@Nerf_Tarmogoyf
Very well said, and that’s exactly what I am beginning to think, too. I think that’s where the root of all of our little “spats” with the GDC/RECF is coming from. While the members of GDC were VEX competitors and understand what it’s like, their goal is to appeal to the masses; the thousands of current and future teams for VRC and not just the ~2% that get to elims and RR. Therefore, it is justified for them to treat the Worlds competitors as the sample population, because they don’t put as much emotion into the event as a current competitor. To put it bluntly, if that tiny shred of the VRC population gets mad and “storms off” (quits VEX), it doesn’t really matter, as there are plenty of other teams waiting in line to take their place. I’m not saying that Paul, Grant, and the rest of GDC “don’t care about us”, because they really care a lot, but they certainly put more emphasis on making sure that all students get something from it, because not everyone makes it to elims and RR, or even Worlds at all.
I would make the argument that if all the teams that make it to elims at worlds we’re to quit vex the damage would be much greater than you think. Remember these are the best teams from each region and are likely some of the most influential teams in each region. If every team that qualified for worlds from AZ (almost all of which go to elims each year) the vex program here would be severely damaged. People need good teams to inspire them to do better. Without that, people are honestly just bad. And this is coming from someone that had a stupid robot my first year. But since then teams like 127A (now 127X), 2114A (now part of ALBA), 2114Z, 2114X, 5090A, and others have inspired me to do better. Without those teams having pushed me I don’t know where I would be. Trust me, removing the top 3% of teams would hurt vex far more than 3%.
This change effects this current season correct? I checked the manual and it seems to be that way. If it is I would have never of tried going if I knew I could possibly only be playing one match.
Yep, for Worlds only.
@sazrocks That’s a good point, and I’m sure that happens in every state. However, are you sure that those 5-10 “top 1%” teams really affect or inspire the majority of VRC competitors in their respective states? I know that for me, I didn’t really know about Worlds until I qualified for it, and just entering the venue made me want to come back (I never made it past quals). The major teams in my area (the 10, 1410, 575, and 1492 series in particular) did not really make me want to succeed; Worlds did. I can imagine that this is the same for many other teams too. I’m not dismissing your point, but I am saying that this may not be the case for everyone.
For VA, I can say that if 1575, 177, 8086 and the 12s dropped I guarantee there’d be new teams clamoring to be at the top.
We’re not above anything here, even if the programs are influential. Life goes on, kids are still going to want to spend time making awesome robots and having fun.
Again, I agree with you. If top teams disappeared, that would make it a little easier to qualify for worlds. I, for one, would not shed a tear. Well, in Virginia, I would because I like all those teams! But, in a hypothetical situation where a handful of teams dominate year after year making it nearly impossible to qualify for worlds in a particular region, I wouldn’t be sad to see them go. In fact, it might increase participation in some areas because there may be teams that don’t bother to compete because of perennial powerhouses. Watch out what you wish for, you might get it! Just saying - top teams threatening to quit may not be bad for the vast majority of teams and may, in fact, INCREASE participation.
No, it’s for next season too
Oh yeah…sorry. I specifically meant to reference changes for this season 
I wasn’t ignoring this question, just wanted some time to do some tests and give a considered answer. I cannot give an answer regarding match replays, that decision needs to be made by the division manager in consultation with the engineering staff on hand.
Despite the further tests I have conducted, I do not have any new insight as to what may have happened in the various match videos that have been posted during the last few days. All I can really do is repeat the information we currently have that @Dave Flowerday has also been promoting.
-
If either primary controller on an alliance has an issue with the competition connector that causes the enable signal to short to ground, both teams on that alliance will be disabled until that condition is cleared. The driver interface will show a solid orange disabled led if this happens and the primary joystick will also show an orange game led. This should be visible to the field techs.
-
If a cable is disconnected from the driver interface this will not disable the alliance.
-
If VEXnet disconnects, this should be visible on the leds of both joystick and robot. I still find it hard to believe we have simultaneous VEXnet disconnects for only one alliance where both robots also appear to reconnect at the same time.
-
Disconnecting USB from the match controller will remove power and tend to leave the robots in an enabled state. If a powered USB hub has been used and the connection to the PC lost, power will be maintained and, depending on the host computer, indeterminate states can be reached but in all cases of USB being lost tournament manager is alerted and often has to restarted. From what I observe I think it’s unlikely USB issues are a factor.
If I had a team at worlds this year this is the type of advise I would give them.
Have a checklist that you follow for every match and don’t deviate from it. The checklist would have the robot power up procedure, when to plug in cables, when to plug in the battery, which leds to check after power on etc.
Use known good batteries, don’t just grab random AAA batteries that may let you down during a match.
