Thank you to everyone for your feedback on the decision to replace the VRC HS Round Robin with a standard quarterfinals / semifinals / finals format. I do not want to rehash all the points already made in the thread, but the reason that the Round Robin existed previously was because it is not possible to play a bracket fairly with 6 HS and 2 MS divisions. This problem doesn’t exist with the additional 4 divisions (8 HS and 4 MS). Additionally, there is not enough time to do Round Robin with these extra divisions. So the decision to replace Round Robin was made when we announced the new divisions.
The reason we scheduled running MS Semi finals and HS Quarter and Semi finals in the Divisions is due to time constraints. Please remember that all Division Finals are now Bo3. This includes matches where the “winners” of two divisions play each other, such as in this Divisional Winner Playoff system. In order to accomodate this competition in Freedom Hall, we would be adding 24 matches (as well as replaying ties, and allowing timeouts). As the agenda is currently written, these matches occur concurrently in the Divisions which significantly reduces the overall time needed to complete our playoffs. It is worth noting that the REC Foundation focused on improving the quality of the division experience over the past couple of years, and we improved Audio, Video, and Lighting in each division area.
Despite the improved experience, I do understand the strong desire for all Divisional Winners to play in Freedom Hall. It is possible for us to accommodate this if we go with a Bo1 for all Quarter and Semi Finals matches.
I am interested in your feedback, our options are:
Keep Bo3 for the Divisional and overall Quarter and Semi Finals matches (played as scheduled in the divisions)
All Divisional Winners play in Freedom Hall but Quarter and Semi Finals matches are Bo1
Please note that we are not considering other alternatives such as a Losers bracket.
Looking at the pros and cons, although I would like to say “BO3” for all teams, I believe the teams will feel much happier if they win the division and immediately make freedom hall. Most teams at worlds do not care about winning worlds, but rather want to be seen by everyone and be the center of attention, having their team name recognized by the world itself. World recognition is the reward that teams want, which is a primary motivation to win the division. And, although I hate to say it, I believe that, by worlds, teams would rather enjoy the couple of matches of BO1 on the stage for the world to see than not be on the stage at all, as 6/8 division champion alliances don’t get the opportunity to be on stage with the first option of BO3.
I think BO3 would be more fair because it ensures only the best teams are going to finals. Some teams don’t stay for freedom hall and holding it in divisions could reinforce the idea that teams should stay to appreciate the hard work of those who win divisions. It also allows teams to pick and choose which ones they’d like to watch, and since there’s more than just 1 round you could hypothetically watch more than 1 quarterfinals or semifinals.
I want to play a hypothetical scenario between both options.
If we do the first one with BO3, and I were to win my division but lose Quarterfinals, I would feel like I have missed such an awesome opportunity to be on freedom hall, and because of the changes at worlds, I would feel as if I were betrayed because of the change although it is not intentionally meant to be that way…
Now let’s run the second scenario with BO1. If I win my division, I’d immediately make it to freedom hall, but because of BO1 I don’t get a second chance. I would likely be more content, although not having a second chance, because I can
Identify to the public that I made Round Robin
Got public recognition that my team is elite within VEX due to the sheer amount of people being able to see me as I am part of the narrow amount of teams who went this far in VEX.
I get to tell everyone how awesome DRow is and how he should be in the GDC
Doing Bo1 makes it much more enjoyable for the spectators, and much more fun for the division champions who don’t make it to finals. Bo3 is significantly more fair to the best two alliances though. However, doing Bo1 doesn’t mean that the best alliance won’t win, and it is a better option for all the other div champs and the spectators as well, so I’m going to support Bo1 in dome.
Is arguing for Bo3 in the Finals of each division at Worlds an option? If there is at least a Bo3 in the finals of each division, I’m fine with Bo1 across the Final Bracket to get under the Dome, since they already get a giant trophy for winning the division. Preferably I’d want more Bo3, but I’d much rather have that than getting robbed of being in the arena, with thousands of people cheering you on.
