[FVC]: Longer competitions [Archive]

gblake

22-04-2007, 11:42

I think that a 2 day event would scare people away from competition. This is because they now need to deal with travel. One day is ok for there and back from competitions, even if its a few hours away. Though if you have it a 2 day event, you are talking about a lot of teams paying for travel expenses, to which Vex was made to be a cost effective way to introduce FIRST to new people. Having them pay for travel will scare them into coming and spending more money.There were no FVC regional Championships any closer than 3-4 hours away from my team, (and I live in the densely-popluated southern end of the Boston-to-DC metropolitan corridor. This end of that corridor contains many FVC teams).

I bring this up, not to complain; but as evidence that there are probably many, many teams that put overnight travel into their plans from the time they first decide to become an official FIRST team. Without staying overnight in a hotel before the competition, we all would have been sleep-deprived at the start of the event and zombies by the end. I know other folks get up at 4:00 AM every day, but I'm not one of them... :)

Blake

gblake

22-04-2007, 11:45

These are great points that you are all bringing up, please keep adding to this thread.

The off-season FRC event BattleCry offers teams who WANT to come on Friday afternoon an opportunity to start qualification rounds and join in the social activities that evening. The next day qualification rounds continue with all the teams present. So it's not a requirement that you be there on Friday. I'm not sure if the model would work for FVC nor even if FIRST would allow it, but it's intrigued me since the fall when we were planning ConnVex to see if we could make it happen. It might also allow judges to begin some interviews of teams on Friday afternoon so that time crunch would be lessened.I recommend a half-day of additional qualifying Friday, a Friday evening social activity, and a Saturday schedule that is similar to how I think most events were run this year.

EricRobodox

22-04-2007, 13:34

Why not have Friday as practice matches and the social. Next day start off early with qualifying and end it similar to how it is now. That way for teams who cant travel the distance and spend the night, though some areas its not an issue, they can at least show up for the qualification matches. It wont be completely fair, but I feel it would be a good alternative to make sure rankings are fair and the lowest budgeted teams have an equal chance to compete though they don't have the money to travel.

fredliu168

22-04-2007, 16:38

Another option would be to schedule MORE VEX tournaments in MORE locations, so that no one tournament would have too many teams. That would also lessen travel costs for teams, because more locations means a better chance of having one near you.

I can see FVC expanding greatly in the next few years. Probably never as big as FLL, but maybe halfway between FRC and FLL. We will have to have hundreds of VEX tournaments to handle the number of teams. That's either a very scary or a very inspiring thought!

That would mean FVC would have to increase the number of tournaments teams are allowed to win awards in. Also, it would probably mean more divisions in the championships, like the FRC 4 divisions.

I actually love that idea.

ManicMechanic

22-04-2007, 18:45

For those of us who are hooked on FIRST, a 2-day event is very appealing. However, for rookies, I believe that a longer tournament would be a deterrent to participating because of the cost and time involved with a 2-day event. It is my hope that FIRST would keep its Championship events one day (except Atlanta) for the benefit of newcomers, at least until the program expands to the point of having regional qualifiers

When we told our school that we had qualified to go to the World Championship in Atlanta, they asked, "You're not planning on missing any school, are you, because we can't make that an excused absence." We assured them that it would be during spring break. I think they had no concept of what an honor this was, because the idea of a robotics team is still foreign to them (even though we've been affiliated with the the school all year). I can see other teams having problems getting time off from school if this is a Friday/Saturday event (and some, including myself, prefer to avoid competitive events on Sundays if possible). Having a hotel cost for Friday night is also a deterrent to some teams.

For bonding purposes, I highly recommend having one or more informal one-day scrimmage events prior to the tournament in your region. We went to 2 scrimmages and felt like we got to know 3 teams well enough that we are planning to get together in May and during the summer. We did a lot more bonding at scrimmages than at tournaments, because there was less pressure.

Because of the potential volume of teams, I think it's likely that eventually, FVC will more closely follow the model of FLL, where nearly all the teams attend regional qualifiers, about 1/3 advance to the Championship (formerly State) event, and only 1-2 % of those advance to the World Championship (Nationals) in Atlanta, rather the FRC model where most teams attend a regional event, and about 1/3 of those advance directly to Atlanta. If this is the case, a 2-day (State) Championship would be more palatable, because all the rookie teams could attend a lower-cost regional qualifier, getting the spirit of the competition, while advancing would require a higher level of commitment.

Rich Kressly

23-04-2007, 01:56

GaryVoshol

23-04-2007, 09:24

rswsmay

25-04-2007, 10:00

If the direction that FVC has taken holds true (FLL based) then I do not see multiple day tournaments as being a viable option to address the issues raised. I attended 3 FVC State tournaments this year and while they each had their own style and flavor, the common issue I saw was “allotment of time”. Each tournament had between 29 and 33 teams that participated. They each had 2 fields and ran between 4-6 qualifying matches. For the Georgia tournament that held 6 matches it made for a very long day for teams, volunteers and the hosting venue….. almost 12 hours. This was in addition to other observations and/or problems that I believe can easily be addressed. My opinion is that 4 qualifying matches is a disservice to teams that may have spent significant hours designing, building, practicing and otherwise preparing for a competition like FVC. In Georgia, our current plan is to have tournaments with at least 6 qualifying matches. This may change if the format changes, but for now that is the plan. A bare minimum would be 5 matches but that would be in the rare case where we have too many teams to run more matches, and not enough teams to organize 2 separate tournaments.
With that said, here is my take on this.

Keep qualifying and non-qualifying tournaments to one day. It may be a long day depending on the number of teams, but the one-day formula can work. This may mean that you limit the number of teams to that which can reasonably compete in a single day event.
State tournaments can go to 2 days (or 1-1/2 days) especially if the team count goes above 35 and there are 6+ matches per team.
Although this adds cost and creates the problem of integrating the data from 2 separate scoring tables, we should find a way to run 3-4 fields during a tournament. It would be a plus if this can be done from one scoring system rather than two. This can alleviate the problem felt this year not only by the championship event but also at all FVC tournaments.
At all 3 events that I attended, tournaments each had different flavors of FIRST. Meaning that if someone walked in off the street and saw what was going on, they may not know that it had any thing to do with FIRST. Part of this is probably due to the tight schedule, part due to rookie teams, and part due to the organization of the affiliate partner. People should walk away from the event knowing more than they did when they came in about FIRST and its goals.
This is not an FVC issue directly, but scrimmages should be run in the various regions where tournaments will be held. Not only is that an invaluable tool for what will now be veteran teams, but also rookies who have no idea what FIRST is all about can be introduced to the concept of Gracious professionalism prior to arriving at a hectic tournament.
The championship event…… well goes beyond saying that more qualifying matches are needed. With the program growth in the number of teams from around 150 to 550, a plan needs to be in place to accommodate the number of teams participating while running more than 4 qualifying matches. I believe that for now, 100 FVC teams at the championship is a good number but we need to accommodate them better. Item number 3 above is the obvious first pass solution to this on the competition side. I welcome other suggestions to address this problem.

Just another observation…. I personally do not believe that the FVC program will fit perfectly into the FLL mold for tournament organization. From what can see there could be rapid growth to rival FLL along with the competitive format that FRC enjoys. I think a hybrid format maybe better suited for the program. For instance, this may mean that we keep the local 1-2-3 tier tournament structure at the local level, But at the championship event, there are organized divisions that feed the elimination matches. I am also not entirely fond of teams that did not even make it to the elimination matches in their state tournaments, getting to the championship through a lottery. I would much rather see the runner up alliances from each tournament put into a lottery and given the opportunity to go to the championship. I gotta say that I saw some very good 2nd place alliance teams that would have easily gotten to the quarter or semi-finals in the championship. It’s just too bad that they were left behind because they were not lucky enough.

