. In AZ, we commonly had just HALF AN HOUR between matches, not the Hour one user was talking about. something is up with the selecitions, i dont know what. but i do think it is luck. we were 38th seed in LA last year, but when we went to Nationals, we were 5th seed and highest rookie - and 989 had some great luck in AZ this year when we went to that regional. so who knows, better luck next time.
-dave 2003 AZ Semifinalist w/ 696, 222 2003 AZ Xerox Creativity Award 2002 Highest Rookie Seed (5th seed) - Einstein Div. Championships |
|
#52
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
In Cleveland we played Team # 494 3 times, and this past week we were blue every time. We also have noticed that we never play against teams with a number lower than 100.
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
I used this as an excuse to learn java
![]() Attatched is a program that will use brute force to randomly generate a matchlist based on constraints you enter. To run it download the zip file, extract it to a diectory. Open a console window, cd to that directory and type "java Generator" The program should execute, follow the instructions and enter info when prompted. After it has all the info it needs It will start generating match lists. It will try one possible route, if it runs into a dead end (no more possible matches), and all teams haven't played the required number of matches, it gives up and tries again (without any input from you). Please save all your work before running this, It probably isn't stable (though since it's being executed by the Java VM it shouldn't crash anything- with windows you never know). The time the program takes to find an acceptable match list depends on the constraints you give it at the beginning. If you tell it to find a list that would be near impossible to generate by hand, expect to wait a long time. If you wish to stop the program while it's in the middle of execution try ctrl-c (or force close it or whatever). This program is provided for the entertainment value of all of you don't expect it to be stable, and don't rely on it to work as advertized. That said, feel free to let me know of any bugs or errors in the program (or general questions/comments).Greg |
|
#54
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Heh, I was too lazy to complete mine.
Good job Greg. It seems I didn't have to debug it with you for 10 hours before it ran on Windows ![]() |
|
#55
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Random pairings - Yes - but flawed
At Great Lakes several of us older teams made it known very strongly that their system of pairing for seeding was indeed a poor system and needs a lot of work ( we were being nice ).
We were assurred that this will be corrected before the next regional..... we will see. This is not a new complaint, why has it not been fixed already? We must all express our concern over this problem if it still exists in the next regional. Let your voices be heard! FIRST is always willing to improve. If anyone has a good system they can use, send it to them, however, I think it has to be compatable with File Maker pro. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://24.24.28.120/gen/ Much easier to use. Greg |
|
#57
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
We were against team #6 three times down in UCF. It was interesting tho b/c the first two their robot could not move, but the third it was working fine, we won all three however, but it was interesting to keep going over and scouting how well they were coming along w/ their bot.
|
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
|
Team 86 went up against Team 79 3 times in the qualifying rounds!
We didn't get to be partners until the finals! And I always hate that pair of matches that everyone seems to get where you're playing a match and they're making the "final call" for your next match. It always seems to happen when something breaks, too. |
|
#59
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Well, I for one, am very-very disappointed at this stuff.
We played with 470 four (4) times. Two against and two with. I like team 470, but common, we never played Hotbot, Huskies, and many other teams. On average we probably played against/with 10 different teams. I, for one, view this as unacceptable. When you have 68 different teams, and if all didn't show up, i'm sure you would of at least have 60 different teams. Some teams had "easy" schedules, while others had "difficult" schedules. Playing somebody 4-5-6 times kinda wears out and you know their strategy/they know your strategy. I can't see why they just didn't create a whole random "picker" and just exclude out who you already played. I know this has to work many ways with the time and all, but when you start to call teams 10 minutes before the start of a match, i don't see how that becomes a factor. I, for one, am going to take a stab and say that this is the saddest GLR that I have went to. When we went to Pittsburgh, it was beautiful. I don't remember playing any other team more than once, except for 2 times. This new method may not be "big-number friendly" but than just exclude it and create a new one for big scoring. Heck - pull numbers out of a hat! I think FIRST could of done better than what they have... |
|
#60
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Also, like what Matt said, you soon know their strategies, so it isn't evenly fair. Team 470 was a great team, both as allies and opponents, but we both knew the persons next move. No offense to you guys, but hey... Even if you ask teams [not fair, but hey, another idea]....it might balance the universe some. GLR wasn't all exciting as Pitts., but I still had fun. |
![]() |
| 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 |