If you hadn’t won in 2014, someone else would have. They would have been featured on the Hexbug commercial. Point being, there will always be winners, there will always be teams 2, 3, or 4 standard deviations from the mean.
But catering to teams that do well limits the growth opportunities. This is why @TheColdedge wants to assess why teams 2, 3 and 4 standard deviations BELOW the mean drop out. Keeping their interest is what will grow the sport, given that at this point (or a point coming soon, perhaps) it is more likely than not for a rookie team to be below the mean than above it. These teams and students have already expressed the interest in the program, so some form of marketing as already attracted them (perhaps other teams and students already involved). Lowering the abandonment rate is a great way to increase the growth rate as they’ve already self-selected as “interested” in the message VEX/RECF are sending.
In the same way marriage is a silly game with costly mistakes… Our sense of importance on a rock that’s going to be blasted by a supernova into oblivion can be seen as kind of silly as well…
Kids across the board put a ton of energy into silly things, and I would rather it be this silly thing. Calling it silly? That’s silly too.
Yes, combat robotics does have costly consequences. But those consequences exist because they are part of the basic concept of the game, not because the concept of the game is better than the concept of VEX (not that you were saying it was, just that it had higher stakes).
Success in VEX may be less significant, but I would say this is mainly because other competitions already started out with more prestige, and also because of the choices of the people who design the tournament structure (which is the issue we are debating here), and of the people who play it. (And maybe also the fact that VEX has stricter and more arbitrary rules when it comes to the design of the robot.)
The people who designed the tournament structure for VEX chose to put less emphasis on the best team winning, and more emphasis on other goals, such as improving the experience for volunteers, EP's, and inexperienced teams. This is their choice, but as a result, succeeding in VEX means less than it might mean under a different system.
Success in VEX would mean more if Bo3 were used, or if more matches were allowed to be replayed, or if there were changes to the system used for qualifying teams to Worlds (e.g. more teams qualifying through Skills, and fewer teams through judged awards).
But VEX's goal is not to make winning mean as much as possible; their goal is to help students get interested in STEM, and the way they have currently chosen to do this includes some decisions that make winning arguably mean less.
It is a valid observations, but I wouldn’t say it that categorically. There is more than one dynamics (process) that is at play.
Yes, when the same few teams keep taking home all awards at every local competitions it would have somewhat negative effect on the runner up teams. My team is one such example - we could only win Design or Champions (and we did) when several of the best teams in the state do not attend the competition. It is not easy to motivate my team to maintain good notebook if they know they have no chance when those other teams attend.
But, on the other hand, those few teams that hit it out of the park every single time, provide a lot of inspiration and motivation to the rest of the community, by demonstrating what is possible and multiple posters above confirm that.
I could see some of the kids dropping out of the program, but I worry more about kids who want to stay and learn, but don’t have access to the good curriculum. Their time is not used efficiently, me miss opportunity to give them knowledge, when they are eager to learn it.
I’ve written about this before, that by tweaking the award system, RECF could significantly improve the amount and quality of material that students will learn.
Last year kids on Discord had some good time laughing at the suggestion to give merit badges or mini awards to the teams that could achieve a certain task, like high-scoring a game object. I think that could be very effective tool that puts more emphasis on learning important skills for beginner teams on their own pace. Everyone is still welcome to compete for tournament champs when they get on that level.
It feels weird to use myself as an example, but the point of referencing the Hexbug commercial was to show that VEX has acknowledged before that they know the value of an elite team. If it didn’t matter who was featured in the commercial, they could have used actors, but they didn’t. If just anyone could do what 8066A did, why didn’t they?
I wouldn’t define getting a new team to register as a success. Joining a robotics team demonstrates some level of interest, but aspiring to win a world championship shows a level of interest that might be powerful enough to change the course of a student’s life. As @Electrobotz mentioned, elite teams are what inspire newcomers to stick with VEX through failure. Growth for growth’s sake is a hollow victory.
It seems like the RECF should sit down with a panel of 10 students who got the most possible out of vex. Some who put so much time in and pushed themselves to win. Some who did crazy programming and are becoming experts in their field. And some who made the most out of the smallest budget.