KathieK

25-04-2007, 10:21

The comments you've all given have my head spinning as to how to improve ConnVex for next year. :) I think it would be difficult to find a venue that is inexpensive that has the space required to run multiple fields, but that is a solution for giving teams opportunties for more matches.

Does anyone have ideas about how to make the judging schedule less hectic/stressful?

Would teams be interested in attending Team Socials (if on Friday night or after the event on Saturday)?

I will try and share these ideas with the other Affiliate Partners.

Billfred

25-04-2007, 11:01

Does anyone have ideas about how to make the judging schedule less hectic/stressful?

I haven't judged since the Orangeburg pilot last year, but I actually think the two-day format would be helpful here. I personally felt like I didn't get enough chance to get a feel for what designs were working on the field (important for the Create award of that year, roughly equivalent to the Innovate award now), or to catch any in-the-trenches events (which might have Amaze award implications). It's unfortunate that the judges can't be everywhere at the same time, but it's just the nature of the one-day format.

The Create award was especially hard to judge that year, as we all had seen different robots in the rooms (and there were some great Half-Pipe Hustle robots in that group, none of whom we'd seen on the field). We solved that by sending me out with my digital camera to get shots of the shortlist teams--I'd highly recommend some means of doing this at an event (perhaps during inspection). In the absence of some visual flair (see also: Simbotics, Vexy Things, Checkmate), they all start to run together after a while!

This would be a little more radical, but what about having teams submit a short version of the key information before the competition for the judges to read? Give teams two pages, send the PDF to FIRST, and make sure the judges receive this far enough ahead to get an initial feel for the teams.

gblake

25-04-2007, 13:33

Although this adds cost and creates the problem of integrating the data from 2 separate scoring tables, we should find a way to run 3-4 fields during a tournament. It would be a plus if this can be done from one scoring system rather than two. This can alleviate the problem felt this year not only by the championship event but also at all FVC tournaments.
You are the second person in as many days to express a wish list for the "scoring" software. Writing some new scoring software is not trivial (not a one-night job); but it is not hard either.

Using Java's Swing GUI I can take requirements from users (like you or Kathie K, or Skimoose, or...) cook something up this summer, run it through a few iterations of feedback and-field testing, and have it available by Sept. I am sure other folks can too.

At the end the source code would available for further refinement or customization by any local league or by a fresh set of eyes who could improve it for next season...

It could use two computers on a network if "integrating data from two fields" is needed.
It can use one computer into which someone types data from more than one field (sort of like putting the info into a single spreadhseet like this one(http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=467&catid=11)).
It can be connected to a computer kiosk equipped with a mouse and printer that teams use to print the match schedules, match results, lists of any team's opponents and allies, thumbnails of all the event participants, ....
It can be designed to drive one output screen, two, three or whatever with different windows on each.
It can do whatever our imaginations and time permit.

If an adequately large handful of the FVC movers and shakers want to create a list of requirements (features desired, inputs, output and output formats, and deployment configurations); then I am willing to write the code or share writing code that I would integrate.

There are two caveats

I would not want to invest the time necessary to do this, see it get used in a couple of scrimmages; and then see it fall by the wayside because it has no path to becoming "official". I think "we" would want FIRST, or at least a decent fraction of the FVC APs, to say that they are willing to pick up a good result and adopt it for sanctioned events. For me, at least, doing this will be an exciting, rewarding and satisfying project; but only if it gets used for more than just my local Potomac Vex League scrimmages....

If this proposed Java code had to send on/off signals to the current field controller, I would want someone else to supply a field controller software API that could be invoked by the Java code. My desire would be to separate scoring (all entered manually) and tracking match info from the simple but different job of controlling the field.
Who thinks this would be a fun off-season project that would be a great gift to the community? If I get enough positive feedback we can spin off a new thread and get down to business.....

Blake
PS: If whomever wrote the current code (I think someone at Wildstang might be the author(s)) is seeing this, maybe they feel the same way, and would enjoy converting it into a collection of open source Java that can be continually improved through contributions from the community?

gblake

25-04-2007, 13:36

The comments you've all given have my head spinning as to how to improve ConnVex for next year. :) I think it would be difficult to find a venue that is inexpensive that has the space required to run multiple fields, but that is a solution for giving teams opportunties for more matches.I'm puzzled - Aren't school (K-12, community colleges, university campuses and their satellite campuses) gymnasiums inexpensive and plenty big enough?

Maybe I think they are cheap because local schools have been willing to donate custodial services...?

Blake

gblake

25-04-2007, 13:57

Just another observation…. I personally do not believe that the FVC program will fit perfectly into the FLL mold for tournament organization. From what can see there could be rapid growth to rival FLL along with the competitive format that FRC enjoys. I think a hybrid format maybe better suited for the program. For instance, this may mean that we keep the local 1-2-3 tier tournament structure at the local level, But at the championship event, there are organized divisions that feed the elimination matches. I am also not entirely fond of teams that did not even make it to the elimination matches in their state tournaments, getting to the championship through a lottery. I would much rather see the runner up alliances from each tournament put into a lottery and given the opportunity to go to the championship. I gotta say that I saw some very good 2nd place alliance teams that would have easily gotten to the quarter or semi-finals in the championship. It’s just too bad that they were left behind because they were not lucky enough.This comment by me has little to do with rwsmay's specific quote above; but is a more general one to folks discussing FVC.

Saying FVC is/isn't, should/shouldn't, can/can't follow an "FLL model" appears to be a convenient shorthand for many folks; but as someone not familiar with FLL, I don't see much value in the comparision.

Saying things should work like FLL, but not exactly like it, carries a ton of baggage that sows confusion when the differences aren't all explicitly described as part of the statement's context.

Also, things like needing a multi-tiered tournament structure once the number of teams rises much beyond the current FRC numbers is hardly something the phrase "like FLL" expresses uniquely or clearly. Instead the need is just common sense; and, at least in my mind, it as much like US professional and amatuer football, baseball, swimming, soccer, beauty pagents and all other big competitions; as it is like FLL.

So, am I saying the work that has gone into making FLL a success should be thrown out and ignored? No! Please don't take that away from this suggestion.

Am I saying that a growing organization needs to avoid falling into a habit of speaking in shorthand that everyone thinks means the same thing to all people in the organization - but probably doesn't....? Yes.

Am I saying that a growing organization needs to use ordinary terminology to discuss ordinary concepts (so that all readers who are considering joining or contributing don't have to climb the learning curve of learning to decode cryptic references to other programs). Yes.

The bottom-line hint here is that folks involved with FVC who are also familiar with FLL will find a broader and more receptive audience for their suggestions, and be more clear about what they mean, if they are able to expresss those suggestions without using the "like FLL" phrase.

Blake

KathieK

25-04-2007, 15:22

I'm puzzled - Aren't school (K-12, community colleges, university campuses and their satellite campuses) gymnasiums inexpensive and plenty big enough?

Maybe I think they are cheap because local schools have been willing to donate custodial services...?

BlakeCustodians and other employees that may be "required" for an event can add dramatically to the cost factor. Electricians, building managers, safety personnel, etc. come to mind. Maybe a high school gym is large enough, I haven't laid it out to see.

artdutra04

25-04-2007, 15:42

Even though many have stated that they would be against a two-day FVC competition, I still stand behind the idea*. To understand truly how the competition would work, you need to understand the FRC BattleCry@WPI off-season competition.

