Thoughts on the new elimination rounds system?

  1. 2 weeks ago

    Mystellianne

    Apr 5 Miami, Florida 4411S
    Edited 2 weeks ago by Mystellianne

    The GDC just posted the following update to the rulebook for Worlds, and has established their intent for implementing it in any standard competition for next season:

    • Each division will use a 16-Alliance Elimination Match Ladder, as shown below.
    • Each Alliance will have two Teams. In VEX U, Alliances will have one Team.
    • Within each bracket of the Elimination Match Ladder, the first Alliance to win a single Match will advance to the next round.
    o Any ties will be replayed until a winner is established.
    • In the VRC High School divisions, the Division Champions will then play a 6-Alliance Round Robin tournament to determine the two Tournament Finalists. Details can be found in the Round Robin Criteria document.
    o In the VRC Middle School and VEX U divisions, the two Division Champions will be considered the two Tournament Finalist Alliances.
    • The two Tournament Finalist Alliances will then play a single Finals match to determine the World Champion Alliance.
    o Any ties will be replayed until a Champion has been established

    What are your thoughts on the new system, and do you think it’ll affect the game in a positive or negative way? Personally, I think that having less time for qualification matches is an issue because we already have competitions running late because they struggle to get those all done in time, but I’m nevertheless excited for a system that rewards high seeding and discourages dropping matches just to get third strung.

  2. Aponthis

    Apr 5 Gilbert, Arizona 127X

    Absolutely horrible. While I kind of like two team alliances, single elimination is a terrible decision. I'm sure most world championship teams lost a match or two along the way in eliminations, but they proved themselves to be the best. Now, luck is infused. Also, robotics is a really bad competition to have single elimination. Things go wrong, even to the best teams. That shouldn't mean a superior alliance loses. Consistency is going to be far more important than ever, though it was always very important and very hard to achieve.

  3. 1970KnightShift

    Apr 5 Elkhorn, Nebraska 1970K

    Terrible, absolutely terrible....I understand the 16 team alliances but the fact that it is single elimination blows my mind. If a team has ONE malfunction, it’s GG for them. Also, the fact that they are starting this new format at WORLDS (the biggest tournament of the year) really makes me mad. It seems to me that they are turning this tournament into March Madness, and that they are actually encouraging the underdog to win instead of favoring the higher seed. Not a fan, at all.

  4. Rick TYler

    Apr 5 Teachers/Coaches, Event Partner, V5 Beta Moderator Redmond, Washington Founder of Exothermic Robotics

    What if it were one-and-done for R16 and QF, but 2-out-of-3 for semis and finals?

  5. someone tell vex that april fools was 4 days ago

  6. Aponthis

    Apr 5 Gilbert, Arizona 127X

    @Rick TYler What if it were one-and-done for R16 and QF, but 2-out-of-3 for semis and finals?

    Or we could keep it how it was, because no one was complaining....

  7. Aeden_6007

    Apr 5 Los Angeles, California 6007X

    Totally agree with the above comments. Further, having two team alliances is generally something I support, but not at worlds. Traditionally, the problem of having weak teams ranked high is solved by the ability to "save the alliance" with a good third pick. Sudden death is possibly the worst idea I've ever heard for vex.

  8. theEqualizer

    Apr 5 South Dakota 1008M

    @Rick TYler What if it were one-and-done for R16 and QF, but 2-out-of-3 for semis and finals?

    Yeah I feel like something along those lines would be better

  9. Edited 2 weeks ago by bid.p

    @theEqualizer Yeah I feel like something along those lines would be better

    i third this

  10. Deleted 2 weeks ago by Trex
  11. jrp62

    Apr 5 V5 Beta Tester Michigan 33 & 3333

    Indifferent... The finals for VRC take way too long. This will solve that problem. Having a second chance with 2 out of 3 is nice, but having shorter finals is a good tradeoff. It was also nice for teams that didn't do well in the qualifications to have a chance at being picked by the #1 alliance.

