There is Risk Compensation Theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to the perceived level of risk.
The most famous example for this theory is a thought experiment that people would drive just as safe with the metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel (when they are constantly aware of the risk) as with the airbags and seat belts (when they would let themselves get distracted).
The counterargument for the idea of metal spike as the safety feature is that only the driver’s behavior is compensated, but the overall risk will grow due to the factors outside of driver’s control.
In case of VRC, if BO1 is considered to be associated with additional risks, one would tend to stick with more conservative designs (meta) vs experimenting and, in general, invest less time and money into VRC expecting lower probability of a win as the result of the team’s work. For some risk averse people it may even mean dropping out of VRC altogether, if the perceived return-of-investment drops below certain threshold. However, this may attract somebody more of a gambler type, who would sense a possibility of an easy win without investing an outsized amount of resources. You would simply need to be good enough to take advantage of the opportunity when/if it comes.
Throughout the history of humankind our efforts were always directed to find ways to systematically reduce the risks outside of our control and let individuals choose the level of personal risk they are willing to take.
That’s why the change from BO3 bracket (that provides an extra insulation layer against external risks) to BO1 met such resistance.
Yes, some of the teams with knowledge on how to design highly fault tolerant and redundant systems will adapt, but for most of the middle and high school teams this will be rather high barrier. After a while only the most persistent teams will keep trying to take the fate in their hands. And the majority will accept that a lot depends on a chance, expend the minimum amount of efforts, and occasionally make offerings to the VEXNet Gods or whoever will take their place in the V5 Pantheon.
I am all for the students learning advanced concepts of designing reliable systems, but I don’t see how it is going to work when, in majority of cases, it takes a year or two before younger roboteers get a grasp of the basics like gear ratios, levers, and sensor programming.
It makes it harder to learn when all results of their work are run through an extra layer of randomizer before they are given an answer if their ideas worked or not.
If the goal is to make younger students more excited about robotics and be better at learning associated topics then I would go in the exact opposite direction:
- I would isolate younger students from the randomness to a larger degree
- I would add workshops to the competitions to ensure they learn basics
- I would give more diverse and numerous judged awards
- I would not be afraid to give them feedback
- I would do whatever it takes to create less stressful atmosphere that facilitates learning and makes all students feel included
If you have to give out award pins or merit badges (like the scouts do) for students learning important topics like gear ratios, programming, sensor basics - lets do that.
If middle schoolers built the robot that could score in 10pt zone - we give them a pin.
If they improved it to score mobile goal with a cone into 20pt zone - we give them another pin.
If they could earn several skill pins - that would give them much better boost that having a chance to be instantly defeated in R16.
Similarly high school teams could get real or virtual badges for achieving 50, 100, or 150 skill score milestones.
And the most experienced teams could always duke it out for Skills or Tournament Champion awards.
The final note:
I’ve seen a number of cases this season when teams would score in skills combined 100, 120, or 140 points and still come short of an award and be disheartened and disappointed. Just think about it - they learned a lot and built great robots that could score that many points and still feel bad about the season!
One of the stated goals of the program is to make students excited about and excelling in robotics and STEM subjects. The goal is absolute and it never says anything about any quotas or having a disclaimer “while supplies last…”
I don’t believe @VEX GDC is doing good job with designing award system if such situation could happen!