On Friday, matches start after normal school hours. The pits officially open at 4pm, and there are usually 2-3 hours of first practice rounds, and then qualification rounds. This way, teams do not have to miss school on Friday if they want to attend the competition. (Our FRC team goes to school on Friday as normal, and immediately the school day is over our team meets, packs up the robot and tools, and we drive off for the competition.) Teams are not required to attend Friday, and their rankings will not suffer negatively in any way from not attending on Friday. Basically, Friday (competition-wise) is just a bonus day.

Usually on Friday at BattleCry@WPI, they usually have a whole assortment of activities ranging from a BBQ, to ice cream socials, to movies, to bowling, to CRUD, to games based off of FIRST trivia. For teams who do attend on Friday, the atmosphere on that day is more of a "let's have fun!" attitude. And the amount of fun activities they plan is unrivaled at many other competitions, including some FRC Regionals!

For Friday night, there are hotels right near the WPI campus, as well as dorm rooms offered for cheap rates to teams attending the competition. (The competition is held in mid/late June, so their school year is over.) But if your team is less than 2 hours away and doesn't want to pay for hotels/rooms, then driving home for Friday night from the competition isn't out of the question.

On Saturday, the competition is played out as a normal competition would.

*But realistically, this idea of a multiple-day competition for FVC would not work everywhere in the country. The areas where is would be most successful are in areas with a high "density" of FVC teams, where teams could still reasonably commute for Friday's activities after school, as well as Saturday's, without needing a hotel room. Thus, costs would stay cheap and the program would still stay accessible, but now with the added "bonus day" of Friday. :D

New England is one such area where I can see a competition like this working, as we have a large number of FIRST (FRC, FVC, and FLL) teams all in a very small area, so for teams looking to save money by commuting this idea would be feasible. (FRC-team wise, there are over a dozen within 20-30 minutes of my house, including three in towns adjacent to mine.) :yikes:

But in other areas of the country where the mileage between FVC teams can number quite high, then a multiple-day competition might not be as feasible.
I'm puzzled - Aren't school (K-12, community colleges, university campuses and their satellite campuses) gymnasiums inexpensive and plenty big enough?

Maybe I think they are cheap because local schools have been willing to donate custodial services...?

BlakeConnVex was held on a university campus, but there are a lot more issues (including capital to fund the event) that go into planning a FVC competition than just picking a gymnasium. With many of the things we needed to address, a university campus was identified as being better suited to host a competition than a high school.

gblake

25-04-2007, 18:20

Custodians and other employees that may be "required" for an event can add dramatically to the cost factor. Electricians, building managers, safety personnel, etc. come to mind. Maybe a high school gym is large enough, I haven't laid it out to see.In some places I suppose unions and what-not do create some red tape and expenses.

Here in Virginia, I know one middle school just paid for custodial and any similar services as a way to repay Lockheed Martin and other sponsors for many years of stong support of the school. This was for a PVL scrimmage.

Back in January a local high school did something very similar for a PVL scrimmage. If the custodial services came out of our scrimmage fees, then the services were pretty cheap (fees were $20 and less per robot for about 14 robots). I suspect that the school paid for the services out of the school's budget.

Both of the above used ordinary gymnasiums that had tons of room for a second field, if we had cared to set one up. I don't think that either was required to keep electricians, or fire & resucue services, or... on hand.

Back in December, the Virginia FVC Championship put 29? teams into a large middle school without anyone feeling crowded, and put two fields in the school gym. Contact Virginia's AP, Darlene Panteleo for more info about the expenses and floor plan.

So, I guess regional differences account for part of the expenses and I guess that anyone who hasn't yet; should maybe investigate using a high school, middle school or elementary school for their next FVC event. Find one that has benefited from the community service support of one of your event sponsors and see if you can't get some of the expenses waived.....

Blake

rswsmay

25-04-2007, 22:38

Blake,

I am not sure I fully follow exactly what you are trying to say here. For that matter I am not sure if you followed what I was trying to say. My comments are certainly not meant to be cryptic. To lay some background here, probably you and other individuals were unaware that after the pilot season of FVC, FIRST made a decision to have the FVC competitions follow in many regards the FLL tournament structure. I am not familiar with the full workings of FLL either since I came from FRC and now doing FVC also. However, knowing this, I have taken it upon myself to learn more about the FLL program in order to be better informed about what I believe is transferable and what isn’t. A discussion on the organization of FLL tournaments is more than we should get into here. There may be just as many people who have no idea about the organization of FRC if their prior experience has been FLL and FVC. Although I doubt this since Chiefdelphi is definitely centered around FRC, but you never know. For the most part I believe that most people that are reading through this thread has some knowledge about all three programs. If there is something specific that can elaborated on just let us know. Either those more knowledgeable or I can jump in and provide background info.

I have to point out though that I never said there was a need for a “multi-tiered tournament structure once the number of teams rises much beyond the current FRC numbers”. I also didn’t say that “things should work like FLL, but not exactly like it”. Hopefully knowing a bit more about the background of FVC as well as FLL will help you understand the comment. FLL has somewhere around 8000 teams compared to around 1500 FRC teams. If my memory is correct, over the past 3 years FLL has also added close to 500 teams per year. That growth potential definitely exists with FVC. Maybe not to the exact same numbers, but there would definitely be growing pains with those kinds of numbers. To organize, support and run the number of tournaments needed to accommodate that many teams would be a monumental task for FIRST. Now enters the affiliate partners. For the FVC program these partners undertake the organization of local and State tournaments, which may include volunteer recruitment, securing a venue as well and potentially seeking sponsors. Again with numbers like these, its not practical to have the top alliance from every tournament go to the championship. Therefore local tournaments determine which teams go to State tournaments, and the State tournaments determine who goes to the championship. It is entirely possible that if the growth continues there may even be another tier whereby the State tournament qualifies you for some type of Regional tournament. I’m just throwing the regional tournament comment out there because although its not a reality for FVC, it could very well come to that.

So what I am saying is that as much as you would like to have the learning curve shortened by using ordinary terminology, the fact is that this is pretty much ordinary terminology for the majority of posters here. I know I have read many of your posts regarding programming and the use of sensors and most of that ends up going over my head since my background is Mech. Engineering. Nonetheless, I would expect that the majority of posters that read through your posts find them informative, useful and totally appropriate including me at times.

Your point is well taken though… so when appropriate I will refrain from using references to FLL without laying some background.

But I can’t guarantee I’ll always be on my best behavior.

This comment by me has little to do with rwsmay's specific quote above; but is a more general one to folks discussing FVC.

Saying FVC is/isn't, should/shouldn't, can/can't follow an "FLL model" appears to be a convenient shorthand for many folks; but as someone not familiar with FLL, I don't see much value in the comparision.

Saying things should work like FLL, but not exactly like it, carries a ton of baggage that sows confusion when the differences aren't all explicitly described as part of the statement's context.

Also, things like needing a multi-tiered tournament structure once the number of teams rises much beyond the current FRC numbers is hardly something the phrase "like FLL" expresses uniquely or clearly. Instead the need is just common sense; and, at least in my mind, it as much like US professional and amatuer football, baseball, swimming, soccer, beauty pagents and all other big competitions; as it is like FLL.

So, am I saying the work that has gone into making FLL a success should be thrown out and ignored? No! Please don't take that away from this suggestion.

Am I saying that a growing organization needs to avoid falling into a habit of speaking in shorthand that everyone thinks means the same thing to all people in the organization - but probably doesn't....? Yes.

Am I saying that a growing organization needs to use ordinary terminology to discuss ordinary concepts (so that all readers who are considering joining or contributing don't have to climb the learning curve of learning to decode cryptic references to other programs). Yes.

