|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
||||||
|
||||||
Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
So now that everyone has had a chance to experience the joy and fun that is the patently-horrible match sorting algorithm at the regionals (why can't we have a truly random algorithm implemented for the Championship again? - We've had five weeks to work on one - is this parasitic algorithm that much bored into the flesh of the otherwise great scoring software that it takes more time than that to dig it out?), let's take a theoretical look at one of the as-yet unsettled divisional team lists for the Championship and see how the teams break down. I took this from the most recent Divisional List posted in Koko Ed's 2007 Championship Divisions thread.
Code:
Newton Team Categories V = Veteran M = Mid-Level Y = Young V M Y 20 357 1305 34 365 1341 48 395 1418 60 456 1502 67 469 1510 74 498 1523 86 527 1535 97 558 1563 108 612 1617 121 648 1647 126 694 1675 141 716 1700 159 771 1714 176 830 1732 180 862 1811 195 910 1850 224 967 1872 234 1001 1929 246 1015 2010 269 1033 2046 291 1087 2067 314 1114 2100 330 1137 2137 339 1155 2182 343 1218 2252 1270 2283 That veteran list is packed with a much higher quantity of successful 2007 teams relative to the other 2 lists, so if this division were actually finalized, "relatively inexperienced" ![]() 365 is right on the edge of entering the "veteran" category, lowering their odds of a favorable qualifying match list. Any more higher-numbered teams signing up for the Championship and entering Newton severely jeopardizes their favorable status as a mid-level team. How messed up is a system that could potentially have a team's mentors hoping for FEWER higher-numbered teams signing up for the Championship? I know everyone on MOE is above that kind of thinking (congrats on Philly Chairman's!), but just the fact that a FIRST-sponsored algorithm could potentially introduce anti-FIRST thoughts in teams, well it's just so BLAH. BLAH in action - there are a few strong mid and high-number teams who have admitted to me they like the extra artificial "kick" this algorithm gives to their chances during qualifying. It's a guilty pleasure for them, I think. I can't necessarily blame them for feeling that way - it's hard to resist denouncing something that is to your benefit. The low-numbered vets see this and are quietly frustrated..... WE WANT AS MANY TEAMS AS POSSIBLE TO ATTEND THESE EVENTS, AND WE WANT TO KNOW THE MATCHUPS WILL BE AS RANDOM AS POSSIBLE! The odds of quality mid-level and high-numbered teams (who need and should receive no artificial help) seeing quality partners at the Championship during qualifying will be much greater relative to what they experienced at the regionals, and it was already bad enough at the regionals. It will be interesting to see just how many lower-numbered teams reach the finals on Einstein..... Could anyone with insider knowledge report on the current status of FIRST's efforts to correct this self-inflicted gaping flesh wound? I expect the Championship Team Forums to be filled with comments from team representatives who are vehemently opposed to the current algorithm. If FIRST wanted to minimize this type of chatter to provide more time for other less-publicized topics of discussion, I'd suggest they send out a communication prior to the Championship explaining what algorithm will be in place in Atlanta. If the same algorithm will be used, at least people will know. I'd also like a verbal commitment from them that this abomination will be purged from the program in 2008 before it comes time for veteran-numbered teams to start deciding how much money they will spend on official FIRST events next year..... As a final thought, what are the chances/harm of FIRST exposing this software to other qualified professionals on teams throughout the community? If you admit there is a problem but feel you don't have enough time and could use some more manpower to revise it, then I'm sure many in the community would love to come to your aid to help iron out the wrinkles in this stuff. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 04-01-2007 at 09:47 AM. |
#2
![]() |
||||
|
||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
One easy solution to the tiering problem: Rather than split the teams into 3 tiers based on a sorted order, just randomize your input list so that the three groups will be approximately equal in quality. You would still have the problem of never playing with anyone in your tier as an ally, but at least you wouldn't have the big helping of rookies and hurting of veterans.
