"Random" match Schedules

[Covey41]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

C'mon Dave, please comment on this thread and provide us some insight to the intent and/or if there will be any changes.

I am glad that someone else notice that Mr. Lavery has not commented on this issue. Last year he was all over Hatch for every little problem. Is there a reason that he is not commenting. At the Winter War Zone scrimmage the guys from IFI told us that Dave Lavery and Tony Norman convinced FIRST to hire this group to write this years system.

We will just have to add 2007 to list of years were the 1st week of regionals had issues. (In my 10 years in FIRST I can not remember a year we did not have problems on week #1. Writing a scoring/field control system is not as easy as everyone thinks. And this years field is simple, no automation.)

The other thing we need to remember is that FIRST has all new engineers. There is not one engineer who has any previous FIRST experience. I am sure that next week will be better.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Covey41

I am glad that someone else notice that Mr. Lavery has not commented on this issue. Last year he was all over Hatch for every little problem. Is there a reason that he is not commenting. At the Winter War Zone scrimmage the guys from IFI told us that Dave Lavery and Tony Norman convinced FIRST to hire this group to write this years system.

Perhaps Mr. Lavery is too busy volunteering his time to FIRST, to be posting his thoughts about this issue on Chief Delphi. I also find it borderline hilarious that you feel the need to call Mr. Lavery out, in a public forum, on a regular basis, but do so from an anonymous account.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Perhaps Mr. Lavery is too busy volunteering his time to FIRST, to be posting his thoughts about this issue on Chief Delphi. I also find it borderline hilarious that you feel the need to call Mr. Lavery out, in a public forum, on a regular basis, but do so from an anonymous account.

Since I posted a similar statement I feel the need to say this.

I was not calling out Dave Lavery or accusing him of anything. I just knew that historically he was rather active here on CD and usually offers helpful (although sometimes baffling) insight. It's just nice to hear things from Dave Lavery rather than speculation because his words carry some weight, and speculation is... well just speculation.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Covey41

... the guys from IFI told us that Dave Lavery and Tony Norman convinced FIRST to hire this group to write this years system.
...

I wonder how much FIRST pays for the software in the "system". I could probably become very tempted to bid on that contract. Does anyone reading this have any idea how that opportunity is advertised? If "Yes.", would you care to share it with me in a PM?

Blake

[Lkr220]

yes random match scheduling doesn't seem to be that random... 1676 played against Team 1689 (a team we helped out in the pits) in 5 out of our 6 matches. that is one heck of a coincidence.

[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.

[ALIBI]

Don't believe for one minute that FIRST did not test the algorithm and know what the alliance pairings would look like. If it is what you see is what you get then we have no choice but to live with it. The kids on the team I mentor are really upset. We did fund raising this weekend for nationals and the match pairings became a real sore spot. The mentors present tried their best to make them believe that it will be OK and fixed by the time we have our first regional. If we always go against a team that is slightly better than us we will never have a chance to win a match, what fun is that? And if we happen to be really good, what fun is there in defeating the same team over and over again? Another comment read in this thread that really hits the mark was about a team that designed an arm and a ramp and did not get to use them because all they did was play defense against a really good offensive robot. So much for creativity and hard work, not to mention all the time and money spent by sponsors. Our team basically has a drive system funded one sponsor, an arm funded by another and ramps funded by yet another. I am certain that each wants to see how their contribution performs. Not to mention the other mentors/sponsors that programed, worked on the camera etc. etc. The kids on the team I mentor want to be paired with and against as many teams as possible, not test thier GP by having the same opponent every time they go out. The best solution I have seen here is to manually create pairings for 24-80 teams and then on the first morning draw slots to place your team number in. That should not take more than ten minutes to do and another five minutes to print and distribute schedules. No one could ever say that anything was unfair about the pairings as the draw would be completely up to chance. I really have to bite my pen here, some random thought about how match pairings have not been perceived as fair in the past keeps coming to mind. Totally random, no perpetual opponent, as many allies and opponents as possible. It that really too much to ask for?

[username115]

We experienced a similar problem.

Every match at the NJ Regional was 836 vs 834

another interesting thing that happened was that one of our alliance partners for one match would be on the opposing alliance the next.

[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.