The bottom-line hint here is that folks involved with FVC who are also familiar with FLL will find a broader and more receptive audience for their suggestions, and be more clear about what they mean, if they are able to expresss those suggestions without using the "like FLL" phrase.

Blake

rswsmay

25-04-2007, 22:59

Blake,

The folks here in Georgia have also thought about modifying the scoring software to suit our needs strictly for off season activities. We have been too busy until recently to contact Wildstang and/or Motorola about getting access to the source code to do that.

Also with new games out each year, FIRST usually has new scoring software written that is game specific. I am not sure what to tell you about undertaking something like that. Come September, that reworked code may not be very useful for the newly announced game. There is also the remote possibility that a new game in the future may utilize 3 teams per alliance (hint hint). The current field controls can accomodate up to 6 teams per field.

You are the second person in as many days to express a wish list for the "scoring" software. Writing some new scoring software is not trivial (not a one-night job); but it is not hard either.

Using Java's Swing GUI I can take requirements from users (like you or Kathie K, or Skimoose, or...) cook something up this summer, run it through a few iterations of feedback and-field testing, and have it available by Sept. I am sure other folks can too.

At the end the source code would available for further refinement or customization by any local league or by a fresh set of eyes who could improve it for next season...

It could use two computers on a network if "integrating data from two fields" is needed.
It can use one computer into which someone types data from more than one field (sort of like putting the info into a single spreadhseet like this one(http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=467&catid=11)).
It can be connected to a computer kiosk equipped with a mouse and printer that teams use to print the match schedules, match results, lists of any team's opponents and allies, thumbnails of all the event participants, ....
It can be designed to drive one output screen, two, three or whatever with different windows on each.
It can do whatever our imaginations and time permit.

If an adequately large handful of the FVC movers and shakers want to create a list of requirements (features desired, inputs, output and output formats, and deployment configurations); then I am willing to write the code or share writing code that I would integrate.

There are two caveats

I would not want to invest the time necessary to do this, see it get used in a couple of scrimmages; and then see it fall by the wayside because it has no path to becoming "official". I think "we" would want FIRST, or at least a decent fraction of the FVC APs, to say that they are willing to pick up a good result and adopt it for sanctioned events. For me, at least, doing this will be an exciting, rewarding and satisfying project; but only if it gets used for more than just my local Potomac Vex League scrimmages....

If this proposed Java code had to send on/off signals to the current field controller, I would want someone else to supply a field controller software API that could be invoked by the Java code. My desire would be to separate scoring (all entered manually) and tracking match info from the simple but different job of controlling the field.
Who thinks this would be a fun off-season project that would be a great gift to the community? If I get enough positive feedback we can spin off a new thread and get down to business.....

Blake
PS: If whomever wrote the current code (I think someone at Wildstang might be the author(s)) is seeing this, maybe they feel the same way, and would enjoy converting it into a collection of open source Java that can be continually improved through contributions from the community?

MGoelz

25-04-2007, 23:32

It seems to me that FVC teams had a rough Championship; I couldn't imagine only four matches. I think that even if everyone opts out of lengthening the other competitions, the Championship should still be a little longer.
Especially with VEX being in only its 2nd official year, teams need more time to gain more experience. I participated in VEX during the pilot season and we went to St. Louis. I think, at the time, that was one of the nearest competitions. I think we just need to let it grow a bit, expand competition sites, and see where it goes from there. Most of it is going to depend on participation, and what seems to fit well with this program.

ManicMechanic

26-04-2007, 01:23

If I had to take an educated guess now, I'd be putting my energy into how to improve on the one-day format.

One way to make room for more matches is to interleave the interviews with matches. I've attached a spreadsheet that shows how a tournament of 24 teams (one field), 6 matches can be run with interviews conducted simultaneously with the first 2 matches. I'm sorry to say that it makes interviews even more stressful, but it does shorten the day. Perhaps some interviews could be spread into Round 3.

One feature of the match set-up is that any given team sees no repeat alliance partners and no repeat opponents (to my knowledge) across matches. This is one improvement that I feel would help the match-ups to be more even, lessening the need for more matches, as our team faced the same opponent 3 times at regionals and the same opponent twice in Atlanta.

The algorithm used to satisfy this condition is based on modular arithmetic. Basically, Round 1 moves from one slot number to the next in increments of 1, Round 2 uses increments of 2, Round 3 uses increments of 4, then inc 5, inc 7, and inc 11. If you have more or less than 24 teams, you can still increment by these values but lengthen or shorten the team list. If you have a number of teams close to a multiple of 24, (48, 72, 96), just change "n" from 1 to 25, 49, or 95 and repeat the blocks. Also, to shorten the day, one or 2 matches could be eliminated.

rswsmay

26-04-2007, 08:47

Funny you should mention that particular method for conducting interviews during matches. We considered this early on in the planning of our tournament and came to the same conclusion. That it is a good idea but....

Interleaving the interviews with the matches did not seem like a good option for us because the scoring software generates the match schedule which may conflict with the interview schedule. We generated the interview schedule a couple of days in advance and e-mailed it to teams so they would have advanced notice of when they should be ready. We purposefully pushed some teams toward the end of the interview time period because some were traveling from out of State that morning. There was also the issue of no-show teams to the competition. When that happened and it did at 2 of the 3 state tournaments I attended, a new match schedule had to be generated which again threw off the time slots for teams to compete.

This issue of teams meeting each other multiple times during the matches is one that I saw repeatedly at all the events I attended. This is a "must have" needed improvement on the software. If we could have figured out a way to manually schedule the matches ourselves and then work the interviews around them (or vice versa) we would have been ahead of the game.

Hey.... what do you know!

Did we just come up with another suggested improvement on the scoring software? To be able to manually schedule teams into certain matches in order to facilitate the interviews or at least avoid the same teams matching up repeatedly.

One way to make room for more matches is to interleave the interviews with matches. I've attached a spreadsheet that shows how a tournament of 24 teams (one field), 6 matches can be run with interviews conducted simultaneously with the first 2 matches. I'm sorry to say that it makes interviews even more stressful, but it does shorten the day. Perhaps some interviews could be spread into Round 3.

One feature of the match set-up is that any given team sees no repeat alliance partners and no repeat opponents (to my knowledge) across matches. This is one improvement that I feel would help the match-ups to be more even, lessening the need for more matches, as our team faced the same opponent 3 times at regionals and the same opponent twice in Atlanta.

The algorithm used to satisfy this condition is based on modular arithmetic. Basically, Round 1 moves from one slot number to the next in increments of 1, Round 2 uses increments of 2, Round 3 uses increments of 4, then inc 5, inc 7, and inc 11. If you have more or less than 24 teams, you can still increment by these values but lengthen or shorten the team list. If you have a number of teams close to a multiple of 24, (48, 72, 96), just change "n" from 1 to 25, 49, or 95 and repeat the blocks. Also, to shorten the day, one or 2 matches could be eliminated.

Dave Flowerday

26-04-2007, 10:21

This issue of teams meeting each other multiple times during the matches is one that I saw repeatedly at all the events I attended. This is a "must have" needed improvement on the software.
You need to bring this issue up with the people running the events you attended. The organizers of the event control the amount of duplication seen by teams when they generate the schedule by choosing the "minimum match spacing" (which is the minimum number of matches a team has in between matches they are scheduled to play in). When this number is set too high, duplication will occur (due to basic math constraints). This is documented in the manual.

rswsmay

26-04-2007, 11:17

Dave,

We could not find a happy medium when generating the match schedules. When we tried to set a lower minimum match spacing, we sometimes ended up with teams competing in a match while needing to be queued up for another match.

