This is a nice idea, I think that it needs to only be available during and after the quarter finals to reduce the length of the round of 16 and also it should only be available for a team to use once during the elims again to keep the length of the elimination rounds short.
The robots that go to the Round Robin, I believe, will be deemed most consistent in the competition. To be put through all that work and stress yet still function very well is a difficult task to pull off.
@Grant Cox Thanks for taking the time to discuss this on the forum. I donât think anything any of us say that is contrary to what has been introduced on the 5th will be implemented, or, honestly, considered. Vex seems pretty set in how this will all happen. It is a shame, but the âour way or the highwayâ mentality is prevalent in a number of responses both in this thread and others.
Iâm not sure where you guys keep getting the statistics that you post, but they donât jive with reality at all. Either that, or every team I have surrounded myself with as friends and colleagues are the most unlucky group. For example, if the vex net system has a 99.5% uptime then, on average, a team should be able to go 200 tournament matches with only a single disconnect. For the more competitive teams that attend four or five tournaments, attend States, and make eliminations at each, that would be an entire season with just one disconnect. For teams that are in the middle of the pack that would be a few seasons with just one disconnect. Or, going by tournament, it would be a few good sized tournaments without a single disconnect. I would challenge you to find teams with that kind of experience. I am really impressed with the V5, the thoughtfulness of it, the features, lots of great stuff, probably some glitches and such getting worked out now. You guys seem to have done a great job with it, but, to the contrary, the vex net system has a lot of flaws. One thing I see a lot is defending the design and saying there are a lot of ways teams can mess it up (which is true). However, you guys designed it, if you designed it so it was that easy to have issues with, then own it and give the teams consideration when it comes time.
With respect to the latter, I bought up our terrible experience in IQ last year during one of these threads and Paul mentioned that it had nothing to do with the present discussion about one and done. I would contend that it does and that it speaks to the need for vex to start considering these kids more and the World schedule a bit less, or at least re-work itâs priorities. Teams are concerned about losing in the one and done for issues out of their control. I would agree. Based upon our experience last year in IQ I spent months emailing Vex that there was an issue with their boot loader, that it would randomly halt the brain and could happen at any power up. It happened at our State tournament and I emailed Vex again to let them know and asked how it would be handled at Worlds. You guys gave the same answer you posted, that there would be vex technicians on site to fix it and all would be well. Well⌠it happened to us at Worlds, your technician gave us a new sensor, and then made us use the placebo robot because they would not let us take the 60 secs need to implement it (back to stats, Paul stated IQ had 0.4% placebo usage so it was dropped, somehow we had 30% all on our own at Worlds last year?). It really upset our children and then I am the one getting scolded for being unprofessional and a bad example for our kids? Teams are afraid of the one and done issues not because of assumptions, but because of poor experiences with Vexnet, inconsistent refâing, etc⌠they have learned it, not assumed it. The good news is that there are opportunities to improve it, hopefully that will happen at Worlds this year.
This is a larger-scale, though very much less severe, version of the issue we had in our state for many years. Our RECF reps focused on getting tournaments done early, to the point where they said we could not send a team member back for batteries between elimination matches. Yes, really. Apparently the risk that somehow sending one kid back for batteries after an elimination match, with ten minutes of free time before the next match would delay that match from happening was not worth letting us have charged batteries. Nothing nearly as bad is happening here, to be clear, but this is seeming a little too similar for my comfort.
Got to agree with @TriDragon, since the manual update have been officially published, GDC isnât going to change anything for the upcoming Worlds, with the exception of maybe bringing VEX U division finals to the Arena. It would be a huge surprise even if division finals are changed to BO3 based on the popular demandâŚ
So, here is a crazy idea that might excite those of us who are scientifically minded, and think all experiments are supposed to be run with at least one control group and in the identical environments. Ideally, such experiments would have to be with randomly selected groups, but this thread is the proof that random selection is not going to go well with this crowd - we would have to live with self-selection bias. 
The experiment:
Upon arrival to VEX Worlds 2018 each High School team will be asked their preference between:
- BO3 eliminations with 8 x 3 team alliances
- BO1 eliminations with 16 x 2 team alliances
- or choose âno preferenceâ if they donât know or donât care
Then teams will be assigned to the divisions run either as BO1 or as BO3 according to the teamâs choice and âno preferenceâ teams will be assigned to pad those divisions randomly.
After each division crowns their finalists, 3 team alliances will have a choice of which 2 teams are going to play in each RR game as well as the Finals, assuming they will make it that far.
If such experiment were to be conducted, first, you would learn how many people prefer each system.
Second, everybody will feel great because they made their own choice.
And, third, assuming divisions uniformly split between BO1 and BO3, we would see which system is better at selecting best robot, based on RR and Finals result.
Of course, it is not going to happen, but, I would encourage RECF to let some sociology major students to conduct pre- and post-worlds surveys of the random selection or, if possible, all teams to ask them:
- What would be their elimination bracket format preference?
