I completely agree: while the number of teams attending worlds is small, the amount of money and time needed to attend the event is massive. To test out a new system with a major potential for failure just because the event is small cheats all the teams out of their right (acquired by their expense and effort to go to worlds) to a fair chance of success. A beta test next season at local events would definitely go a long way in allowing people to experience the new format but not waste months of effort and thousands of dollars.
Maybe VEX can somehow provide some sort of compensation for teams attending Worlds to thank them for testing the new system. Like a $500 voucher for V5?? (But only for teams who make it to the eliminations)
We do VRC and IQ, coming from someone who had this issue in IQ (single elimination) at our State and World tournaments (VEX firmware faults that caused problems during the match) I can promise there will be gnashing of teeth for teams that get eliminated and have spent the money to come to Worlds expecting the system we have now, only to have it changed at the last minute.
Like I have said before, I think VEX should wait a year or two until V5 is released until they even consider testing this new system, but I still beleive Worlds is the best place to test the new system.
At that point, however, it would be easier (and much better for VEX) to just use the old system (or a non best-of-one two alliance system - maybe twelve alliances and byes for the top four seeds) instead.
Why do you think this? I would think the cost that teams spend to attend worlds would almost completely eliminate the possibility of testing a new, possibly failure-prone, system that could ruin the competition experience.
No problem, agree to disagree, but our team’s families spent $24K of their own money last year for world’s and I’m sure we wouldn’t want to be part of the experiment. There were things (hashed to death already) that were experiment enough for us last year.
I am all for change, even trying and failing (encourage it), but the thought that GDC thinks it is appropriate to do these rules and tournament type changes a few weeks before the event, after everyone has already spent the money to come, baffles me. This includes the elimination of placebo robots (bigger issue in IQ)
Well, I went to Worlds three times, and honestly, I would have been absolutely fine testing this new system at those World championships and if I could go again. Teams who go to Worlds, know very well that they might not even get to the eliminations, and that is something they have to accept. I had a wonderful experience every time, and that wouldn’t change at all with a redesigned system for eliminations, even if it meant that there was a slight possibility I might not move on. It is possible that this system will be a huge failure, but it is also possible that it will be a huge success, and there is no way of knowing unless we go for it. I honestly believe that Worlds is the best place to test this, because it is a single event, so things can be easily monitored and controlled, where that wouldn’t be as easily done in regional or state tournaments all over the world.
I totally understand.
Just because you can find examples of sports where it’s a B01 doesn’t mean it’s inherently a good system or makes sense for VEX. If the intent behind these changes was to remove the 3rd alliance like @Grant Cox said in his post, then I think a better solution than exclusively B01 has already been proposed with the top 4 getting byes. I would be interested in hearing an argument for why the current format is better than that alternative, which almost everyone seems to prefer.
That is a good point, I would also like to hear some discussion on this in particular.
Maybe some of you have misunderstood me. This is NOT a beta test. This is a rule change that will be in effect at VEX Worlds and for the 2018-2019 season.
I will not get in a forum debate about system reliability of the current Cortex system, but I have data. Lots of data that the Cortex VEXnetsystem reliability is well above 99.5% reliable during VEX Worlds matches.
@tridragons VEX IQ claims were valid last season but are not in any way related to this exact topic. And, btw, thanks for all the data as it helped identify some of the issues.
And I totally disagree with those of you that say luck will win a championship in this new format. I will give you that bad luck may lose you one, but in this format you must lose much less than the current setup to be crowned champion. Including round robin you can really only lose once (maybe twice) to be the Champion in HS and can have no losses in middle school and VEX U. If an alliance does that, then they are more than lucky.
One last set of things that I have to say on this: if you think we are spending all this effort on the program and VEX Worlds to determine the best robot, then you have another thing coming. We have a mission and set of values and nowhere does it say “find the absolute best robot”. If this change really ruins your experience, then maybe this program isn’t for you.
I deleted my other post as it was a duplicate.
Here’s an actual example of this inconsistency in the electronics. During the 2017 World Championship Finals, in match two, the entire Red Alliance disconnected: https://youtu.be/ZcwFCBO9kpQ?t=2m55s
On the world stage in the dome, competitors should be able to expect nothing but perfection from the electronics used to crown the World Champion. I among others think that VEX overestimated its products and held it to this standard. It’s surprising in itself that this match wasn’t replayed, especially when the disconnect was match-affecting.
But with Best Of 1 Matches? This could be the difference between alliances that deserve to win and an alliance that doesn’t.
Teams are spending thousands of dollars in going to worlds, and to change the format to the wildly unpopular best of one format is very unfair. As far as I know, teams, whether rookies or very experienced, are not upset about the 16 alliances of 2 teams. But the best of one format…virtually nobody, rookies and the experienced teams, is in favor of.
Please, GDC, consider the amount of time, effort, and money that teams are pouring into their World Championship preparation, to fix the newly proposed best of one system.
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!
