I’ve talked about it a lot before, but the Swiss System is a great model for qualifications. A multitude of other high school competitions, including the speech and debate tournaments my brother does, use this system, in which you are paired with and against people with similar records to yourself. One big advantage of the Swiss System is it helps differentiate teams more quickly. For example, with under 32 teams, only 5 qualification rounds are needed to guarantee only 1 undefeated team (top seed,) and with 64, only 6 are needed. Without 2-3 extra rounds of quals, even with a minute or two of delay to generate the next round’s schedule each time, a lot of time would be saved in qualifications. Additionally, since the top seeded teams are less likely to be high ranked because of very lucky qualification schedules, teams are less likely to decline one another, speeding up alliance selection.
The award ceremonies also cause a lot of delay. Rather than presenting awards between each round of eliminations, especially when some teams’ winning of awards could influence them to try less hard or use different tactics in elimination matches, awards should be presented together at the end of the event. This would eliminate a lot of the logistical challenges of different people presenting different awards and so on.
And the games should be designed with easy to count auton periods and easy field reset. In a game like Skyrise, there was a lot less delay between auton and driver than there was in SS, or than I expect there will be this year.
Obviously we can go over these ideas with fine tooth combs and find disadvantages and challenges they will present, but we need to look critically at bo1 and bo3 and do a cost benefit analysis. Especially with the separate benefits of the Swiss System of qualification matches, only one award ceremony, and games with easier auton counts, it’s really in the program’s interest and in all of our interests for these changes to be made and for bo3 to be restored.
Like I touched on in my last post however, I’d be astounded if the GDC ever makes these changes. Just food for thought.
Hopefully this conversation can now be taken to a new level whatever that means.
This is were I figured this conversation would end up a little bit, yes teams statistically could be narrowed out by using this system, but it does have downfalls.
Everyone starts the same and could still have easy matches, this is the same in any qualification system.
You are now getting rid of matches, do teams no longer want 7,8, or even 10 matches on a weekend? I personally enjoyed it, have not heard any complaints at the EP summits or mass forum posts about having to many matches. Should we really solve the BO3 issues by just slicing quals down? Paying and traveling to an event then only getting 5 matches if you do not make Elims. This seems like a major downfall IMO.
This does not generate a set schedule, no more working with teams before hand, and no being able to plan a lunch between matches or scheduling anything. Technically they could generate the next round of matches and your team will now be up within two matches notice, this can not be desirable for anyone. Teams no longer can judge how much time they have to make repairs, just up to chance if they are up right away or not?
BO1 did solve the decline issue with now only allowing one pick, and they could just go down the line of teams getting declined, but then those teams are out of the picking, this is strategic. Not seeing how this system solves this issue, as performance is not 100% reason teams get picked during alliance selection. With B03 you have to consider another entire section of alliance selection has to happen again, since BO1 sliced it down to 2/3.
Maybe @Foster or @lacsap could comment on how their regions do it, but for the most part in Wi and TX two things remained the same. We have awards during Elims to give us a minute to get the fields reset, teams setup on the fields, and gives those teams a few seconds extra before anymore competition. The other item is that teams who do not make it into elims usually pack up and leave, including those who have been awarded awards. So the longer you wait into elims the less and less likely that team is there and now burdens EP’s with either tracking the team down, finding another event they will be at, or shipping them if it is the last event of the season. Also having awards at the end when maybe (If you are lucky) half of the audience is still their means the kids are not getting the full recognition they deserve. At the worlds level we do this because large amounts of people swarm the divisions and give those teams recognition, if we waited to the end I can guarantee that most people will have left for Freedom hall or to pack up.
Yeah this definitely needs some work, maybe the GDC could work on transportation of items while they are at it… enough trailers are out there now…
I would love to see a cost analysis now with the current qualification system, as I did not think anything is wrong with that, with both BO1 and BO3.