It is possible that we just didn't go through enough iterations to ensure that we didn't have duplication. It also didn't help that we had to generate the match schedule three times because of teams being initially on the list, then not showing up, then finally showing up during opening ceremony. We didn't have enough time to go through the list and check for duplicate matchups. Some of those issues may have contributed to those other events having similar duplicate matchups.

You need to bring this issue up with the people running the events you attended. The organizers of the event control the amount of duplication seen by teams when they generate the schedule by choosing the "minimum match spacing" (which is the minimum number of matches a team has in between matches they are scheduled to play in). When this number is set too high, duplication will occur (due to basic math constraints). This is documented in the manual.

gblake

26-04-2007, 23:07

Also with new games out each year, FIRST usually has new scoring software written that is game specific.Correctly written, the score tabulation and related concerns would be an almost trivial part of the collection of routines. Changing the game won't be a big deal. That certainly shouldn't cause a big rewrite.
I am not sure what to tell you about undertaking something like that. Come September, that reworked code may not be very useful for the newly announced game.If you want to describe what you like and dislike about the functions and display formats of the current software; I, or the Wildstangs, or whomever will be able to make a better product in the next iteration. If you want to tell me/us that you are "in" then that encourages me to spend some time on it (and would make you the first to cast a vote either way)
There is also the remote possibility that a new game in the future may utilize 3 teams per alliance (hint hint). The current field controls can accommodate up to 6 teams per field.Again, if properly written, changing the numbers of teams per alliance (a possibility I and many other folks have noted but don't expect to see until the field is bigger (not supposed to happen soon unless perhaps it is expanded by adding panels to the current perimeter) is a change that also shouldn't be too hard to incorporate.

Blake

gblake

26-04-2007, 23:17

Dave,

We could not find a happy medium when generating the match schedules. When we tried to set a lower minimum match spacing, we sometimes ended up with teams competing in a match while needing to be queued up for another match.

It is possible that we just didn't go through enough iterations to ensure that we didn't have duplication. It also didn't help that we had to generate the match schedule three times because of teams being initially on the list, then not showing up, then finally showing up during opening ceremony. We didn't have enough time to go through the list and check for duplicate matchups. Some of those issues may have contributed to those other events having similar duplicate matchups.Here is a suggestion for whomever is listening:
Instead of putting the information about match spacing's relationship to duplicated encounters in a manual, and then apparently leaving it up to a harried user's eyeballs and brain to scan the freshly created match listing for "problems"; why not have the software display/print out some statistics (along with each match list it generates) that identify the extent to which those problems actually exist in the matches???

In addition to creating the match list, the software should report any/all things in that match list that a human should assess before that human actually uses the list..... I give myself this sort of help in the Excel spreadsheet that I use.

Blake

gblake

26-04-2007, 23:49

Blake,
...
Hopefully knowing a bit more about the background of FVC as well as FLL will help you understand the comment. ... None of this is news to me.
So what I am saying is that as much as you would like to have the learning curve shortened by using ordinary terminology, the fact is that this is pretty much ordinary terminology for the majority of posters here. I know I have read many of your posts regarding programming and the use of sensors and most of that ends up going over my head since my background is Mech. Engineering.OK, however, the point is that those messages (hopefully) should not go over the head of any FIRST or non-FIRST person who has a background in the subject. The key thing is that I try not to assume that readers are "in the FIRST club". When thousands of new FVC teams appear over the next few years, anyone who doesn't make their communication attempts "FIRST-neutral" will fail to communicate.

I don't want to shorten the learning curve for me, I am already pretty far along it. I want to point out (assert) that much, perhaps most, of the "learning curve", in the sense that I am trying to convey, is an unnecessary stumbling block that will impede FIRST's progress. Carried to an outrageous extreme, clique-ish-ness within FIRST could result in the organization being a fading set of early adopters that are being absorbed into some newly-minted, 10,00-team organization rather than actually being that 10,000 team organization.
Nonetheless, I would expect that the majority of posters that read through your posts find them informative, useful and totally appropriate including me at times.Thank you, I try.
Your point is well taken though… so when appropriate I will refrain from using references to FLL without laying some background.Remember when I wrote this above: "This comment ... is a ... general one to folks discussing FVC." Along those lines I suggest that every volunteer involved in FIRST today (FRC has penetrated less than 5% of US high schools) needs to think about how our roles might change (voluntarily or inexorably) if we were suddenly in a sea of 10 times as many teams (FRC + FVC). I suggest we all start immediately training our several lieutenants/replacements now, in order to get ready for tomorrow....

Today, when I look around, I notice that many vital volunteers accomplish their goals through laudable, heroic effort; but that won't cut it if FVC takes hold and raises FIRST market penetration from under 5% to somewhere around 50%. The smarter not harder cliché comes to mind.

Now if only I were smart......

Blake

Cartwright

29-04-2007, 13:12

Especially with VEX being in only its 2nd official year, teams need more time to gain more experience. I participated in VEX during the pilot season and we went to St. Louis. I think, at the time, that was one of the nearest competitions. I think we just need to let it grow a bit, expand competition sites, and see where it goes from there. Most of it is going to depend on participation, and what seems to fit well with this program.

VEX does indeed need to grow a bit more. I don't think people recognize its potential. Our team has a satellite VEX team at Perry Meridian Middle School that I was a part last year, and while there are many highschool VEX teams, I think we found that the middle school age group is more than capable especially with the mentoring of high school students. Labeling VEX as middle school robotics could help bridge the gap between FLL and FRC. On a scale, FVC I think should be between FLL and FRC, not closer to FRC as I see it now.

gblake

29-04-2007, 16:00

I can see FVC expanding greatly in the next few years. Probably never as big as FLL, but maybe halfway between FRC and FLL. We will have to have hundreds of VEX tournaments to handle the number of teams. That's either a very scary or a very inspiring thought!

That would mean FVC would have to increase the number of tournaments teams are allowed to win awards in. Also, it would probably mean more divisions in the championships, like the FRC 4 divisions.

I actually love that idea.

More likely, it will mean that FVC gets 3 tiers of competitions like FLL has now. You win(*) at a regional, and you advance to the next level. You win(*) at that level and you qualify for the Championships. Currently in the FLL model, the "next level" is state or country. For FVC, it would be a larger section of the US or a few countries for international teams.

Unfortunately, there would be travel and other costs associated with the 2nd tier tournaments, meaning the path to Atlanta (or wherever) just got more expensive.

(*) - "Win" wouldn't necessarily mean just the first place alliance and the Inspire award. Assuming maybe 20 second-tier tournaments of about 40 teams each around the world, 6-8 teams could advance from each tournament to Atlanta, and compete in a manageable-sized competition (with divisions!) of 120-160 teams. Maybe first and second placed alliances, Inspire plus runner up, etc. could advance. The number of teams advancing from the regional to the 2nd tier would also be determined in advance, based on number of entries. For example in Michigan FLL, about 1/4 of the teams entered in the regionals advance to one of the two the State Tournaments. This structure could support 3000 VEX teams, less if they are allowed to enter more than one regional.Trying to get back closer to the original intent of this thread, I have been trying to think of competition models that are employed by other organizations; that might also work for an FVC season enjoyed by thousands of teams. Key points seem to be these:

Many other competitions/challenges that are both spectator sports and that place participants in head-to-head competition, typically have a long regular season filled with matches that give all participants a good dose of time "on the field". FVC doesn't have that but tries to give a worthwhile experience to teams in 1-day tournaments (Petty hard to do with a large number of teams and a small number of layers of competition)
Other competitions do not muddy up a team's chances to prove themselves worthy of advancing, by allying them with pseudo-randomly chosen partners in a handful of matches on a single day. FVC does this, but could instead switch to other formats. Many are possible. Most or all the (1-day) alternatives would poke a great big hole in the concept of coopetition. Most or all of the whole-season options would raise the specter of high costs, if the team-density didn't rise to something like the densities other popular competitions in this age group enjoy.
So, if FVC grows to a few thousand teams, if the number of layers of of expensive competitions between a team and the World Championships is kept low, if coopetition concepts force teams to ally with random partners during tournaments, if doing well at 1 or 2 "championships" per season remains necessary for getting to the World Championships, and if the FVC Tx/RX technology doesn't change to one that can use ID codes to share RF channels across multiple fields; then I think that multi-day competitions are going to be necessary in order to give the large number of tournament participants at each event a statistically significant number of matches and enough matches to make the season worth their investment.