Practice what to do if think you have a disconnect, look at your joystick leds, look at the driver interface leds, perhaps assign these tasks to different team members to save time. If everything is green show this to the field tech, they are there to help.
Don’t stress about disconnects too much. I had the role of field tech at worlds for fours years, these days you will find me in software support, during the 1000 or so matches I observed closely as a field tech we had very few technical issues. The majority of teams at worlds will not have problems and for those that do we usually find an explanation.
What tests did you conduct? (not trying to be accusatory at all, I just want to know what scenarios you have tested)
I can confirm that it is not the case that robots are being disabled; based on my own observations both the field controller and my joystick both showed enabled during the first part of the disconnect (the joystick later went to the disconnected pattern). Furthermore in the video below a ref can be seen pointing at the driver interface and saying that it is enabled (also visible is the solid blue light on the vexnet key which AFAIK show that the controller is at least disconnected).
I can’t confirm for the robot, but I can confirm that for the joystick, after about 2-3 seconds, the lights did switch to the disconnected pattern (unfortunately I cant say which specific mode of disconnection it was in, as I don’t have the joystick light codes completely memorized). The light on the vexnet key also went solid blue as seen the videos.
I honestly don’t know what to say to convince you that these disconnects are real. I linked to 5 videos of simultaneous disconnects in this post: https://vexforum.com/index.php/conversation/post/265762
If that is insufficient evidence then I honestly don’t know what is. If you are saying that it is unlikely to be a simultaneous disconnect because the robots reconnect at the same time, have a look at the video from the US Open Finals 1 where 202 clearly reconnects faster than 8675. Regardless, wouldn’t it actually be likely that both robots connect at the same time since they are being influenced by the attractor vexnet key at each field* (will explain at bottom of post for those who don’t know) to join a specific channel and thus don’t have to spend as much time searching for one?
While good advice, it is astronomically unlikely that this is the cause of the issues considering it would require both alliances to loose battery power at the exact moment.
While I appreciate the work that the field techs do (honestly enjoyed talking to them at the US Open), there isn’t really much they can do in these types of situations unless they are actively engaged in staring at each team’s lights.
Exaples:
In this video, a field tech (woman with black clothes that comes from the background) walks over after hearing me say that I have a disconnect. however, by the time she gets to the field and has a chance to look at the lights the problem has been resolved.
In this video, the same thing happens.
Being told not to worry about the issue doesn’t help much, considering in the grand finals of the US Open there was a simultaneous disconnect that arguably changed the outcome of the match and absolutely nothing was done. Had the red alliance lost the 3rd match by 1 instead of winning by won, it is quite likely that they would be (understandably) upset.
And to that point, relating to the topic of this thread, the wrong alliance (no offence at all to the blue alliance) would have been crowned as champions at the US Open had these new elimination changes been in place.
Considering that Jpearman, one of the best people in regards to vex electronic knowledge, says
I don’t see why teams’ seasons will be risked in order to
when there are clear issues with either the field control or vexnet that not even vex understands.
**Therefore I plead with VEX and the RECF, and whoever else has any part in these decisions, to revert the Best of One changes at least until the field control issues are understood and fixes can be made. If this causes a logistical challenge with respect to the number of matches then I suggest the use of the 12 alliances of two system found on game manual page 24.
**
*I talked to the Field tech at the US Open who explained parts of the setup there at the event. One of the things he explained was “attractor keys” at some of the fields. These were vexnet keys that had custom firmware that were designed to attract joysticks onto certain channels in order to maintain a minimum of 3 channels between competition fields in the interest of decreasing interference.
Pretty much the only situation I can simulate and test for is a single match being run by the field control system. It’s obviously limited, I cannot simulate 500, or even 50, robots all running simultaneously. So with this rather simple setup I can test for unusual events, cables being removed, unusual host computer activity, things of that nature.
It’s not a question of convincing me, I’ve reviewed the videos and can see what has apparently happened. I’m just saying that what I’m witnessing doesn’t correlate with what I’ve experienced first hand in the past at regional events in socal and at worlds over the past 8 years.
Sending you a PM…
Technically the new system could be called best of two matches.
Then every competition would always be way ahead of schedule!
I would love to know what frequencies the wireless microphones are on at these events. You can see them right next to the drive stations in all cases. There are plenty of 2.4GHz mics, I hope someone is making sure these aren’t those. I work with these a lot in churches because they are generally less expensive than those on other frequency bands nowadays.
On the new elimination rounds system, which they seem to be sure to do, I just hope they give matches replays if they have these issues. As they have stated, they are 99.5% working (hmmmm), so very few replays shouldn’t take any time at all.
Thanks all, again, for your comments and discussion. Like in my posts above, I can’t reply to every individual comment or question, but hopefully the following points will bring closure to some of the concerns.