Autons change every season so I would not rely on that at all as it changes every year and is never going to be a constant variable. Yeah some seasons will be really easy, some will be hard and annoyingly long, just part of the competition. Like @lacsap said
Crunch the numbers for 1, 2, and 3 fields. Look at 3,4, 5 minute match cycles. 6-8 qualifying rounds for qualifiers and 8-10 for state/regional/national championships. Timing wise, leave time between qualifying matches and alliance selection, and breaks for judged awards during eliminations.
Is it really in the programs interest to restore BO3? I guess we will see, once you get all that worked out.
Pretty much a non-starter for a lot of teams who come to play after spending countless hours and dollars. More game play for more teams is pretty much a good thing in qualifying ranking. This is why Round 16 was viewed as a positive of the current system.
This is actually an efficiency put into the schedule to allow teams to recover between elimination rounds (QF->SF->F). It also allows time for teams to discuss rulings with the Head Referee before moving forward.
I think teams like exciting and challenging games.
I do not expect any changes from a list of ideas, I suggested presenting it with a time model of what it looks like for different event configurations. That will sell the idea. When you model your new system, please change only one variable at a time - Bo3 v Bo1, not the whole format. Then we will see how this works.
As what I have been seeing and experiencing, a lot of unluckiness is based on how you do in qualifications compared to Eliminations. I think this likely has to do because at worlds it heavily relies on partners in order to be successful. If we look at FRC, there is more of a buffer in qualifications because it is 3V3. So if one team is not too good at least the weight can be lifted by the rest. So, what could solve the problem is to either change the field to accept 3V3 or change the structure of qualification matches to adhere to the random draw of the bad matchups.
The information that I have stated above has been supported by someone of mine who has been competing in both VEX and FRC for a multitude of years. If I am not mistaken Grant specifically used an FRC team as reference to support the claim for BO1. In my opinion, If VEX wishes to use FRC as reference for specific portions of the competition system then they better be going all out.
They use a lot of references because many of them come from FRC backgrounds and are FRC mentors, but the programs both also serve different purposes and not everything from one can be applied to the other.
In California an event normally has 36 teams with 7 matches, of you remove one round of quals you get enough time for 9 matches, because there are 16 alliances almost every team gets to elims. With the 9 extra matches there’s enough spare time to do bo3 for the quarters, semis, and finals. I haven’t followed this discussion at all so I don’t know what has been suggested but this should be fine. Most teams are probably fine with 6 instead of 7, especially when they are getting to the r-16. There is enough spare time this way for 2 matches to go to the third round. You can’t really apply the theoretical of over half the quarters, or all the matches, going to the third round because if your saying this can happen then we definitely need BO3. It would be up to the EP for if they want to do bo3 for the quarters and risk the possibility of going over time, or they can just do the semis and finals. Also @vexvoltage, since when was I at the center of this? All I said in any of these discussions is that it would be cool if leagues had BO3
I would really like to think of this as a valid reason but by using the reason of cost then VEX really shouldn’t have transitioned to V5, but they did and it seems like the majority of people adapted to the changes successfully. If we want 3V3 then you’re likely increasing the size of the field by around 33% more one direction. Its hardly much of a difference and it would decrease clutter of the robots. Every event I went to had excess space and could have easily handed slightly larger field size.
In addition, I never said that VEX should explicitly do 3V3’s, I just implied that if they don’t change how the qualification system works then 3v3’s are the only option to ensure that nobody has a bad end of the stick with bad partners, as it is also time efficient and could also allow BO3 To run in eliminations too.
That is correct, as VEX’s purpose is to provide an even playing field so no team gets any financial advantage(for the most part) because a team may have a capacity of owning a $100,000 CNC and what-not. VEX’s purpose is to provide an even playing field, but that doesn’t mean that VEX cannot use FRC and FTC as reference to make decisions, as they all follow similar grounds (Robots that compete passively to score the most points for their alliance).
