RFID - Is it a GOOD idea or a BAD idea

Yes… by round. Correct the alliance selections based on individual robot statistics.

1 Like

Please use proper FRC terminology in your posts (specfically QUALIFICATION and PLAYOFF matches). It is making it incredibly hard to understand what you are trying to say. You can find a glossary here: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2020/Manual/Sections/Section12.pdf


yes and every team shall participate in the first round for the ultimate robot battle royale

even if you get accurate data for every team(you wont whats to stop teams from doing things liking smurfing to play against weaker robots. what if a team shows up with a broken shooter that they repair and suddenly they are really good what if a team gets a jam or the robot fails in the first round)

I still dont understand how you are gonna arrange the match schedule to pick the first ranked seed
do you intended to pick the highest scoring robot


thanks. that is why I need you guys!

That is a terrible idea. When I’m fixing the bot, I need to know exactly when I play next as soon as I go. How do you notify teams in a timely manner of when they play?

1 Like

There’s some very good discussion on match schedules on this thread: How is matchmaking done at competitions? (Kind of a rant)

My thoughts are largely unchanged from the ones I had then, namely:
We should use pre-generated schedules a la Chezy Arena instead of re-generating at each event. This would save time at events, provide more schedule transparency so that independent parties can better validate schedule fairness, and better open the door for “balancing” (by team strength) algorithms.

if and only if the above is done, it would indeed be possible to create more “balanced” (in terms of partner and opponent strength) schedules assuming you pre-sort the teams by some strength metric. Indeed, I have created one such implementation of these schedules as described here.

Pre-ranking teams is an understandable non-starter for some folks though, so if we take that off the table I don’t believe the schedules can be noticeably improved over their current state.

There is a break between rounds and you only play once a round.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of Qualification Matches. They are not meant to always be competitively fair, and if they were competitively fair, you would have more lower performing robots at the top of the seeding order for alliance selection. The seeding order would be inaccurate.

1 Like

This is too easily exploitable

If for example I am the worst team at an event, I will always be facing alliances made up of stronger teams then my own. Even dynamic schedule adjustment (however it is done) isnt going to fix that

So I’m going to try and summarize: You want to use the data collected from Automated per-robot scoring, to dynamically change the qualification schedule to make each alliance “balanced”? First, this sort of change is a bit wide in scope given that no part of it is even nailed down yet. Second, this would (as someone mentioned above) drive every team towards a 50:50 win loss record (with minor deviations). This would mean the top 8 best robots would be even less likely than they are now to be in the top 8 but I guess if someone defines “best” differently than the current ranking /tiebreaker system then its all out the window


no pre ranking… the 1st round … as far as team play statistics is thrown out. Individual robot statistics are used to match the next round… so on after that… adjustments made every rounds schedule based on real numbers.

I fail to understand how the current random match schedule fails at ranking teams accurately enough.


You still haven’t answered the question why?

You are making an assumption that these alliances need to be balanced. You have not provided any rationale or justification for this assumption.

What is the intended purpose of Qualification Matches? Why does this change better serve your stated purpose?

1 Like

Wouldn’t your proposed system be less fair? It IS balanced right now. Within practical constraints (preventing back to back matches, and evening out alliance colors and driver stations) the system is optimized so that as many teams as possible see the greatest variety of partners and opponents.

Relevant to my previous post: I went and counted the number of times my team played with and against 33 in quals from 2014-2019. We were partners 5 times and against each other 10 times, about what it should be statistically. Good job alogrithm.

You’re basically proposing punishing teams for being good by pairing them with less capable partners.

Edit to add for anybody reading this post in the future: I know it’s not exactly optimized, and that it would theoretically be possible to run billions of possibilities and select the perfect schedule for every possible number of teams at an event/division, that seems a bit outside the scope of this discussion however. The algorithm is fine.


You get two ranking points for winning a match. If you are on teams that statistically have no chance against the other alliances you get no ranking points for a win because you lost them all. No robot team can win a match by it self. well most any ways.

If you’re going to be snarky, stop posting.

That’s exactly the point! If you’re a lower performing team, you will have more matches that you have a low chance of winning, and therefore will earn less ranking points. The opposite is true for higher performing teams, they will have more matches where they have a higher chance of winning alliance matches and therefore earn more ranking points. This seems to be the way the system is intended to work, no?


Points are what win a match … correct?
What if… a robot scores individually in the top of the teams on the floor for points but still loses because their Alliance is weaker than the other alliance.

This happens quite often, you can get get unlucky in a single match.

Sometimes the opposite will happen, as well, you will get blessed with a good alliance and win matches against teams better than you.

As long as you play a large number of matches against a diverse set of opponents, all these factors will balance out in the end. This is basic statistics, right?


That literally never happens and is a guaranteed disaster. But seriously…

I guess I have to say, so? As a team that gets slaughtered from time to time, what’s the big deal?

1 Like

except if you are assigned to 10 out of 12 Alliances that are weak. The senerio just repeats.