Suggestion to improve the alliance choosing program

[Kimberly]

We're a rookie team this year and after competing in our first regional, one of our team members made what I thought was an astute observation. When an alliance consists of 2 rookie teams and 1 non-rookie team, it seems really unfair to the non-rookie team - especially if there aren't any rookies on the opposing alliance.

My suggestion would be to add to the algorith the "rookie factor" where rookies are not put on the same alliance if at all possible. Also, when an alliance has a rookie team, the alliance they're playing against would also have a rookie team.

[Lil' Lavery]

I'd suggest reading the thread's about last year's pairing algorithm and see the generally consensus on it. While you're suggestion isn't exactly the same, it does have some themes in common.
here's one thread dealing with it that can be used as a starting point

[Kimberly]

I searched for "alliance algorithm" because I didn't want the threads on algorithms used for robot programming. I would have posted to one of the threads that came up from that search, but the thread was closed.

I also looked under "Rules/Strategy" because I figured that was the logical place for a thread on how alliances are chosen. I didn't think to look under "Championship Event" because allliances are chosen for more than just the championship.

Besides, there's always someone who will point out a new thread belongs somewhere else and a moderator can always move it.

[EricH]

A quick review of the "Algorithm of Death", as it was known:
Step 1: divide all teams at the event evenly into three tiers by number.
Step 2: Take the first unmatched team from each tier and place them on one alliance. Repeat for the second unmatched team. Have those two face each other.
Step 3: Repeat Step 2 until all tiers are out of unmatched teams.
Step 4: Apply other factors. This gets the variation.
Step 5: Distribute to teams.

This resulted in some lousy rankings for good teams. It's hard to get even a 50% win record if you're against 1114 for 5 out of 9 matches and never with them.

The algorithm was based on the (mistaken) assumption that rookies (and second and sometimes third year teams) are inherently worse on the field than veteran teams.

[Matt H.]

It is incredibly hard to make any alliance sorting program based on team skill simply because teams don't preform based on any known pattern. Past performance is no indication of current success (mentors leave, students graduate etc.) and there are some rookie teams which absolutely shine. Also the more variables inputted into a sorting program the more likely teams are to be paired with/against each other again and again and again as there become fewer and fewer "fair" combinations.

With this years game I am against the alliance system completely as penalties could prevent a powerhouse team from winning making alliance partners a risk with many teams having negative average scores, but I can't think of a remedy so I'll have to live with it.

[Bongle]

I crunched numbers on this in 2006 based on 2 weeks of regionals, and here's an image that breaks down scores by 'average alliance number'. Average alliance number was the average of the 3 team numbers that made it up. Note that rookies this year were about 1700+, so a team with an average alliance number higher than that was probably all rookies.

There is definitely some correlation between team number and scores, but it is a fairly weak correlation, and more importantly, there is a LOT of variation in each group. There are rookies who can dominate regionals (2056 in 2007), and there are rookies who can barely get their robot to move. However, there are also older teams like this.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...1&d=1142127063

Edit: Going through all my old statistics threads is fun.

Here's another relevant one. Given two alliances, find their average alliance numbers (AAN1 and AAN2). The x-axis on this graph is the difference between opposing alliance's AANs. If a team like (1114, 1503, 1680) faced (25, 48, 71), then the difference would be something like 1200ish. This graph shows the win rate for the higher-numbered alliance.

Basically, it says that in 2006, if your AANs differed by 1200, then the team with the higher number had a 20% win rate.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...8&d=1142707377

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Bongle

I crunched numbers on this in 2006 based on 2 weeks of regionals, and here's an image that breaks down scores by 'average alliance number'.

Time to go back and increase your data set size, add 2007 and 2008 data, and include a Z-axis with number of teams in each band. Good work!

[Kimberly]

You guys are overlooking something. There's another reason it's beneficial to not have rookie teams on the same alliance. As rookies, we're learning about all aspects of FIRST. We learn the most from experienced teams. It seems to me the mentoring aspect FIRST promotes throughout the build phase, would be appropriate for the competition phase too. On an alliance with 1 rookie team, there are 2 experienced teams to offer help, guidance, strategy, etc. I don't see a down side to this.