I’ve had to run events in small libraries and other enclosed spaces. A field size increase wouldn’t be possible at some of these locations where I’ve held events. I’m certain and know of other states and EPs where that also reigns true.
You get bad partners in FRC too, sometimes even two bad partners, speaking as a FRC Alum.
You can’t make everything perfect in some little vacuum. Variance in partner ability is something you can’t control. There’s rules in VRC to prevent the cheesecaking that occurs in FRC.
The qualification system works fine. The needs and desires of the many outweigh the needs and desires of the few top tier teams.
We create tools that educators and mentors will use to shape the learners of today into the problem solving leaders of tomorrow.
Our Vision
We envision a world where every student has the opportunity to be inspired by the excitement of hands-on STEM learning and knows the feeling of creating something with technology. We want people of all ages and backgrounds to recognize that creative problem solving is fun and see its importance in shaping a better future.
FIRST:
Mission
The mission of FIRST® is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.
Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated andwhere young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders." Dean Kamen, Founder
RECF:
MISSION
The Robotics Education & Competition (REC) Foundation’s mission is to increase student interest and involvement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) by engaging students in hands-on, affordable, and sustainable robotics engineering programs.
VISION
We see a future where all students design and innovate as part of a team, experience failure, persevere, and embrace STEM. These lifelong learners emerge confident in their ability to make the world a better place.
Actually, you did as one of two solutions you saw. I merely explained the cost, financially and space wise that could prohibit from being a viable solution any time soon. The design of the game to be in a 12’x12’ foot print makes it very nimble for a competition platform, and one that can fit inside general classroom spaces.
I just gave my own suggestion. I do not want to give a suggestion and have to defend it with my life as nobody is giving extra thought but to find reasons against anothers suggestion. This turns posts that could be meant to positively impact VEX/RECF into politcal nonsense that nobody wishes to be on the same grounds as another. I guess I am having enough of this nonsense to care about defensing myself anymore.
Everyone could have an easy or hard individual match, but it’s basically impossible for a team to be carried to 5-0 or 4-1. As soon as a weak team is 2-0, they’ll be matched with and against other strong teams, and they’ll eventually lose at least one, probably more, of their matches.
I have never been to a local tournament that runs 10 matches, but going from 7 to 5 qualification matches might be a disadvantage for some people. For most people, however, the quality of the matches is much more important than the number of them. Take the world competition and an average regional as an example. At a regional, you might run 7 quals and 3 elim matches in a day. At worlds, you run 10 quals and a handful of elimination matches over 3 days. You’re running under half the matches at worlds per day as compared to the regional. Yet most everyone enjoys worlds more than regionals.
The Swiss System obviously doesn’t guarentee perfect matches, but it tends to generate much better match ups because teams face other teams at around their skill level. 5 quals against the best teams at an event are much more valuable to me than 7 quals against joke opponents or in 2 v 1s. And for a newer team, 5 quals against similarly new teams who can learn at each others’ levels, and the opportunity to watch 2 v 2s with 4 really strong robots on the field, are much more valuable than getting obliterated by more experienced teams 7 times in a row.
To your point about lunch, it’s super easy to schedule lunch after each team runs 3 qual matches. Having full knowledge of which teams will be in which qual matches doesn’t advance the ball at all.
And to your point about teams not knowing which matches they will be in, isn’t that how elimination matches already work? Nobody complains because elimination matches aren’t provided to each team at the beginning of the tournament, and nobody in qual match 1 complains that the people in qual match 2 have an unfair advantage. If you come with a working robot that’s ready to compete, it’s not difficult to prep for a match without a decade of advanced notice. And if you don’t, you have a bo3 bracket instead of a bo1 bracket, so the freak inconsistencies that are more likely to plague an underprepared team are less likely to cause you to lose.
I’ve read this part a few times and I’m not really sure what you’re trying to communicate. Could you rephrase?
