I hate to be that guy but I see it enough on the forums, but what is bo3?
BO3 and BO1 refer to Best of 3 matches and Best of 1 match, basically whether a match up is decided on the first win or on the best 2/3 (added complications with ties, but simply put, Best 2 out of 3)
VRC changed from BO3 to BO1 near the end of last season, just in time for US Open and Worlds. Some people are angry.
Man I didn’t even think about that.
To clarify, Bo1 was announced before the 2018 CREATE U.S. Open, but was not used there.
Mostly because RECF said so. It’s not optional nor can it be debated.
@Sylvie Did you really need to change the title of this topic ? I think in most cases, unless it’s obviously incorrect, that should be up to the original poster.
I was so confused and thought this was a new thread. Not sure the point of changing the title.
Couldn’t agree more. Once you start focusing more on throughput the experience takes a dive. And again it’s the way it is because no one is asked for their opinion prior. Surveying teams afterwards and avoiding all the gnarly questions will only produce the output you’re looking for. How about surveying teams before worlds asking them about their preferences around timing?
@jpearman beat me by a few minutes posting this question (as I was working on the reply).
I understand that from time to time forum Regulars like to flex their TL3 power and rename topics.
Few hours ago that this topic was renamed from “One more reason to love BO3” to “Conflict on the VEX Forum”. Why?
I didn’t have the time to read all the new posts yet, but I could tell you that the wording of the original title had reason. An alternative like “One more reason to hate BO1” may have been logically equivalent, but I choose “One more reason to love BO3” to give it more positive spin right off the bat.
At a time when I started this thread, the argument in some other threads was turning personal, and I didn’t like that. The short term purpose of this thread was to persuade everyone that we have more in common and it is better to work on something more productive, instead of quarreling with each other. I just happen to think that switch from BO3 to BO1 introduced additional fear and uncertainty and made everyone feel more edgy.
There was no long term purpose for this thread and I was surprised that it was revived.
Edit: I have renamed this thread back to its original name plus more wishes as to where the discussion could head in the future:
“One more reason to love BO3 (and other things that could make VRC less stressful)”
The thread revival started with someone describing their BO1 “win”.
I have to agree with @Anomaly on this one. At my regionals, I ended up winning tournament champ against the two best teams there. I was part of the six seed. We were a good alliance, but we shouldn’t have won. Even though I was the one benefited, it didn’t make me feel better. Instead, I just felt as though I shouldn’t have won.
The original post was more about conflict in general than just BO3. I thought that the title had changed, since I hadn’t seen the original title before, so I changed it to better reflect the OP.
and I disagreed with that specific example as I was there, and it was one of my teams they beat. 8025C deserved to move up to Worlds and did really well in Spirit division.
Taran, I believe that you had good intentions trying to match the title to the subject of BO1, but when highly emotional topics like BO1 vs BO3 are involved - individual words matter.
I believe, that having word “conflict” in the title of the thread subconsciously encourages people to be more aggressive, while having words like “love” or “less stressful” does the opposite and helps to direct discussion into the more positive territory.
Sure but I believe the point was they didn’t feel good about it and though they’d probably lose against their opposition in a BO3 context. That’s what the post was about.
While that may have been true, the title change did not really make sense. The original title is much more descriptive of the topic of the thread than “Conflict on the VEX Forum.” When I opened this thread I thought it was a completely different thread.
Andddd… now I’m paranoid of what could happen once more and more people reach TL3. That being said, I’m probably going to disable that ability
It worked out. It’s a learning process…
Title edit feature is already gone, just as I was starting to enjoy it responsibly.
Look what you have done, @Sylvie, now I am stuck with a ridiculously long thread title, that I was planning to shorten in the future. 
@Fmaj7add9 was right about TL3 perks after all: 
Just saying one solution to getting title editing privilege back is to @DRow every time there is a change needed… like a missing comma, or wrong capitalization. Pretty sure he won’t want to be a headline editor for the rest of his GDC career 
(now. I am sure that I will never get any more nice things )
Maybe we can get back to somewhat of the topic?
@TriDragon lets break your response down a little bit.
Absolutely they did something wrong.
They own the game, they own the IP and the right to change it, they have said in black and white that the GDC reserves the right to make changes. It is in the rules, and just because you disagree doesn’t mean they did something wrong, they warn us every season something could change.
The management of expectations from RECF/VEX is sometimes very poor. I am sick and tired of hearing how they need to get everything done quickly at Worlds. They push the whole event through like cattle. I would rather see them have less matches and take a deep breath than listen to everyone clap themselves on the back for “being ahead of schedule”
Their is an EP thread where this has been discussed and it is not the case of pushing teams around like cattle. We have a schedule, venue has clean up schedules teams have flights, parents have dinner reservations, a large number of factors play into people making worlds successful and one of those things is keeping a schedule.
Dan Mantz is certainly someone that is listening and wants the right things done so I am hoping that he is working on a compromise.
This is very true, Dan is an amazing CEO and great at what he is doing. He also will not compromise if it is only 1%
7682 as a victim of both Bo1 and the removal of worlds qualifications via global skills ranking.
No one is a BO1 it is life, they could have had the same-thing happen on a tiebreaker round, are they a victim of BO3 then?
It’s not optional nor can it be debated.
Yeah that is how rules work, they can be debated, does not mean anything will come from it.
Surveying teams afterwards and avoiding all the gnarly questions will only produce the output you’re looking for. How about surveying teams before worlds asking them about their preferences around timing?
So when RECF is working with vendors, venues, transportation and hundred other items, you want them to survey teams, which are not determined until potentially late March, to give feedback on changing worlds for that current year? That makes no sense to me personally, if you could explain that more and in a way RECF could implement they could add it to the registration survey. Also the end of the season/ worlds survey gives us important feedback which they can use to help the next season, this does not always give them the results they want, but if they do get results they where expecting it does confirm that they are doing the right thing.
Also from being a competitor if I was not able to make it to Elims and now going forward not getting 10 matches would definitely be a let down. Teams are paying large amounts of money to get the 10 match minimum. Do we want to take that away from them?