Great time to Update to the New V5 next season!
Exactly. I have been very reluctant to replace some old electronics of mine this season because I need to save money for V5.
While it is a good way to test the v5, testing it this year will have no feedback for v5. They should wait until next year, when it is available to use.
I love it. This removes the incentive to loose matches in qualifications hoping to be picked as the third robot on a good alliance. This happens far too often.
I think if both of our teams understood that there would only be a single finals match, we would do everything in our power to ensure that there were no faults in our systems. To be honest with you, if that set was only one match and the cube roll happened, it would sting a bit but we’d own it. We wouldn’t be stripped of the title, we wouldn’t have earned it. The best teams are the ones who can quickly and reliably adapt to changes, expected or unexpected. I’m backing the GDC on this one, I think trying out new ideas is a step in the right direction in making World Championship more manageable.
This is a really, really good idea. I will be pushing for this change to get more VEX U competitors into Freedom Hall.
I want to respond to the “Why Worlds” question now and let more community members chime in before I answer more of the other questions and claims. First, I will say that we use data and history to make our decisions. While many of us on the GDC are passionate, we do not make decisions like these lightly. Again, I will go into details after more people have a chance to post but I felt this is important for me to say to you. This was a well discussed subject that we did not take lightly.
OK, so “Why Worlds”?
It actually is the perfect place to do these sorts of tests because it has less impact than “trying it for next season”. Why? Only 8% of VRC teams (including VEX U) attend VEX Worlds. Of those 8% only 32% compete in the elimination rounds. That’s 2.6% of teams affected by this change compared to almost 100% if we made the change next season. That is what we on the GDC call a no brainer.
Additionally, we have always not liked that only 24 teams out of 100 make elimination rounds. This way we get 32 per division. More teams get the elimination rounds experience.
I have many responses for your consistency and “the sky is falling” claims. Some of you will not at all like my responses and that’s ok. Some of you may leave the program. While we will be sad to see you go that is definitely your prerogative.
Anyway, I look forward to a healthy and productive discussion.
Paul
Thanks for the consideration Paul!
Thanks for the response to that question, and although I disagree about it being a no-brainer (in the sense that it works out in the math but doesn’t change the fact that it’s rather unfair to the teams competing), I can understand how you and the rest of the GDC came to that conclusion, and respect the decision. All I (and hopefully the rest of us here) want is a civil discussion on a matter that affects us all, and hopefully that’s what this becomes. I look forward to hearing your response on consistency, as I think that’s what people are most outraged about from the single elimination proposal.
Things I definitely like about the rule changes:
-more teams get to play in the elimination rounds
-more of an incentive for teams to try and do well to go on to eliminations
Things I 100% dislike about the rule changes:
-single eliminations
I understand this will be needed in order to keep things running faster, but I feel as if there could be some form of compromise as far as this goes. Single elims seem way too brutal and risky for teams who have worked hard and generally competed very well during the qualification rounds on their own merits. Granted, mistakes happen even to the best of us, but in best 2 of 3 elimination rounds, these are generally easier to recover from, vs being knocked out of the entire game because of a battery issue or connection issue or something of that sort.
I really like the 2 team alliances but not the single eliminations. I don’t trust battery / key connections enough for that.
This math is true, but doesn’t consider the fact that 16 of those 32 teams play one match, where 8 teams (two teams from each losing alliance in quarters) were to play one match at the max. It could be 4 teams if all quarterfinals were to advance to game 3. If your idea of granting people the experience of elims is having more people get to play one match, then you will succeed in that. However, if I was one of those 16, I’d be extremely underwhelmed and frustrated.
Sorry to say this but I’d rather have 90% of the community feel the repercussions of changing to a new eliminations system than have to spend 12 months, >3 thousand dollars, and an intense season going against some really strong teams just to lose to what is becoming basically a weighted coin flip. But that may just be me. Anyone care to comment?
+1
I can see both points of view here, but I do have to agree overall. The math checks out in terms of it not affecting that many people, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s completely unfair to the teams that have dedicated their whole season to one style of play, whereas blanket-enforcing this next season will affect all teams equally. Imo that’s a lot more fair.
I’d like to add on that the small percent being affected by this change just so happens to be the most invested, and the ones that end up in elims consistently throughout the season anyway, so you wouldn’t be damaging as many as you think if you were to try it for next season. Also a lot more is on the line at worlds than local events, although states is also at risk here.
I don’t understand why a bunch of you are suggesting that the outcome of high-level matches are significantly influenced by luck, when the top seeded teams for these events are determined by perfect or near perfect match records. If the 1st seed’s 10-0 robot was going to fail, it likely would have already.
Couldn’t you just take and apply this logic to qualification rounds and argue that teams are unfairly losing their opportunities to win the event because those aren’t best of three? Isn’t there 10 times more luck involved in being 1st seed and being able to pick the best robot in the division? I’m not buying this concept that these events will be a weaker evaluation of team performance. I think there’s less room for error, which suggests the opposite in my opinion.
I’m still confused on what made the GDC want to change this. Like every single robotics competition other then VEX does the regular 2 wins to advance way. All of this for 8 teams? Really? Getting to the elimination rounds is meant to be tough and an honor, and changing the entire elimination system for 8 more teams (who will in all likelihood get eliminated their first match) into eliminations? Totally uncalled for. This out of all things would have been the one to ask for the community’s approval of. Even if I was one of those 8 teams I would still feel horrible if a higher seeded alliance gets eliminated due to their VEXNet keys disconnecting or something. Please reconsider not making this change in a way it will only effect the TOP teams in the world, and instead letting this apply to the qualification events next season, so teams who don’t put in as much effort will also be effected.
Battlebots?
However, the best teams on alliances at worlds are seldom the alliance captains. This is mostly about the amazing first pick, that may have had a hard match schedule, but deserves to win worlds (think 2915A from sack attack). To say that the best teams never fail is just wrong.
10 matches is high enough of a sample size for good teams to do well.
We don’t complain about qual matches because you can still bounce back and do well in elims due to the fact that people can pick you, so your qual record doesn’t decide your fate completely.
However, in elims, that is where your task is to prove yourself. It is also where you face your greatest challenges, and the closer the games, the more influence random events or small mistakes have, making players much more frustrated.
For the best player to become champion, they cannot make a mistake for 10 straight matches against good teams (4 in division, 5 in RR, 1 in finals)
This is not at all what we’re saying. If a team’s robot was improperly functioning due to their own fault, then that’s their problem, and yes, it would have malfunctioned already. What we’re referring to are things that are out of an individual team’s control that could potentially cost them a match, and if it was a single elimination match, the entire tournament. If VEXnet keys disconnect, or static resets encoders, or the field was improperly set up, and the first seed team was affected, their entire day is now over because of something they had absolutely no control over. If it were best 2 of 3, they would at least have another chance or two to prove that their robot can still come out on top, but now with single eliminations they’ll just have to either pack their bags or watch the alliance that beat them on pure luck lose in the subsequent round to another alliance that was also clearly better than them.