Yes
Here’s the thing. In a competition of a fixed length, there are only a certain number of matches that can be run. Since elimination matches are more important, more exciting, and generally more desirable (at least in most people’s opinions), playing more eliminations and fewer quals is a good trade off, assuming everyone’s rankings after quals is reasonable. (1 qual match would not be a good idea because rankings would be too random.) Getting to experience eliminations is awesome, but if that “experience” is a single 2 minute match, especially if it’s a blow out or if something goes wrong, that can be really dissapointing. I’d rather have 2 more elim mathces than 2 more qual matches every day of the week.
And a lot of local tournaments intentionally run 24, 32, or 48 capacity events so that every team can make eliminations. If we’re deciding between 2 extra elim matches or 2 extra quals, especially if the quals are with and against comperably matched people, most everyone is going to choose the 2 extra elim matches. It seems to me like a win win.
Skyrise and ITZ were the most exciting and challenging games I competed in, and they were also pretty easy to count auton scores in. TP was by far my least favorite game, and even at worlds, a lot of autons were miscounted.
I’m not saying I want super basic games every year, but fun, interesting, challenging games aren’t necessarily also hard to count auton in. You could even argue the opposite
Are we really that focused on making sure you’re matched up against similar caliber teams of levels and what not? Like this Swiss system and other systems for quals seems to only serve the needs of a few and not the needs for the variety of other roboteers.
Coming as both an EP and competitor, I just can’t serve only the top tier competitors side as an EP. An event is a service you provide to your customers, and you try your best to broadly address all of their needs in ways that best enhance their experience.
For some places, cost is a factor, space is a factor, having enough events to play is a factor.
I love to see great teams do well and win, but remember there’s only ever 2 teams winning. If those 2 teams win but the other 40 or so had a bad experience, did my event really serve its purpose?
As an engineer, as an EP, and as an alumni, I try my best now to make sure every kid that comes to one of my events has a great experience. When I’ve talked to coaches and teams in my area, it’s always been about number of plays, similar to FRC. So that’s what I focus on, and I understand why some changes were made in VRC.
Not at all. The lower caliber teams are actually served much better by facing opponents at a similar level, becoming friends with them, and having more fun. Getting blown out of the water by experienced top teams 7 matches in a row is no fun for anyone.
It can be really fun to play teams a bit above or below yourself, and the Swiss System allows room for that, but being forced to match against insanely strong opponents over and over again when you’re just not ready for that kind of play is simply not enjoyable.
I see your point there that we should also be aware and make sure that everyone gets a great experience. But, to be frank it does get on me that many compete simply for school credit, and not have fun but because they needed a grade in their gradebook so they can be able to pass their class(and they wont have fun since they wil be brutally annihilated). These type of people get me a bit mad because they waste time and fill a slot preventing a more rounded and dedicated team from entering. They also destroy everyone’s experience that they are partnered with as well as the more-devoted teams who could’ve filled their spot instead. I have been extremely devoted towards doing VEX, and that has happened before where I was not given the opportunity to compete in some competitions because a team decided to steal a spot with their barely-functional robot. If you want to truly give a great experience to everyone, then might as well split VRC into two competitions.
I totally understand the point you are making here - i’m sure it comes from someone that has been personally affected by this very scenario. But I have to ask the question what better way is there for teams with a
barely-functional robot
to improve other than to go to competitions to face these much tougher teams (most likely lose) but gain experience and inspiration for them to work towards so that at their next competition they can be better alliance partners and be stronger overall?
At my school that I coach, for the turning point season we opened a “local league” which was for close to us schools only (since most of the schools around us are either first year teams or don’t have much of budget, but they want to try and make state) but we have about 12 of these more rough teams having a normal tournament over the course of about 3-4 weeks, we do it over a long period of time so that if something doesn’t work out the way they thought it would, they can go back home and fix it then come to the next part with a better robot, and the big benefit is that they are all playing with competitors of their own skill level.