Change a few of the "if"s above and maybe two-day events won't become necessary.

Blake

ManicMechanic

30-04-2007, 00:56

Many other competitions/challenges that are both spectator sports and that place participants in head-to-head competition, typically have a long regular season filled with matches that give all participants a good dose of time "on the field". FVC doesn't have that but tries to give a worthwhile experience to teams in 1-day tournaments (Petty hard to do with a large number of teams and a small number of layers of competition)

At the beginning of this season we attempted to form a somewhat formalized league with "league play." Basically, a league would consist of 8 - 12 teams, each of which would play 2-4 events/season, then participate in the Championship in the Spring. Not a single one of the potential dozen teams we contacted was interested. We cut the number of required events from 4 to 2 to 1, but no bites. Money was not an issue for these teams -- 20+ kits were purchased for their use, their registration & tournament fees were covered, and even the travel expenses to Atlanta were promised for one team if they qualified. But the teams were so intimidated by the perceived time commitment that none of them even came to the Championship.

Far more successful were the 2 scrimmages held by the Northern CA State partners. These events were "come as you are." Some teams came with reasonably advanced robots, others came with never-opened Vex kits in boxes. At the first scrimmage, teams mainly built and tested on the field throughout the day (several teams had no practice field or elements at home), and around 3:00, a series of 2 vs. 2 matches were held, open to any team that had something that rolled on the ground. Because of the small number of teams (8), each team had the chance to play 6 or 7 matches (run in rapid succession over the course of an hour). My team loved it because every member got to driving practice, something that would never happen at a formal event.

The more that is required by an event (time, money), the harder it is to get rookies to come. Once they attend their first event, they typically become "hooked" as they are inspired by those around them. At that point, having more complicated events (2-day, or multi-event leagues) is very practical and desirable. But the trick is to get them to the starting gate.

I think that having smaller regionals (about 20-ish teams) that send the top-performing teams to larger Championships could accomplish this goal. With fewer teams, you can run more matches, and scouting is much easier. The "winners" are more willing to spend the money to attend a 2-day Championship, because they feel pride at having "earned" their place, and the excitement of their success at the first event provides sufficient momentum to propel them to the next level.

While some don't like the idea of having 3 layers to get to Atlanta, the reality is that in the future, Atlanta may become a privilege enjoyed only by a very select few -- for example, in FLL only 100/8000, or < 2% of teams attend the World Festival (vs. 100/550 ~18% of FVC teams). At some point, advancing to a Championship may be considered almost as much of an honor as advancing to Atlanta is now, but with less travel.

gblake

30-04-2007, 08:22

...
Far more successful were the 2 scrimmages held by the Northern CA State partners. These events were "come as you are." Some teams came with reasonably advanced robots, others came with never-opened Vex kits in boxes. At the first scrimmage, teams mainly built and tested on the field throughout the day (several teams had no practice field or elements at home), and around 3:00, a series of 2 vs. 2 matches were held, open to any team that had something that rolled on the ground. Because of the small number of teams (8), each team had the chance to play 6 or 7 matches (run in rapid succession over the course of an hour). My team loved it because every member got to driving practice, something that would never happen at a formal event.
...I have to agree, even though it might appear to conflict with what I said above. I think the "bring anything that rolls" model is one to emulate when bootstrapping new teams.

What has evolved into the community (still very loosely organized) that is becoming the Potomac Vex League, started with a couple of come-as-you are "practice session" and every month since then has attempted to hold a workshop or scrimmage if something big isn't already occurring in the region that month.

Giving teams, school classes/clubs, etc. the early chances to get their machines built and driven in nearby, low-key, no-risk, supportive somethings called practices, workshops, and/or a come-as-you-are day of fun, seems to be an effective way to get them over the initial hump. Then after they have played a little metaphorical tee-ball, they are ready to ease into a steadier diet of periodic events.

Next season I hope to see 5 or 6 new formally registered teams come out of this year's informal league regulars, and see the league pipeline become primed by another 5 or 6 groups who are repeating the process we seemed to get right this year (or we just got lucky - time will tell).

To connect this to my previous message and to MM's comments: Announcing to a group of complete newbies (perhaps containing a high percentage of NEMOs) that a hard-fought competitive season is going to occur if they sign up, might scare them away. Easing them into a steady diet of periodic competitions can work well; and then once they are in the habit of inspiring students by steadily giving the sustained positive feedback (fun) of frequent competitions, FIRST can enjoy the side-effect of not having to make every FIRST championship so long and exciting that it makes the entire season of work worthwhile. The league play took care of much of that.

However, there is still the matter of figuring out a way to run a championship's field-competition so that the participants generally agree that the best teams have bubbled to the top. Giving teams plenty of time on a league field before the championship only hits some of the important aspects of a successful FVC program, not all of them. Ensuring that enough championship matches are played in a format in which the luck-of-the-draw is substantially less important than the skill of the team, is not solved by league play unless, the league play results are somehow factored into the championship matches.

Summary:
Come-as-you-are practice sessions & workshops = Good for each/every early season and especially for new clubs/teams/classes.
Frequent league events = Good for helping teams feel they get enough return on the time and money they invest during a season.
How to best organize champoinship matches = ???, but a small handful of Quals doesn't seem to sit well. There is too much random luck involved.

ManicMechanic - Did I get this summary right?

Blake

ManicMechanic

01-05-2007, 01:50

Summary:
Come-as-you-are practice sessions & workshops = Good for each/every early season and especially for new clubs/teams/classes.
Frequent league events = Good for helping teams feel they get enough return on the time and money they invest during a season.
How to best organize champoinship matches = ???, but a small handful of Quals doesn't seem to sit well. There is too much random luck involved.

ManicMechanic - Did I get this summary right?

Blake

Yep, that about sums it up. One thing I might add about qualifying matches at Championships is that although the number of matches matters, it won't do any good if the DIVERSITY of matches doesn't improve. For example, we had 2 matches where we had exactly the same alliance partner and same 2 opponents. Big surprise: the scores of the matches were very similar -->wasted extra match. While I now understand that the software & minimum spacing were at play here, there's no reason why the same 4 teams couldn't at least have the alliances permuted differently, i.e., Teams 1 & 2 vs. 3 & 4 in one match, then 1 & 3 vs. 2 & 4 next match, rather than 1 & 2 vs. 3 & 4 in both matches. At the very least, the software needs to have a manual override so that matches like this can be rearranged. But really, there needs to be some sophistication added to the software that deliberately avoids duplicates wherever possible. While I can do the math/algorithm, the coding is beyond me, and as is becoming my habit, I am leaving the hard work to some unwitting soul who is more competent than I.;)

gblake

01-05-2007, 07:52

While I can do the math/algorithm, the coding is beyond me, and as is becoming my habit, I am leaving the hard work to some unwitting soul who is more competent than I.;)You send me an algorithm suitable for implementing in software; and I'll both write it up in open source, and wrap a user interface and some output formatting around it.