I feel like double elimination would be a good choice, it’s what lots of other robotics and esports tornaments do, for instance many beetle weight competitions and the Overwatch League, this would take as much time as last year’s round robin (for highschool) and would be more exiting that bo1 or bo3 for spectators, this is because it is always a new two teams fighting but noone will get out from a one time fluke, which discourages watching the game. I am aware this will probably not be considered because they need to cut out time from last year because of more middle school teams but I feel like it is the best option in terms of time, competitior satisfaction, and spectator satisfaction
The plan as scheduled: Keep Bo3 for the Divisional and overall Quarter and Semi Finals matches, played in divisions. BO3 Finals played in Freedom Hall.
Revised plan: BO3 Divisional Finals played in divisions. BO1 Overal Quarter and Semi Finals and BO3 Finals played in Freedom Hall.
By doing 3 fields and one match, the next match is prepared immediately. So by running all 3 matches will extend the time.
My question is, although I agree with the option if BO1 for RR with BO3 in the finals (basically do the same thing the year before) with all previous circumstances being the same, but why not change the times of things before RR? Why can’t all volunteers be involved for inspection to speed up the inspection time (the line is superrr long and it takes forever) to save 30-45 more minutes, shifting the schedule to allocate RR with BO3 for all its div champions? Or figure out how to snip 3-5 minutes off other extra things to prioritize competition just slightly more?
It is highly probable that the best two divisions will face off in either the quarterfinals or semifinals. It would be a shame to only see one match with the best two alliances playing against one another.
One factor to keep in mind is these divisions have not had the chance to scout one another. It will be extremely difficult to adapt their strategy to an unknown opponent and will likely result in more vanilla gameplay. One of the beautiful things about bo3 is seeing the strategy of each alliance evolve and respond to the other.
You don’t know that it wasn’t considered. I imagine it was considered but eliminated for various reasons.
How about instead everyone focuses on how nice it is that Dan is here responding to your feedback and letting you have a say in what ultimately gets decided?
Just using the same words that Dan was using, I’m sure they did talk about it, just curious what their conclusion was. (And yes thank you Mr. Mantz for asking about our opinions on this)
Many of us, although we may trust an organization, just likes evidence for verification for reasoning behind restricted options. Similar to how we want to understand reasoning behind many government actions/decisions, I like to hear organizations giving reasoning for their decisions as we are paying for their corporation to provide to us.
If things like this were easy to do, I’m confident the RECF would have already implemented them. While Worlds isn’t the epitome of efficiency, it’s still a tight schedule and I respect the organizers and volunteers for being able to largely stick to it and deliver a good experience to everyone.
I think some transparency as to why options such as double-elimination (aka loser’s bracket) were ruled out would go a long way toward the community understanding why this is necessary.
As for my personal opinion, while I would support a double-elimination solution, given the choice between the two options presented I would choose Bo1 in the dome, and here’s why:
It guarantees every division champion an opportunity to play in the dome, as the previous years did
Given that there’s no way to relatively rank division champions, the likelihood that the best and second-best alliance meet in the grand finals is only 4/7 (57%). This format guarantees that that match, at whichever level it is played, will happen in the dome and get all the glory that it deserves; it also means that the second-best division champion, like all division champions, will get to play in the dome.
While it comes at the cost of less of a guarantee that the champion is the alliance that best deserves it (due to the nature of Bo1), I think the benefits of this option outweigh that cost. As part of this, I’d also like to point out that in the recent couple years, worlds has been willing to replay elimination matches that were decided by a VEXnet disconnect (RR1 in ITZ was agreed to be replayed if it turned out that its result affected who made it to finals). In addition, while the title of “world champion” is great, I think most teams at worlds care more about the competition experience than the material trophy.
I can 100% see the arguments for the other side, and feel free to challenge me on anything here that you disagree with.
BO1 in dome would be better, even if something unfortunate happens because of BO1, it would have been worthwhile, having gotten to experience being in dome. Otherwise, many teams which may not make it to finals would never get to experience it