Then ask those students what it was that made them do it. And see how we can give the same passion to every team. Because trust me, no one is going to know better
It seems in 1 post coldedge says “vex is silly and those who care so much are dumb”
And in another
“those that care are already success stories and we can ignore them”
How can you expect people to take VEX seriously if you don’t?
No I said vex is a silly game. It is a silly game.
It has massive learning oppertunities as many silly games have.
Caring so much about winning that nothing else matter and you are threatening to quit because you might lose is silly and is not the point.
I have said in the past that losing because of white screen should be instantly considered for a replay. I’ve even supported Bo3 for bigger competitions.
I’m mostly currious if any teams actually quit because of bo1 and how many there are, and if they also decided to stay away from a science field because of it. That would be useful information.
Not what a few elite teams think would make the game better. It’s pretty clear that in general the game isn’t designed to serve those teams.
@aaronlucas – or it could be that your team is super photogenic and would look good in the commercial?
This is one of the key things for me. I want to see more teams, I want to expand the breadth on the number of students. In my region, Delmarva, there are areas that robotics is bigger than band, others there isn’t a robot for miles.
I’ve run a ton of events in the last year and we’ve had a minimal number of replays. We had few “ screen of death” issues, that may pick up as V5 gets deployed more. There are only two memorable issues around the B03 issue, but at the end of the day, B03 or B05 wouldn’t have made a difference.
Why are teams paying thousands of dollars? Given everyone starts with a classroom kit at $699 (V5, 5 motors), how are they getting to thousands of dollars in cost? Are teams spending over $2K for parts? Maybe that’s a topic for another thread “Hey Worlds Teams, how much did you ACTUALLY spend”
/sigh I swore I would not get caught up in the drama again…
Would the commercial have been any less effective and authentic had another team won the Finals match and been selected for the commercial? Imagine a 2014 in which 8066A didn’t participate in VEX; there still would have been VEX Worlds, and there still would have been a VEX Worlds Champion, and there still would have been a VEX team in a Hexbug commercial.
Perhaps more teams are discouraged by the bar elite teams put up than are inspired by them. Perhaps teams perceive the elite teams have an insurmountable gap in resources that they will never be “competitive” with them.
This is, I believe, the message @TheColdedge and others are trying to make. Any survey of “elite” or “successful” teams will have a “survivor bias”. Finding out why teams drop out is key to growing the sport.
Again, you are looking at things as if there is going to be some deterministic measure as if x team doing y thing will produce z outcome. 8059 and 8066 are examples of immeasurable losses to VEX as a direct result of certain policies. I can’t say exactly what the impact will be, but I know that it is worse than VEX realizes.
I would argue that if their goal is to maximize interest in STEM, then policies that drive away elite competitors undermine that goal.
If I am trying to grow the sport among kids I care way more about the ones that are quitting than the ones that are excelling.
Now if the teams that are quitting in droves are suddenly all the good teams then you need to re-evaluate what’s going on. But so far all the users that were whining and declaring Bo1 the robot apocalypse are still here competing and beating that dead horse.
and if Pig Pin quit tomorrow Indiana would go on being a growing robotics state. I’d miss seeing him at competitions because hes a chill kid, and I love hanging out with his dad, but his loss would be marginal.
I firmly believe that people are happiest when they have something to complain about. If they have nothing to complain about, they’ll complain about that!
I’ve managed 2 VRC events this year with my local EP and personally, I am quite divided by the BO1 vs BO3 controversy.
I think BO3 allows for a more accurate representation of a team’s performance, as one game there may have been an error out of their control, for instance. If this were to happen in BO1, they’d be out and, well, that’s it for them at that competition.
BO1 reminds me of VEX IQ. Finals are also based on one chance to win the coveted title of Teamwork Champions. Students, however, have adapted to this and I guess its something that VRC competitors need to get used to as well.
I’m not sure, as I believe that the current VEX IQ format works well, but that BO3 was always the better option for VRC.
So we may have the perfect social experiment here! It is my understanding that FTC employs BO3 for the elimination rounds. In theory, all the VRC teams who are sooooo upset by BO1 would transition from VRC to FTC.