- How high in ranking do they expect to get (or actually did)?
- How far in eliminations do they expect to get (or did)?
âŚ
Then you could run simulation of virtual tournament with game predictions trained on actual World match results (i.e. Elo Ranking or some other model) and see how each tournament format plays out.
This would be the gold mine for anyone majoring in sociology or modelling and looking for masters or PhD thesis topic!
I really hope this one round thing doesnât carry over to next year. IQ runs a similar way, and it wasnât fun. Thereâs a lot of pressure on the drivers. And the risk of a malfunction is real. I didnât get to nationals last year because a small malfunction that happened maybe once in the whole tournament happened twice in the finals round.
I would first like thank you for responding, and the way in which you responded. whenever Paul posts on something controversial, he always comes across as if heâs trying to say âWe know whatâs best for you, you donât, weâre 100% right, and at any point where you contradict us youâre 100% wrong, shut up you idiot children because you havenât a clue about what youâre talking aboutâ and while Iâm sure he doesnât mean to come across as condescending jerk, that (at least in my opinion) is what ends up happening, as can happen to anyone in a heated debate. Iâve not met him personally so I donât know what heâs like on a personal level, Iâd like to believe that the posts Iâm talking about are not a great reflection of that. I know I often am guilty of the same thing, and am making an effort not to do so in my criticisms of Paul, and this post as a whole, so Iâm sincerely sorry if I fail at that. bottom line is, youâre response contrasted greatly to many of Paulâs responses in that regard.
It means a lot to me and Iâm sure everyone else that you admit to error on this. Perhaps in the future, specific rule changes for worlds can be announced further in advance so teams know what to expect, but leave the game manual alone until the scheduled update.
looks like I have to break this up into 2 posts because of the character limit, I wish it would let you know why the âPost a Replyâ button isnât working instead of failing silently, but anywayâŚ
thereâs no part in even the qualification match assignments that are truly random, computers canât generate numbers that canât be predicted if you know all the factors of what goes into generating the number, I think it would be fair to say that disconnections happen ârandomlyâ in the same sense that computers generate ârandomâ numbers. perhaps a more correct term would be pseudo-random disconnects? while there may always be a reason for disconnects, vexnet seems to be too susceptible to these potential causes, and I would argue that the causes are at least sometimes out of the control of the teams. As others have pointed out, it seems unlikely that a situation where a whole alliance, or whole field disconnects at the exact same time is caused by a vexnet key being in a less than ideal location or not being plugged in all the way. Iâve seen situations where throughout the day thereâs issues with connection with the common denominator being a specific field even alliance color, if it hasnât already been done, there should be investigation on what causes this and what teams can do to make it less likely (teams canât make everyone in the area turn off hotspots). Something interesting Iâve noticed is after a match, when I unplug my controller from field control I consistently observe disconnection a few seconds later, and Iâve never observed it being able to reconnect until the power is cycled. Iâve always thought this to be caused not to be caused by field control itself but my some behavior programmed into the cortex that caused it to happen with the right combination of changes of the state of competition control. If competition control has absolutely nothing to with vexnet connections, even indirectly, then what causes this, and could it be related to what causes whole alliance/field disconnects? Maybe the issues are within the control of competitors, but we just donât know or understand them so itâs hard to control.
again, thanks for your response, I still donât completely agree with the changes, but I do respect the decision a lot more.
Unfortunately, I doubt that the decision will be repealed. However, I have committed treason, have turned my back on my countrymen, and am now in favor of the BO1 system. However, I think that there are just too many variables, too many unknowns, to launch every competition into a straight-up, unforgiving BO1 finals and elims. Whether or not @[TVA]Connor Challenge Match is the way to goâcurrently Iâm in favor of it, as it is the best equalizer that has been proposed so farâI absolutely and unequivocally believe that something of the sort must be done. Some sort of fail-safe system that ensures the integrity and consistency of all finals and elims to be played in the future. @Grant Cox , is there any chance whatsoever that something of the sort can and will be implemented?
Most of the time, disconnects are caused by either loose connections from a computer to a tower or by a loose battery connection with a CORTEX. A charged 9V can fix a great amount of disconnects with the remotes, but when it comes to alliance disconnects, thereâs no doubt itâs not the teamâs fault, so I think itâs best that there should be rematches offered of some sort if it were the case of alliance disconnects.
https://www.vexrobotics.com/276-2243.html
The VEX Robotics website states the following:
Nice job highlighting the thing you got right. JPearman made a nice thread about how field control works and he contradicts the second part of your statement in detail along with others there.
Okay, thank you
This explanation may be what you have experienced.
When you are connected to field control VEXnet will be forced to use a competition channel. If you connect to field control after you have turned on the robot and controller and have established a connection, the act of plugging into field control will cause a disconnect and reconnect using the competition channel.