So rather than Code:
1 4 7 2 5 8 3 6 9 Code:
1 6 5 3 9 4 7 2 8 The whole tiering thing seems to be a wierd solution to a problem that didn't really exist anyway. Now instead of a few teams sometimes legitametely complaining that they got a bad deal in the pairings, you've got a whole group (the veteran teams) who get a bad deal, and they can prove it. |
#3
![]() |
|||||
|
|||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Quote:
first in every pool vs second in every pool third vs fourth 5th vs 6th etc... for basically the WHOLE first cycle, so it didn't even try to "randomize" the first cycle However your list is slightly wrong. The V pool is the last to fill up so 357 is currently at the top of the M pool. I know this because this is the only reason 365 was always in the M pool. If one team hadn't dropped out (tragic story I don't want to share w/o their permission) from Philly we would have had 45 teams (equally divisible by 3) and 365 would be at the end of the V pool. Same thing at FLR if it had 36 teams instead of 35 assuming the 36th team had # > 365. I know FIRST probably will not fix this by Championship, but I hope they will by next year. I suggest pregenerating optimized random matrices (ie check all combinations) with constraints for cycle time for every combination of number of teams at a regional and reasonable number of matches. Then randomize the team list to matrix spots and drop them in the corresponding spots in the matrix. Last edited by The Lucas : 04-01-2007 at 09:13 AM. Reason: Added more |
#4
![]() |
||||||
|
||||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Steve:
I do not wish to assign blame, nor do I want this thread to devolve into something equally as BLAH as the algorithm is - I simply wish that FIRST will release a public update on this matter so we know what is going on behind the scenes to address it. I don't care who created the parasite; I just want to find out if someone is currently developing the cure. I don't want teams to waste time railing on about the algorithm at the Team Forums if there are already plans in place to correct the matter - believe me, teams already have a huge laundry list of items they wish to cover, and it would be great if they could check one off the list prior to attending. If there AREN'T any FIRST-laid plans to correct the algorithm, however.......well, it won't be pretty. This is why it's so important for them to COMMUNICATE WITH US - to dispel any rumo(u)rs and set the record straight. Last edited by Brandon Martus : 04-02-2007 at 09:47 AM. Reason: removed quoted post |
#5
![]() |
||||||
|
||||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Quote:
|
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Without any background info on the above division into V, M and Y, I'm going to take issue with the numerical break points. Most of the under 1000 numbers were generated by order of registration during a year when there were only about 600-800 teams. Prior to that point, each team received a new number each year.
To truly apply these descriptions to present teams, you'd have to do a bit of research into the teams given these numbers to see when they really began operation. |
#7
![]() |
||||||
|
||||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Quote:
Your comments are exactly those shared by so many - team number is not an effective indicator of team quality. For anyone who might not be aware of how all this works.... It has been proven by many that this Veteran, Mid-Level, Young categorical breakdown based on team number is exactly what is used as the basis for the match generating algorithm for the 2007 regionals:
Code:
1st Round Match List for Theoretical Newton Division (Listed in 1st Thread Post) Match #1 20 357 1305 34 365 1341 Match #2 48 395 1418 60 456 1502 Match #3 67 469 1510 74 498 1523 Match #4 86 527 1535 97 558 1563 Match #5 108 612 1617 121 648 1647 Match #6 126 694 1675 141 716 1700 Match #7 159 771 1714 176 830 1732 Match #8 180 862 1811 195 910 1850 Match #9 224 967 1872 234 1001 1929 Match #10 246 1015 2010 269 1033 2046 Match #11 291 1087 2067 314 1114 2100 Match #12 330 1137 2137 339 1155 2182 Match #13 343 1218 2252 ??? 1270 2283 Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 04-01-2007 at 07:56 PM. Reason: Face? Ally with? What's the dif. It was early in the morning following GTR - give me a break! :-) |
#8
![]() |
|||||
|
|||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
I think we all know low numbered teams that consistently struggle from year to year. We also have seen high numbered teams that become instant powerhouses.
An alogrithm based on team numbers makes the assumption that time is the only factor in team success. As we all know it is one of many factors. Hopefully this will change for 2008. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
i may not express this right,but no matter what first does it will still come down to "luck of the draw". you will never make everyone happy, unless you plan to extend championships a few days to play every possible combination. or make sure there is a climb-able ramp on each team each match, since that seems to be the most important thing this year. or if you score keeper that would multiply your rack score by 2. or,or ,or. when all is said and done it will be the quality of your robot, your ability to sell yourself and other teams scouting that will get you to the big show.
|
#10
![]() |
|||||
|
|||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
I'm assuming this is just a typo, but team 1089 isn't listed in your original post (and I know we're going). ~__^ I'm assuming we'd be a "mid-level" team, since all the numbers surrounding us are.
I agree with Alan, there are a LOT of factors that contribute to teams building a successful machine (and for that matter, drive team). I honestly think numbers play a small, if not insignificant role. |
#11
![]() |
||||||
|
||||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Quote:
However, these events aren't only played on Saturday. The overall experience can be greatly enriched if you get to play with an against a greater of variety of teams during qualifying on Friday. Right now, a lot of lower-numbered teams are artificially being forced into less than fun situations on Friday. If FIRST wants to find a way to balance alliance pairings based upon team quality, I'm game, if they can find a way to make it WORK - I've actually suggested it in other threads in the past. However, the method they've chosen to implement that desire in 2007 is just plain ineffective and misguided. If a new and truly effective method can't be found, then going back to a plain old random algorithm is the way to go. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 04-01-2007 at 10:18 AM. |
#12
![]() |
||||||
|
||||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Quote:
|
#13
![]() |
|||||
|
|||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
Quote:
![]() I guess we are talking about how this algorithm increases our level of overall unhappiness! The goal is always complete satisfaction, but in the end we are trying to control our level of unhappiness. ![]() |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
I think this match generation model could work, given the proper set of input data. Since there has been no official statement from FIRST on this, all we can do is assume their intentions. So, I am assuming the point of this algorithm was to match "better" teams with teams who are just getting on their feet.