While it's certainly possible for a rookie team to outperform many experienced teams, I think it's still in the best interest of the organization overall for rookie teams to get the benefit of what more experienced teams can teach them during that first year. The more experienced alliance partners a rookie team has, the more information it receives on how to be even better next year.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

Past performance is no indication of current success (mentors leave, students graduate etc.)

I understand what you are saying, but if you talk to nearly every psycologist, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If there was no correlation or indication, then we would expect teams like 71, 111, 233, 1114 to have a normal distribution of results (ie win 3 regionals in a year just as often as not getting picked for the eliminations in one year). As we know, however, these teams always are some of the top teams. I think you mean that the correlation is not strong enough to be a used. If so, I agree.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Kimberly

You guys are overlooking something. There's another reason it's beneficial to not have rookie teams on the same alliance. As rookies, we're learning about all aspects of FIRST. We learn the most from experienced teams. It seems to me the mentoring aspect FIRST promotes throughout the build phase, would be appropriate for the competition phase too. On an alliance with 1 rookie team, there are 2 experienced teams to offer help, guidance, strategy, etc. I don't see a down side to this.

While it's certainly possible for a rookie team to outperform many experienced teams, I think it's still in the best interest of the organization overall for rookie teams to get the benefit of what more experienced teams can teach them during that first year. The more experienced alliance partners a rookie team has, the more information it receives on how to be even better next year.

I don't see how that will help. Remember, FIRST is not about the competition or the robots; it's about the people.

Also, I can think of at least one veteran team off the top of my head that could use some on-field mentoring themselves. They aren't exactly in a position to give advice. You wouldn't know it to look at their number--and the number is what the algorithm uses.

Personally, I'd rather see the return of the design books.

[Dr Theta]

I am unsure as to how something like this would work for some of the younger regionals as well, I mean look at Minnesota this year. Over half of the field is rookie teams.

[Kimberly]

Ok, let me explain it this way: If a rookie team were on 10 alliances with 20 different experienced teams, that's 20 sets of data. The rookie team can decide for itself which advice is useful and which is not, but the more times the same advice is given, the more likely it is to be valid. More information is better than less.

I also am well aware it's not about the competition and winning, which is exactly why I'm suggesting the rookie teams be paired with 2 experienced teams during the competition. If I were promoting a better winning strategy, I'd suggest teams be seeded by individual performance, but I personally don't care about that, except to the extent of keeping track of our individual performance so we know how our design and strategy worked.

If the algorithm were changed to include the fewest pairings of rookie teams possible, and to balance the rookie distribution between the competing alliances, it wouldn't matter what percentage rookies were at the competition. It would only mean there wouldn't be alliances where experienced teams were competing against inexperienced.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Kimberly

If the algorithm were changed to include the fewest pairings of rookie teams possible, and to balance the rookie distribution between the competing alliances, it wouldn't matter what percentage rookies were at the competition. It would only mean there wouldn't be alliances where experienced teams were competing against inexperienced.

I don't know how easy that would be to implement for next year. (It's too late for this year.) I think it won't be that easy.

Take a look at the 2007 match lists, if you can find any. (The Blue Alliance probably has them.) You will see almost exactly that situation. The hard part will be keeping the other teams from facing each other more than once or twice. Last year's algorithm was the most hated in FRC history. So you want the "third tier" to be made up only of rookies and only one other tier. That can't be easy to do. If you think it is, then I invite you to come up with an algorithm and submit it to FIRST for their use.

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by Kimberly

When an alliance consists of 2 rookie teams and 1 non-rookie team, it seems really unfair to the non-rookie team - especially if there aren't any rookies on the opposing alliance.

My suggestion would be to add to the algorith the "rookie factor" where rookies are not put on the same alliance if at all possible. Also, when an alliance has a rookie team, the alliance they're playing against would also have a rookie team.

I respectfully disagree. In some matches the teams will be evenly balanced. In other matches they won't be balanced at all. That isn't a bad thing. You have to be able to adapt and learn from each match, whether you have helpful pairings or not.
The match scheduling has been pretty good this year. Sure, some teams will end up with somewhat easier schedules than others. That happens in every other sport too.

[Cow Bell Solo]

I know at the MN Regional this weekend at least half if not more were Rookies, Also alot of the rookie teams have a better robot and drivers then 5 year old teams, it all depends on the team not there experiance, this isn't true all the time but there were a good amount of good rookie teams at the MN Reg.