1 - Regarding introducing the new format at VEX Worlds with little notice:
This is not the first time that VEX has introduced something new at Worlds. This is not a comprehensive list, but to give you an idea:
- Raspberry Pi’s for field control
- Tablets for scoring
- Programming Skills Challenge rule changes (Gateway)
- On-field sizing tool
- Fields on risers
- PTC tests (both in inspection, and post-match)
- 3-field divisions instead of 2
- Various VEX U elimination bracket iterations, including a multi-tiered one with 20 teams, single elimination for seeds 13-20, various levels of byes for ranks 1-12
- The Round Robin elimination format
- The concept of “divisions” and “division finals” at all
Worlds is the perfect place to insert these types of changes. We have the skilled event staff prepared to manage them, the skilled teams prepared to weather them, and the opportunity for immediate first-hand feedback. We would not want to roll something out to all Event Partners without first running it at the event where VEX and the REC Foundation are, in essence, the “Event Partner” ourselves. If it’s not good enough for Worlds, why would we ask it of the 1500+ events that occur around the globe each year?
Furthermore, I will admit that many of the changes above were made without proper advance notification to teams. Increased transparency is something that is very important to many of us here, which is why we felt it worthwhile to notify teams inside of the scheduled April 5th update. This update cannot feasibly be scheduled much earlier in the season, as State/National Championships are still running through March.
2 - Regarding the concept of “luck”:
Many have commented that this system introduces an element of luck. I think that there is a key difference between “introducing luck” and “reducing the allowance for bad luck”. First, make no mistake - there is an element of luck in all forms of competitive robotics. The concept of a randomized qualification schedule, where you only play 6-12 matches, is extremely ridden with the opportunity for good or bad luck. But, because that’s the system we’re all used to, few people bat an eye at it.
A 16-alliance best-of-1 system does not introduce any new elements of luck. “Getting lucky” in the round of 16, and the quarters, and the semis, and the finals, and the Round Robin (for HS), and the Freedom Hall finals… it’s just extremely unlikely. A team cannot trip and fall their way into winning an event, just like they couldn’t before under a best-of-3 system. I have full confidence that the teams representing their divisions in the Round Robin and the Freedom Hall finals will be some of the top teams in the world.
Now, does it remove some tolerance for bad luck? Sure. But this is the case for the qualification ranking system, too. And just like the qualification ranking system doesn’t always result in the “best” robot seeding first, there is a possibility that the “best” robot may not win the event. This has always been the case, it is why things like the Skills Challenge or the Excellence Award exist, and why the Excellence Award is considered a higher honor than Tournament Champion.
3 - Regarding “VEXnet disconnects” being the primary perpetrator of bad luck:
Every time that someone says “of course VEXnet is terrible and disconnects randomly”, a VEX field tech twitches. “Random disconnects” just do not happen, especially once VEXnet 2.0 was introduced. There is always a reason. Sometimes the reason is low battery, sometimes it’s a loose physical connection, sometimes it’s a bent pin in the competition port, sometimes it’s the fact that the VEXnet Key is buried under a giant steel mechanism that looks impressive but does a great job of shielding wireless signals. Sometimes, in very specific and identifiable cases, the reason is a field issue.
Some of these root causes are more readily apparent than others, admittedly. Blink patterns are an outdated way of communicating this information, admittedly. This is what leads to the “random disconnect” sentiment. But, that is why we employ the field tech crew at Worlds. Every division has a Senior Field Tech who is a bona fide, real-life VEX engineer and two other Field Techs to assist them. There is a Software Support center near the Inspection area with more VEX staff. The sole responsibility at the entire event, for all of these people, is to help teams troubleshoot and identify these root causes.
4 - Regarding this “being done for TV”:
I am trying to keep my comments broad rather than answering specific posts, but this is one that I want to nip in the bud right away. As part of the production crew at Worlds, in addition to being on the GDC, I can assure you that we would never sacrifice team experience or competition integrity solely for the sake of television. Audience perception plays a role in game design and event structure, absolutely. But, this pertains more to things like making sure that an audience can quickly ascertain what is going on when they see a game being played for the first time. “Best-of-1” is definitely easier for an audience to understand. But, that’s a benefit that came after the decision was made, not the determining factor.
To be perfectly clear - if ESPN themselves came to us and said “you know, this would really look better if the game objects were bigger”, or “this alliance concept is really weird, can you just do 1v1 for this event?”, there would be no chance of them having that type of influence.
5 - Regarding the “overwhelmingly negative community response”:
This thread has done a great job bringing to light many of the concerns and complaints that this particular segment of the VEX community feels. This feedback is invaluable, and the heated response is a direct representation of your passion for the program. But, in addition to the sentiments being shared here, we (Dan, Paul, and myself) have also received just as many private messages in favor of the change. Beyond private messages, Paul had the opportunity to speak with a number of teams directly at the US Open this weekend, and I have had the chance to speak with a few teams here in the north Texas area.
It’s important to remember that when controversies like this arise, the people posting are going to be those who have a strong reaction, and a strong negative reaction is almost always more compelling to send than a strong positive one. Look at Amazon reviews - they will usually be biased towards 1- or 5-star. Because someone who buys a phone case and thinks it’s “okay” isn’t going to go through the effort of posting a review. My point being - one side of the story is being very well represented here, but I would be cautious to assume that this is a unanimous opinion.