1 - We are going to move the World Championship Finals matches, the ones held in Freedom Hall between Division Champions (MS and U) or Round Robin winners (HS), back to “best of 3”.
When the change to the elimination structure was drafted and prepared, we knew that it was going to result in heated debate and discussion. We knew that there would be a large number of people who were not pleased with it. I would like to thank this thread, as well as those who have reached out to us privately, for keeping the discussion mostly civil and productive. Many thoughtful and extremely valid viewpoints were shared, and it became extremely clear that going all-in on this particular change for Worlds was a bit too drastic for many people.
Ultimately, it is very important to me and everyone here that we listen, respond, and react accordingly to the desires of our impassioned users, when it is appropriate. “Customer Driven” is one of the VEX Robotics company values. Now, this does not mean that we will put everything out for a vote, or that a 200-post forum thread will always change our minds. But, it does mean that we will take your concerns seriously and explore alternatives when feasible. I want to make sure that this is never “VEX vs the forum” - I want to work alongside you to develop the best program possible.
So, with that in mind, I look forward to seeing these best-of-the-best teams get the full opportunity to show us what they’re made of in 2 (or 3) matches.
2 - Division eliminations will remain as stated in the April 5th update (16 alliances, “best of 1”).
Now, with that all said, and after reviewing the feedback from all sides, the plan for next season is still to move to “best of 1” across all events. As such, it is still important to us that the divisions at Worlds (which are essentially complete “events” by themselves) still play out as a normal 16-alliance, best-of-1 tournament will. Every single person I have talked to about this, in person or online, has started their statement with “listen, I love 2-team alliances, but…”. For Worlds 2018, this method is how we are going to pull off 2-team alliances.
Personally, I (and some other GDC members) do think many of the counter-ideas proposed in this thread have merit, and they’ll probably be on the table for future consideration. 12 alliances and the top 4 get a bye, or best of 1 for some matches and best of 3 for others, or some other mix. I’d love to come visit one of the unofficial events which utilize these methods next season to get a feel for it (PM or email me if you run one). But for Worlds 2018, to keep consistent with next season and maintain a playoff experience for 32 teams, we are going all-in for the division playoffs.
3 - Field technical staff at VEX Worlds will be extremely diligent and responsive to any connection issues. Replays will be granted as necessary.
I will share more details regarding what this means, specifically, during the Driver’s Meeting on-site in Louisville. It does not mean that every single match where a robot disconnects from their Joystick will result in a replay. But it means that as soon as a robot does disconnect, field staff will be right next to you, checking your LED lights and attempting a root cause analysis.
In some cases this may mean taking your robot to the side and replicating the root cause. In some it may mean “next match, let’s try a different VEXnet Key that isn’t bent”. In some, it will mean a replay, especially if it’s an elimination match. Please trust that VEX engineering is taking these concerns seriously. No one wants your VEX experience to be ruined by a faulty field connection, and a replay will be granted when it is the best viable solution.
I’d just like to personally thank you for taking our opinions into consideration, and for maintaining the healthy discussion that lead to a decent compromise. I understand that you can never please everyone, but we can all clearly see that you guys are trying your best to make things work with as many people as possible. It’s gladdening to see a company that truly cares about their customers and their competitive experience, as well as the educational standards and overall environment that your product creates. For that, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
To those that will inevitably think “this isn’t enough,” try to take a step back and consider the GDC’s point of view here. By adhering to any changes whatsoever, they are not only risking their company-customer relationship (because customers may now think they have enough power to reverse VEX’s decisions), but they’re showing that they’re willing to work with us as a community. In my eyes, this is a win for everyone, so let it stay as such.
I’m looking forward to a smoothly-run Worlds, and a great 2018 - 2019 season!
Sounds great, @Grant Cox
Thank you so much for your transparency with us. This is what makes the community great!
+1
@Grant Cox thank you to you and all those involved in the tough decision making process to make the alterations to the finals. That seems like a very good faith effort to respond to the concerns while still maintaining the goals for testing the new system.
It is also great to hear the efforts that will be made to make sure re-matches will happen when it is appropriate. Your personal feedback has been so valuable in creating trust with us, your customers.
To whomever wanted a losers alliance, look at Badminton at olympics. I remember some teams threw to get into losers bracket!
That situation had absolutely nothing to do with a double elimination bracket, they didn’t even use one! There’s also no way that a double elimination bracket could promote losing on purpose.
The situation you’re talking about was a standard pool play → single elimination scenario where one of the top teams finished #2 in their pool, rather than the expected #1. This then meant that the team that qualified #1 in the opposite pool would end up playing that top team, whereas the team that qualified #2 would get an “easier” match.
In reality, a double elimination bracket would have made this issue less severe since a loss in the eliminations doesn’t mean as much as in a single elimination bracket.