@VEX GDC I really would like to thank you for being open in discussing this change with the community, and I think it is really important for you to reconsider based on the feedback from the teams. We know that you have put a lot of time into considering this change before making it, but urge you to empathize with all of the attending teams.
Teams, novice or really experienced, have paid up to tens of thousands of dollars over the course of the season to get to Worlds. To have that flushed down the drain by one simple disconnection not under their control would simply be unfair. The sports analogies don’t quite fit here. As people have mentioned, athletes usually have control of what they are doing and if something goes wrong, it is their fault.
I would truly be for testing this new system starting next year, as V5 rolls out. At that point, it would definitely make sense to test out a new competition format that depends heavily on the reliability of the platform being used. While you claimed that it may affect more people, it can be done in several ways where it won’t, such as running the tests at only certain tournaments.
But for this year’s World Championships, we strongly urge you to revert this test for the above reasons.
I have to agree with this. The GDC has said that they speak with more than just the community on this forum, that tends to be very good at robotics. That’s great. But how do they expect those teams to work out the “electrical gremlins,” as I believe one person said? I still run into baffling and inconsistent issues on occasion, and I’m a senior who has lived and breathed VEX robotics! You can say that I could have done better and learned more, but ultimately this is a change that is not making the game more welcoming to newcomers (in my view). At least, not if the arguments are that we should have mastered all aspects of making VEX hardware (not to mention our actual complication robots) run with perfect consistency. And in another post, I detailed a situation where the US Open grand final would have had a different winner had there been a BO1… due to a random disconnect of both teams on one alliance!
It really is a shame how someone can look at our debates and say “They don’t like it because it’s change, and to be different, I’ll support it!” without actually discussing why the change is a good idea in the first place.
You do not understand how much i want 2 team alliances, especially for local events, but I would throw all the benefits of these changes away just to have bo3 back.
+1 for that first part
I am all for the 2 team alliances, however I think Bof1 is a bad idea. I will point to this match Vex In the Zone- GA TSA States Finals (109A vs. 1961X) - YouTube where team 109a had a basically 10 second disconnect. I would like to put in the saying of “The customer is always right.” For teams like mine where this is their first time going to worlds and spending thousands of dollars, missing days of school, and having worked so hard for this… being uncomfortable with this change is completely valid due to the risk added being uncontrollable. Like @Aponthis I am a senior who has lived and breathed robotics and I can’t control or explain when VexNet inexplicably disconnects, or when my motors all of a sudden stop working. Also from what I have seen, the customer (the people who spend thousands of dollars buying robot parts and going to these events) is unhappy with this change and it seems like VEX is refusing to listen to their consumer and at least (as far as I have seen) explain more in depth why they are risking the loyalty of the majority of their consumers. Just seems like bad economics to me to not listen to who is buying and participating. Again, I think having 2 team alliances would be great, but believing Bof1 with this current system will work just fine and not make some people (if I were 109a in this video I would be) extremely angry and like @TriDragon not compete is absurd. In my opinion, VEX should listen to their consumer and be more transparent on their changes(don’t get me started on transparency… @Cameron Schiller)
My team and I totally support the decisions made. Once we saw them we immediately discussed the pros and cons and honestly we all agreed that the changes, at least to us, were acceptable. While we understand people’s resistance to these changes and understand their concerns, this was something that VEX needed. We have had our fair share of issues, both on and off of the field (you know this well Paul) and our biggest issue has been complacency. After being involved with VRC since Round Up, we have lately just been going through the motions. Not building to the level we know we can, and just doing enough to get by. Look at what we took to state and you could see that. We have never gone to World’s expecting to win anything. Yes we spend a lot of money to attend, but the experience is worth a lot more than anything else. Skyrise season our favorite moment was meeting up with the New Zealand teams at a KFC to eat and just talk. These teams had my middle school guys pull up chairs to sit with them and throughout the entire competition they came by on a regular basis to check in and hang out. We won absolutely nothing, but it didn’t change our experience.
I have had the opportunity in the past and recently to speak many times with Dan, Paul, Grant, Karthik and John and feel confident that they are looking out for the long term sustainability of the program. Dan has taken a lot of heat recently and I feel that it has been uncalled for. I have found him to be very fair, and not one to make knee jerk reactions. He is patient, listens to concerns, and responds appropriately. He does not rush to judgement and is looking out for everyone involved in the program. I have always found Paul to be the same way. We don’t really have reliability issues and those that we do have usually been problems with our build. I watched a VEX Cortex controlled FRC robot ram our practice bot and totally disconnect our Rio. It’s cool, we still took your switch 
Like I said, I understand everyone’s concerns, but I truly feel that in the long run this is the best move for the program. Single eliminations…ok I get it, but it is what it is and we personally will deal with it.
I’m sure the debate will continue and people will continue to rage, but I just felt the need to express to you that there are people who do support the decisions made.
How about this: we replay the BO1 match if there is a DC or any failure with the VEX hardware?
I feel like this is a fair compromise.