"Random" match Schedules

[overlord]

Even with our rookie team, we pretty much faced our sister school, Team 2191, in every match as well as a few times with another rookie team 2140. It didnt really bother me since it led to us being the highest seeded rookie but lets spread the love around and see some other teams.

[deshirider430]

612 played 611 every match, we were so unhappy because team 611 was such a great team and didn't get a chance to show off there robot as much as they could of.

[Dave McLaughlin]

Dont forget 1983 vs. 2002 in every match at the PNW regional

[A. Snodgrass]

I have a couple of questions for the people posting in this thread.
1) Why does Dave Lavery have to post to this thread? Is there an actual rational reason?
2) Honestly, do you not believe that FIRST is aware of the problem, and working to fix it?

In my experience with working with FIRST, they have always tried their best to fix bugs in the software. And seriously, in seven years I cannot remember a year where there wasn't a bug in the software somewhere. I'm sure that they appreciate all of the offers to help, however keep in mind, software is not always a simple plug and play system. Correcting software is not always as simple as changing a broken physical part in a robot, or a piece that has malfunctioned. Anybody who has experience programming anything major will have also had issues where they had to track down bugs in the software, or where their software doesn't work the way that they expected it to. And tracing why the software isn't working the way that they want it to can sometimes be a tricky proposition.

I do have one request for everybody though, and those who were at PNW will possibly know why I'm saying this. As upset as you might be with FIRST, or with the way that the match scheduling comes out, please don't take out this anger on the volunteers in the pit. On a personal level, and as somebody who has competed before, I KNOW that I understood completely how upset the teams were, and I understood why they were upset, I was upset myself. It was very hard to stand and say, no I don't know of anything that I can do to solve this problem, and I sat there and wished I had a better answer to give then that, one that said that the problem was fixed, or that it was a simple fluke that wouldn't be permanent. And from experience, I cannot see FIRST letting it stand by this.
I'd also like to point out something. Quite often, we focus on what is so negative about something. But as has been pointed out before, FIRST also had something that worked right this time, and that is the field/scoring system. And for that...even with the current problems...I congratulate them.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by A. Snodgrass

In my experience with working with FIRST, they have always tried their best to fix bugs in the software. And seriously, in seven years I cannot remember a year where there wasn't a bug in the software somewhere.

Ashlee,

While I agree with the gist of your post, this is not a bug. Someone (or a group of someone's) intentionally made it so that the alliance pairings are not random. Whether or not FIRST or the GDC intended the game to be played this way is another story.

Whatever the answer is, let's hope we get a better system this week (if not, then next).

[Noah Kleinberg]

Originally Posted by Cory

While I agree with the gist of your post, this is not a bug. Someone (or a group of someone's) intentionally made it so that the alliance pairings are not random. Whether or not FIRST or the GDC intended the game to be played this way is another story.

Whatever the answer is, let's hope we get a better system this week (if not, then next).

I was about to post the same thing. Another good thing to know is that (I forget what thread I read this in, might have been this one) the software was tested at a scrimmage this year, someone pointed out that the matches had not been random, and FIRST chose not to fix the problem then. Hopefully if someone sees that more than that one person at the scrimmage don't like it then they will change their minds.

[A. Snodgrass]

I pointed out something earlier, and I would like to reiterate it before we get too much further in this thread. Please do not assume just because we do not have a fix for the scheduling in the system yet, that FIRST is not working on the problem. Whether you term it as a bug or not is a point of view. I term a bug to be something that the end product user, which would be FIRST and the teams using it, did not intend for the system.

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by A. Snodgrass

I pointed out something earlier, and I would like to reiterate it before we get too much further in this thread. Please do not assume just because we do not have a fix for the scheduling in the system yet, that FIRST is not working on the problem. Whether you term it as a bug or not is a point of view. I term a bug to be something that the end product user, which would be FIRST and the teams using it, did not intend for the system.