I need to do this for myself anyway for scrimmages, having some help will make life easier, not harder. I have been nibbling around the edges of the problem; but I haven't hit upon an approach that I like yet. The result has been two long nights of manually building lists of match pairings (for N=20 and for N=16) (Ugh).

Blake

billw

02-05-2007, 16:21

The randomness as well as the ranking point system bother me as well, and I am not sure it delivers the expected results. But that is another discussion.

Would it be an improvement if teams were sub-grouped into lots of four and then had to play three matches between themselves? Because everyone would be on the field, it might be much faster to run. You might even be able to repeat the regrouping three times (each team would then play nine matches).

Without giving this more than 20 seconds thought, I think this might reduce the effect of random partners causing such wild swings (more matches certainly would).

--Bill Wiley

ManicMechanic

04-05-2007, 16:23

The randomness as well as the ranking point system bother me as well, and I am not sure it delivers the expected results. But that is another discussion.
One possible improvement to the point system is to have rank points based not on the losing alliance score alone, but finding the differential between the winning & losing scores and adding this amount to the winning alliance's rank points, and subtracting the same number of points (ouch!) for the losing alliance. That way, a strong alliance is not penalized by having low-scoring opponents.

On the other hand, perhaps FIRST is trying to add some uncertainty to the strategy of the game -- an alliance that sees that its opponent is low-scoring might strategize to help its opponent score some points near the end, benefiting them both. I suspect this is why 3053 didn't try for the atlas ball in a 1 vs. 1 match we played with them.

Would it be an improvement if teams were sub-grouped into lots of four and then had to play three matches between themselves? Because everyone would be on the field, it might be much faster to run. You might even be able to repeat the regrouping three times (each team would then play nine matches).

Yes, it's faster to run, but I think there are limitations to this situation. Suppose that 4 of the best teams are grouped together. Half of the outcomes must be losses, whereas all 4 teams might have had all or or mostly all wins had they played some weaker teams. Conversely, in a grouping of 4 weak teams, at least 1, possibly 2 teams could have all wins, and look like an artificially strong team. Ideally, you want to see each team play with and against a variety of strong, intermediate, and weak teams. This also allows a team to show off the range of its abilities for scouting purposes. However, your idea has spawned a model I'm developing where clusters play in groups of 8.

The 2 models that have invaded my brain this past week look like the following:

Increment Model - For each match, separate team numbers by different increments.
Advantages:
• No duplicate alliance partners
• Minimal duplication of opponents
• Odd number of teams is easily dealt with

Disadvantages:
• No provision made for minimum spacing

Node Model - Form clusters of 8. Have each team play 7 matches (or fewer) against the other teams in the cluster.
Advantages:
• No duplicate alliance partners
• For tournaments of > 15 teams, minimum spacing of at least 2 matches
Disadvantages:
• Duplicate opponents are likely
• For number of teams not divisible by 8, special provisions must be made (if the remainder is close to 8, leave gaps and fill in with volunteers. If the remainder is close to 1, mix in the extra teams, extending the cycle length by 1 match.

The details take 9 pages. :confused: and are attached. If you can see improvements or ways to overcome the disadvantages, please send them along.

ManicMechanic

04-05-2007, 16:26

The details take 9 pages. :confused: and are attached. If you can see improvements or ways to overcome the disadvantages, please send them along.

Oops, thought I'd attached but found out it was too large. It's posted as a White Paper here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1996

Yolande

Ben Mitchell

11-05-2007, 21:25

Good discussion.

From a programmatic standpoint, FVC has been committed to being more affordable and accessible up to this point. If that holds true in the future, I wouldn't expect to see multiple day regional events soon. Missed school and overnight travel, while a foregone conclusion for some, is a deal-breaker for many underserved, inner-city, and rural schools and teams that have scarce resources.

If I had to take an educated guess now, I'd be putting my energy into how to improve on the one-day format.

The one day format I feel worked great for the smaller tournaments.

I personally would rather see more numerous smaller events than a fewer number of larger events.

Really its an issue of limiting the number of teams in order to give the teams at the event a reasonable number of matches.

That being said, FVC has had this year a quick match-to-match turnaround (2 fields is a must) so we were able to play more matches much faster than FVC in event.

At this point, I would very much agree with Rich - Keep it to one day. With more events held with fewer teams, multiday events arent needed.

KathieK

12-05-2007, 07:01

At this point, I would very much agree with Rich - Keep it to one day. With more events held with fewer teams, multiday events arent needed.More events with fewer teams = more tournament sponsors needed to help underwrite the costs of holding the events.

gblake

12-05-2007, 17:10

I personally would rather see more numerous smaller events than a fewer number of larger events.
More events with fewer teams = more tournament sponsors needed to help underwrite the costs of holding the events.Pushing the system in the direction of more, but smaller, events is certainly an option. I see a few things that would need to go with it.

1) Less whoop-tee-doo for each small(er) event.

Finding the right balance between non-robot entertainment, ceremony, decoration and marketing eye-candy, and making the events attractive simply because the students' competing robots are interesting; is a tough judgement call. However, most local sports leagues manage to attract participants and crowds with the action on the field, not with other trappings. FIRST may want to adopt revised tournament standards (beyond the revisons already suggested during this last season for inexpensive events) for these proposed smaller events.

I presume that if FIRST competitions expand into the majority of the US' schools, then those schools and related organizations will take over determining how much of those marketing expenses are important to the program. If FIRST continues to be responsible for regional and world championships, then I presume those would still have budgets similar to their current ones.

2) Teams will need to have opportunities to attend these events throughout the 6 month FVC season (or whatever length it evolves into) at times that match their local calendars.

Offering a team two or three small events nearby them does no good if the events occur too early or too late in the season to match their local needs.

People in the small regions or counties/cities these proposed smaller events serve will need to be (trained and) entrusted with running them, or the formal FIRST organization will need to expand enough to supervise all of the events at the times the local areas need the events. The events final results will need to satisfy a globaly enforced standard. Their fanciness (and expenses) will not.

3) If the number of teams increases dramatically and if tournaments are small, then winnowing the teams down to a managable number for an (assumed) eventual world championship will require a few levels of competition.

Attending these levels will be an expense, and as the lucky/better teams move up this ladder they will have to travel farther and farther from home.... For these teams, this might cause a net increase in time and expense, not a decrease!

------------------------------------------

So... While I understand and agree with Kathie's point about funding more instances of the current style of tournament, I suggest that additional sponsors aren't needed so much as events that are less patrician and are more plebian. As the program becomes successful, more widely adopted, and more engrained in the culture, there is less need to make each event a perfect, do-or-die showcase that "hooks" first-time participants. Managing the transition from now until then is the tricky part....

Blake

Ben Mitchell

30-05-2007, 19:36

More events with fewer teams = more tournament sponsors needed to help underwrite the costs of holding the events.

Two words: FIRST Alumni

Often, student organizations at colleges can get the use of college facilities at free or reduced cost.

Reaching out to FIRSTs best resources: its people, is the way to alleviate that particular problem.

By small local events, I mean like 35 team events - not small but at the same time, small enough everyone can get their 6-7 matches in.

gblake

30-05-2007, 21:15

By small local events, I mean like 35 team events - not small but at the same time, small enough everyone can get their 6-7 matches in.35 teams x 7 matches / 4 teams per match x 6 minutes per match = Approx 360 minutes = 6 Hours.