After the match, if you unplug from field control and do not turn off the robot and controller you will stay connected on the competition channel for 2 minutes. After 2 minutes have elapsed the connection will be terminated and you have to power cycle the cortex and controller to regain connection on a non-competition channel.
@jpearman I would consider you the ultimate authority on how this stuff works from a technical aspect, so I will ask you directly. When there are multiple robots (both from the same alliance or from different alliances) that disconnect and reconnect at the same time, is there a reason for this that would go back to the fault of the teams or is this likely an issue with the tournament equipment? The answer may be different if it is an alliance disconnect or if it affects robots in both alliances. I am interested in your potential explanations for when this should NOT be a match replay, if any.
I saw a great video from Vox a while back that talked about which sports had systems that were the most indicative of the most skilled team. I wonât link it here because most of it canât be related to vex, but one thing they found was that sample size played a huge role in that. Basketball for example, has a playoff system that displays the best teams very well, because it has 82 game seasons and best of seven playoffs. Because the sports analogy continues to be used despite many of our assertions that they are invalid (people donât randomly disconnect), Iâm going to use one myself. If Steph Curry were to twist his ankle and Golden State were to lose would people say that the better team won? No, they would say that the winning team was undeserving and their victory would be tainted by the fact that they did not truly beat the most skilled teams at their best to win. While I understand the argument that having a lower sample size increases the incentive to have a consistent robot, I donât think that was ever necessary. I canât think of a single team that made a robot that was amazing 2/3 times and banked on having bo3s to win.
I would like to briefly mention that Iâm not just some angry person or a contrarian. I completely agree with the removal of 3rd alliances for example (this is speaking as someone who has been a huge beneficiary of it). The Vox video mentioned how sports where better players on a team could spend more time involved had more consistent outcomes. For example in basketball the best player can spend more time on the court than a baseball player can spend batting. I think these examples are very applicable to the 3rd alliance.
I would also like to address one point that @Grant Cox made that I believe is willful blindness. I thank him for taking the time to have an open discussion with the vex community, though I would urge him and other vex members to enter the conversation with a viewpoint that is at least open to minor correction or change. I specifically take issue with where he says how unlikely it is for a bad team to get lucky and win every round of the tournament. I donât think anyone thought this was going to happen and to assert that they did would be putting words in all of our mouths. The vex community is concerned that some deserving alliances (I would wager 2-3 in a bracket of 16) while have bad luck or some uncommon issue that loses them their shot at winning or at least moving on. This change indisputably asserts a degree of variability into tournaments.
Lastly I would like to present my solution. I agree 2 alliances are better, I also like having a bracket of 16, and I understand that time is a concern. I think that the 1st round, mayyybe the second, should be single elimination. That would add 8 matches to the current tournament schedule, and should fit with out too much trouble. I want to be clear that I still am not completely comfortable with that idea, but I realize that compromises have to be made somewhere. I personally will not be quitting vex and I love the organization, I only have one year left, but I do urge the RECF to take this community reaction seriously
Well, according to Vex, they are not trying to find the best robot/team:
And thatâs fine, although Iâm not sure why they would call it a World Championship, more like a World Robotics Fair. Iâm not being snide about it, really, but I do find it very confusing that all this time is spent promoting the Vex World Robotics Championship when it really, apparently, isnât a Championship? Iâm pretty sure the students involved, at least at the competitive level, think they are competing to be crowned the best robotâŚ
Along with most people, I like the 2 team alliances.
As for the BO1, I am unsure how I feel on it. However, since I know there are a lot of people who feel very strongly that something should be changed, I think we should talk about what to do about it. I donât think VEX will change it back to the old format at this point. What would help a lot though, is if VEX would Promise to be liberal with the replays due to VEXnet disconnects at worlds. It seems to me that nobody knows exactly why they occur 100% of the time, If VEX allows replays due to match affecting VEXnet disconnects, it would soothe the fears of many teams
@TriDragon thatâs an excellent point. It seems that for a long time actually, students and the RECF have been at odds because they continue to justify unpopular decisions with the statement "itâs not about competing itâs about learning. While I obviously understand that that spreading STEM is the underlying goal of this program, at the end of the day they made it into a competition. Whether vex likes it or not, they have created a competitive system that is now an outlet for thousands of people to prove their skill in something they love. Hereâs the thing @Paul Copioli, the teams here at vex are here to compete, and I donât think for a second that any team is going all the way to Kentucky just for âthe learning experience.â Even if they arenât aiming for the top, theyâre trying their best to do as well as they possibly can. If you think this isnât a competition to find the best robot, at least to our community, youâve got another thing coming.
BTW Paul, I met you in the elevator in our hotel at the U.S. Open, you seemed like a really chill dude and Iâm sure that you are making these decisions with everyoneâs best interests at heart. I would just urge you to be careful with the tone you use here, because I think many feel as though you are condescending towards those who are just trying to make their voices heard, and I know that was never your intention.