I have gotten an initial response back from my regional contact and the problem does not appear to be a bug. The schedule is motivatied by someone's idea of co-opertition. Also, the complaints that were voiced at the scrimmage never got to him, so he was unaware that anyone was concerned. I advise two things if you are concerned:

1) Contact your FIRST representative and or team leader so they can.

2) Do not assume that because you said something to the people running the field that that will be passed along.

[September]

Originally Posted by A. Snodgrass

I pointed out something earlier, and I would like to reiterate it before we get too much further in this thread. Please do not assume just because we do not have a fix for the scheduling in the system yet, that FIRST is not working on the problem. Whether you term it as a bug or not is a point of view. I term a bug to be something that the end product user, which would be FIRST and the teams using it, did not intend for the system.

But this isn't a point of view. It's not a bug. I was told by a volunteer that FIRST intentionally paired a low number, a mid number, and a high number team together on an alliance. Many people I know felt that the least they could do is create a pool of what constitutes as a "low number," "mid number," or "high number" and let us compete with and against as many of those as possible.

I just hate being misled. I personally feel that if FIRST decides to not REALLY randomize the matches, then they should not use the adjective "random" to describe them.

I mean, what are the odds that my team went up against 435 in all eight seeding matches? Or that we go every 11 matches?

[Steve W]

Folks, why don't we cool it for a bit. There is a lot of hear say going on and blaming FIRST for things that may or may not be true. There are MANY people concerned over the reports from last weekend. FIRST is being contacted and hopefully there will be some answers early this week. I am one that believes that we should all get to play with as many teams as possible. I am also going to wait to see what happens now that FIRST knows our feelings. FIRST is a great organization and I believe in it. Let's all see how they respond.

[Guy Davidson]

I've emailed Paul Woloshin, the FIRST Northern California regional director. He said that

Originally Posted by Paul Woloshin

Guy,

FIRST is aware of the problem as it happened here in Portland. This needs to be revised by FIRST national and I am sure they are working on it this week.

Regards,

Paul

[pafwl]

We were at the Pacific Northwest Regional in Portland. We immediately noticed that we were up against 360 in every round and they were almost right next to us in the pits. I think it is very unfair and short sighted that FIRST has decided to seed the rounds like this. This was so pervasive at PNR that it had to be intentional. There were many other vets teams in this position.

In the past at our home regional in Philadelphia we were never able to play with many vet teams because of this "random" system. I know we all go out to win and 360 was a very good competitor, but going up against the same team means you may get to exploit something you may find with their robot. This is really un-fair.

I guess we need to let FIRST know this is unnacceptable. It seems to me they are striving for political correctness instead of competition. Looks like someone doesn't think this is important or understand what we are doing here. It's actually pretty sad.

[pafwl]

I just read Dave's message...I am now more confused...
I am in software development... Who tested the results? Why did someone wait until Thursday night of the First regionals to check?

Why not ask us, the people who care the most? Generate a test sample weeks before, send it out and ask us to check it. I do this with the FLL competition I have run for 9 years. The teams check everyting from the schedules to the table assignments. They let me know of problems. I know there are few official "FIRST" people, but there are thousands of us. Ask us, we can help.

[Guy Davidson]

Thank you Dave for posting and clarifying the issue. I'm looking forwards to the next team update to see what are FIRST planning to do.

-Guy Davidson

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by pafwl

Who tested the results?

According to what Dave just told us, the results were exactly what they were designed to be. No amount of testing against the design will reveal problems with the design itself. [edit]The problem was that the design didn't match the specification, or perhaps there was never a formal specification to begin with.[/edit]

I too admit confusion, however. If you all will forgive a bit of rumor/hearsay: I heard at St. Louis from several people that the exact same issue was noticed and complained about in pre-kickoff tests, and that the complaints were dismissed because "That's the way FIRST wants it to be." Obviously the miscommunication occurred at a fundamental level.