I am indifferent to Bo3 v Bo1 decision for implementation by the GDC. I do believe once a decision is made, you follow it, which most have done without issues. My personal regret is that three team alliances went away, but just too much negative baggage that went with it. As for agreeing that we follow the rules of the game is consistent and credible with roles I have in different sports, coaching, mentoring, officiating, organizing… I do believe constructive feedback is good and my jumping into this conversation started with the statement “Bo3 (woops Bo1) is trash” with no context of what was trash about it. Still have no specifics of what happened in that video - so can not recommend improvements - was it human error running wrong code, broken cable, so-call white screen, dead battery …
I will clarify about that video. A single broken elastic(we presume) prevented the hood flipout, which then jammed into the goal. Keep in mind that this team’s home row auto had not failed one all day, and the hood flipout had never failed after the robot was constructed a couple of weeks ago. This failure caused the robot to be jammed into the goal, essentially ending our chances of winning thee game, an especially important one, as this was Quarterfinals at a Showcase event.
Sorry to hear that. I know my teams got to the point of doing regular rubber band changes prior to competitions having had the disappointment of that kind of failure in the past.
My teams are relatively new now, so they will have to go through that learning experience again.
I think that’s a mostly fair perspective. Only thing I can’t say is valid would be:
This is an extremely dangerous mindset, far past the scope of VRC. To be quite frank, I’m not even sure how you can morally post anything along these lines, in this day and age. There are so many historical examples where this mindset caused scarring that time will never erase. I don’t feel the need to go into such examples, and I hope that the vast majority of readers (if not all) have learned the history of some of these events. I strongly encourage people to not take this mindset, whether it be robotics, a relationship, or even an authoritative order. If you feel that something is wrong, you should advocate for positive change. Blindly following decisions is absolutely not what we should be advocating to do.
2145Z was better than most or all of the teams at that tournament, yet they get stuck in a goal once and are knocked out of eliminations. Do you really think BO1 is a good idea for signature events and worlds? If Vex is trying to have the best teams play in world finals, this is not the solution.
If that’s the case, then why have an elimination round that starts at R16? The 2 seed lost to the 7, not because of an arcane WSOD, controller disconnect, etc. but because of something within their control.
I know this may be counter-intuitive, but I’m not sure that
Is the first principle for VEX for assigning slots to Worlds. At least in terms of “best” being defined as “robots capable of winning an alliance-formatted elimination tournament”. That may not be what one assumes (or wants) given the competition format, but I do think it is the reality.
To add to this discussion, why does each team get 3 skills runs? There could be a shorter lunch break if each team just got 1 driver and 1 programming after all
/s
We have 3 skills runs, because it is worth the extra time to make sure the best team wins. We should make sure that the same quality is carried over into elimination matches at regional events.
Any argument against Bo3 can be used to say that we should only have 1 skills match, but the vex community agrees that 3 skills matches is good. Why can’t we agree Bo3 is good?
You have evidence of this? I am pretty sure the GDC heard from a number of people asking for a solution to issues they were experiencing with the three team alliances, and Bo3 format.
Multiple polls taken after and before the change have consistently shown over 80% of people prefer Bo3. The poll from 2018 I linked in the OP shows that of the first people to ever experience Bo1(ITZ worlds), 87% disliked it. The current poll I just made shows over 83% of people prefer Bo3. There has always been a strong sentiment towards Bo3.
To start, I like BO3. But.
The example in this thread for me argues against it, not for it. Whilst harsh, a team knowing that they were playing in BO1 eliminations did not maintain consumable parts on their robot. I dislike reading the term “best team” because in this case, I feel like going into a BO1 elimination without checking and changing elastic bands is the same as not checking or changing batteries. BO3 is not there to give you a free pass at another attempt when you mess up.
Apologies @wdr_mentor, this wasn’t actually a reply to you as such.
bo3 is used to prevent flukes and/or other situations where the team that was more likely to win the match lost because of a factor out of their control. Bo3 isn’t used to prevent upsets, those can very much happen if the underdog is just better, but it does allow for another chance, which even though it may not happen in all aspects of life, is preferred in most competitions (Look at playoff structure for almost every sporting league)
Making these threads doesn’t seem to do anything anyways. Maybe we should start a boycott
I decided to make a chart to summarize the arguments made by both sides in this thread, as well as put in my own input. Hopefully this will help others on the forum take a stance without having to scroll through 135 posts. Let me know if there’s any important points I’m missing.