  12. Deleted 2 weeks ago by bid.p
  13. Mystellianne

    Apr 5 Miami, Florida 4411S

    I like the two team alliance part as well, but yes the single elimination part worries me a lot. You’re now weighing luck much higher than consistency, and that’s never a good way to tell who has the best robot. I think they should’ve kept the best of 3 aspect, but I’m definitely behind the two team aspect.

    Thinking a little more deeply, elimination rounds with this system will be minimum 15 games without counting ties. The former system had a minimum of 14 games not counting ties. So we really actually won’t need less qualifiers, but we’ve essentially traded consistency for more participation overall. I don’t think that’s a good thing at all.

  14. Trex

    Apr 5 Oak Park, Illinois 99371

    Also how are we suppose to preform on our highest level of consistency, but the products that we use are imperfect. The VexNet keys disconnect, cortexes keep restarting and field controls fail consistently.

  15. Aeden_6007

    Apr 5 Los Angeles, California 6007X

    @Trex Also how are we suppose to preform on our highest level of consistency, but the products that we use are imperfect. The VexNet keys disconnect, cortexes keep restarting and field controls fail consistently.

    +1

  16. ethan_matlack

    Apr 5 Pennsylvania VEXMEN 81Y Cypher

    What were the GDC smoking when they cooked up this idea? I can't put into words how awful this will be.

  17. @Aeden_6007 +1

    +1. We can't replace motors without reinspecting? That sounds fair, until you realize that motors break. A lot. Also, I'd bet that reinspecting lines will be full this year, just due to poor management and an overflow of teams that "replaced a lift motor because it broke".

  18. dhmmjoph

    Apr 5 Huntington, WV | Athens, OH

    @Mystellianne Personally, I think that having less time for qualification matches is an issue because we already have competitions running late because they struggle to get those all done in time...

    It's worth noting that the total number of elimination matches will be similar under the new system:
    New system - 8 R16, 4 QF, 2 SF, 1 F = 15 Matches
    Old system - 8 QF, 4 SF, 2 F = 14 Matches (Note that this is a minimum; most tournaments have at least 1 round that goes to a third match so the average number is probably closer to 15 or 16)
    Thus, it seems unlikely that the new system for elimination matches will take significantly longer, leaving a similar amount of time for qualification matches.

    Overall, I think this is an interesting system. Including more teams in the elimination rounds is a positive change IMO, but at competitive events (including Worlds, of course) many/most elimination rounds go to 3 matches, so this will likely represent a change in the outcome of the elimination rounds compared to now-outgoing format.

  19. bossgivol

    Apr 5 Knoxville TN YNOT

    I gonna be simple, I hate these changes. 16 Alliances is not bad, but single eliminations? Why? It makes the tournament completely reliant on consistency, which would be a good thing. However, the largest inconsistency teams face in VEX is Electronics Failure. The strictest rule in the Game Manual is that you cannot modify electronics, therefore forcing you to rely on VEX's outdated system. I know we are getting V5 next year which is suppose to fix these problems. If it does, then I would be in support of these rule changes for next season. But for this one? I can't justify it from VEX's Standpoint if they are trying to be fair to all the teams. If the fiasco of PTC testing in last year's elimination rounds happens to any degree at all this year, the victim is being unfairly handed a automatic loss, ruining all their work they have done this season. It's unfair. But I think my biggest problem with these new rules is finals. The best part of the year is getting to watch all the final matches together in the dome. The suspense created when both alliances are 1-1 playing the 3rd tie breaking match for all the marbles. They now know each other's weaknesses. Its a big match. To make the Finals of each Age group 1 match is just downright lame. I cant justify these rule changes so I'm asking the GDC, why?

  20. gbr

    Apr 5 Event Partner, V5 Beta Tester Omaha, NE

    Love the changes.

  21. Newer ›
 

or Sign Up to reply!