I don't disagree with this methodology for qualification rounds. It makes for less blowouts, and a more consistent and exciting set of matches. The problem comes with drawing the border between "good" and "not so good" teams. Regionals have been broken up into three categories (veteran, mid level, and rookie) based on team number, which is a very rough implication for experience. Due to this, alot of "good" mid level and rookie teams are getting paired with other "good" veterans. While this happens, "not so good" rookies and mid level teams are getting paired with other "not so good" veterans, making the original point of the algorithm completely null and void. Travis has already shown how the current method of creating divisions breaks the match creation model. Ranking random teams by number will hurt more than it will help. If, on the other hand, the splitting up of "veterans", "mid level", and "rookie" teams was based on merit and not an arbitrary number, the system would work. So, for the Championship, I would love to see the use of the regional results in creating the divisions. I propose this:
The bottom line is that you cannot split teams up based off of implied "experience". If you really want to create a tiered match generation system, you will need to base it off of true power. This is the Championship event. The best of the best. Everyone wants to see the best teams on Einstein. Let's not let Rack n' Roll fall to a fluke. |
#15
![]() |
||||
|
||||
Re: Championship Event - Where the "Random" Match Sorting Really "Shines"
There is a problem with the fundamental assumption that young and rookie teams directly benefit from being in matches with very veteran teams.
Young teams will get as much experience from being paired up with a veteran in a couple matches as being paired with any veteran for every match. This algorithm performs its function perfectly but the function is based on incorrect assumptions. The basic goal, to have young teams paired with veteran teams, doesn't further the competition or the teams in any way. Teams do not get a good feeling of the way that robots work together if their possible pairings are limited. Some teams have no chance of ever meeting others because of these split pools. Isn't it better for the good rookies and young teams if they are the ones carrying their alliance in a randomly paired match? They'll be lauded, and rightfully so. The problem with having the same teams playing each other is that you see several matches that play exactly the same: one good team scores well because they told one of the other teams to defend the good team they've faced twice already. The chances that there is only one good team on an alliance are much greater with a split pool. Secondly, the current match pairing hurts the standings. If there is a dominant team at a regional, chances are very high that they will be first ranked, because there's a smaller chance that there will be two excellent robots going against it in a qualification round. What happens is that standings get changed because the same basic matches are being played over and over again. A good team won't be able to consistently beat a very good team with two robots defending them every round. From these pairings, little strategy evolves. An excellent team will just have its partners play defense or interference, and those teams that aren't as good at scoring will never get the chance to get better because they will be playing defense in almost all of their matches. Young teams have found themselves pushed up into the standings because they were on good alliances. Some of these teams don't have the resources to be a picker, sometimes they don't have enough people, or they just don't have the experience of strategy. This propels the better teams further into the elimination rounds because they are able to exploit alliances that were crafted without specific strategy in mind. Young alliances in the finals might find themselves without a strategy at all because they haven't had to strategize throughout the qualification rounds. Teams new to the competition will get to see the one or two teams beat up on the competition, pick the best other team, and romp through the finals. It gives good rookies less of a chance to be on one of these alliances, because now they're a captain. Splitting teams into pools doesn't lead to more learning, innovation or strategy. It doesn't make teams feel better about themselves. It doesn't allow for matches with an alliance of veterans getting beaten by a bunch of young teams. Wouldn't we all like to see a match where one of the teams that has been consistently doing well has to squeak out a win against three rookies? We don't get to see any surprising upset matches where you don't get to predict what will happen. The same teams keep winning in qualifications, and you have to wait for eliminations before they see different teams. It's not like eliminations alliances have changed much. A random pairing gets rookies on alliances with veteran teams, sometimes as often as every match. It allows for teams to be with or against teams that they didn't see last match. Teams are exposed more to different robot designs and strategies. Some strategies evolve in the middle of a match where you find yourself playing people you hadn't seen before. Doesn't it further FIRST to have many different matches in qualifications rather than the same 2 or 3? |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Random" match Schedules | Ben Piecuch | Regional Competitions | 211 | 03-23-2007 07:36 AM |
"Random" Match List Generation | Sean Schuff | Regional Competitions | 32 | 04-01-2006 08:26 PM |
"Thunderbirds" Vs. "Team America" Which one will rule the box office? | Elgin Clock | Chit-Chat | 3 | 09-07-2004 06:53 PM |
how tall is the ramp when in "up" and "balanced" position??? | archiver | General Forum | 1 | 06-23-2002 11:54 PM |