This is 6 hours if everything runs like clockwork. This doesn't include a lunch break, opening/closing ceremonies, etc. Also, only a single field is implicit in the time per match.

I agree that this can be done, but you can safely bet that many events that attempt to stick to a schedule like this will run long.

Of course I'm in the camp that likes longer (multi-day) FVC events....

Blake

ChrisH

31-05-2007, 11:31

35 teams x 7 matches / 4 teams per match x 6 minutes per match = Approx 360 minutes = 6 Hours.

This is 6 hours if everything runs like clockwork. This doesn't include a lunch break, opening/closing ceremonies, etc. Also, only a single field is implicit in the time per match.

I agree that this can be done, but you can safely bet that many events that attempt to stick to a schedule like this will run long.

Of course I'm in the camp that likes longer (multi-day) FVC events....

Blake

If you have two fields side by side, and set up on one field while competing on the other, and have good crystal control, then you can easily make such a schedule. We did it here in Southern California in two events that had about 50 teams each. We had a third event where I assume they did the same thing a couple of weeks ago, but I was unable to attend.

This previous experience resulted in great disapointment for the Southern California teams that went to Atlanta. Only 4 matches over two days? They felt that the cycle time between matches was unreasonably long. Remember this was from teams that have RUN competitions (both Vex and FRC), so they have some idea what they are talking about.

gblake

31-05-2007, 19:27

If you have two fields side by side, and set up on one field while competing on the other, ... then you can easily make such a schedule. We did it here in Southern California in two events that had about 50 teams each. I don't doubt you for one minute, but.... The 2nd fields does jack up the expense (or logistics headaches) of each event and the number of volunteers needed by each event. This is a little worrisome if you are trying to promote a strategy of having many, "small", less-expensive events.

In my message I wanted to remind folks of the difficulty of pulling off a low-budget, 1-day event with 35 teams and 7 matches per team on a single field.

Your are right. Fetching and then later returning a borrowed 2nd field, and digging up volunteers to help with the extra duties of running a 2nd field, is one way (one that I like) to make it safe to plan on running 35 teams through 7 matches in one day.

Blake

ManicMechanic

01-06-2007, 01:27

This previous experience resulted in great disapointment for the Southern California teams that went to Atlanta. Only 4 matches over two days? They felt that the cycle time between matches was unreasonably long.

I know that others feel differently, but we actually liked having only 4 matches in Atlanta. We attended the April 2005 Pilot, and there were 7 matches, 5 the first day, 2 the second, with a match about once an hour. That year, teams entered the dome from the far entrance, and the "commute" each way was about 15 minutes, counting time to collect gear and bodies. With 30 minutes travel and 10 minutes on the field each one-hour cycle, it left only 20 minutes to "relax" in the pit. We felt constantly hurried & harried; we never had time to check the robot and seldom had time to talk to alliance partners about strategy. Two matches, we had no-show partners who didn't make it to the field in time, once we were almost a no-show because we got there 10 minutes late (thankfully, they were 20 minutes behind schedule), and one match, we had a dead robot on the field because we didn't have time to check the batteries. This time in Atlanta, we were able to communicate with alliance partners about strategy, check the batteries before each match, and even change a bad motor before one of the matches. Quantity is not quality.

The distance between the pits and the field is a huge determinant in how desirable it is to have time between rounds. If the pit is in the same room as the competition field, minimal time between rounds is fine. If the pit is in the GWCC & field is in the dome, I would either prefer a very long break, or a very short one (10 minutes between matches is fine if you don't have to go back and forth). If the teams cycle once per hour, I would deliberately try NOT to have much minimum spacing so that some breaks are very short, which would make the next break very long. Much better to have one break of 10 minutes and one of 1-1/2hours+ than to have 2 breaks of exactly 50 minutes, most of which is eaten up in "commute" time.

Longer breaks this year meant we actually got to spend some time in the pit, whereas in 2005, we were so exhausted running back and forth that we sometimes just found a place to plop ourselves outside the intervening corridor. Our pit experience this year was very valuable -- we got to check out other robot designs, exchange funky drawings with other teams, talk in broken Mandarin about rules, procedures, and culture to the Chinese teams (they'd never done alliance selection), and generally connect to the community at large. Despite the fact that there were 100 teams this year vs. 53 in 2005, we had a much better sense of the abilities of the various teams and robots (and had our favorite picked out for the finals).

When we returned home from Atlanta in 2005, we divvied up the 4 (free) kits among the 4 students, and those kits went virtually untouched for over a year. Invitations to get together for building projects were politely declined, and three of the 4 students never returned to Vex. In contrast, when we returned home from Atlanta this year (4 rookie students, one veteran student), the rookies went scouring e-bay & Vexlabs for Vex paraphernalia and their wallets are now considerably lighter. They are talking about numerous projects for the summer. Inspiration comes from enjoying the ride.

If adding matches does not diminish the total experience, I'm all for it, but it's important to consider what is lost by adding matches, as well as what is gained.

gblake

01-06-2007, 09:43

MM,

With only 4 or 5 students on an FVC team, it is hard to split them up, but your experiences are an argument for either having fewer matches, OR for dividing up the team during the competition. Other options exist too.

For example:
One person scouts future opponents in the field and in the pits.
One person has a strategy kick-off with future allies, keeps the batteries charged, and fetches emergency spares from the pits to the field.
Two people operate the robot, finish the strategy conversation with allies, and maintain the robot.
Obivously there are other ways to organize. Obviously if the team is cross-trained, the members can swap jobs once or twice during the tournament.

You are right that if everyone is making the hike from the pits to the field and back every 60 minutes, then everyone is losing about 45 minutes of productivity during those 60. Slowing down the pace of the matches is one degree of freedom that can be used to reduce this waste (Seems dissatisfying). Changing the location of the field or pits is another option (tough). Dividing the team to conquer the jobs is another way (Seems fairly easy to me, but maybe others would hate it).

Blake

Ben Mitchell

01-06-2007, 12:29

35 teams x 7 matches / 4 teams per match x 6 minutes per match = Approx 360 minutes = 6 Hours.

This is 6 hours if everything runs like clockwork. This doesn't include a lunch break, opening/closing ceremonies, etc. Also, only a single field is implicit in the time per match.

I agree that this can be done, but you can safely bet that many events that attempt to stick to a schedule like this will run long.

Of course I'm in the camp that likes longer (multi-day) FVC events....

Blake

6 hours a day isn't too bad. If opening ceremonies are 9, then the 6 hours takes us into 4oclock with a full hour off for lunch, finals and awards wraps up the last hour and a half.

After working at the NJ Vex event, Hartford, Delaware, and the championship events, I really think that that schedule works.

You mention a second field increasing costs: a second day of a venue also increases costs, probably a lot more than a second field would cost. A field costs 1300 dollars, and different groups borrowing each other's fields makes a lot of sense to negate that cost.

billw

01-06-2007, 16:12

I agree that the travel back and forth between dome and pit is a huge waste of time, and I can see how seven matches would make the logistics even more daunting. I know that we missed our practice match because of the distance.

I am still enamored with the idea of grouping teams into lots of four and then having them play all three combinations successively. Although I haven't done any statistical analysis of the concept, my instinct tells me that it will not result in a series of pairings that are any worse than the current method and that it might normalize out the problems that occur when one robot on a team is much less capable than its teammate.

If the regrouping is performed three (or four times for nationals) with no repeat teammates (this can be done), you will actually have more matches (which is itself the best equalizer) across a what may be a more even distribution of partners.

Because all the teams are present and loaded with crystals for their first match, the opportunity for delays is that much less for the second and third matches of each regrouping.

This also forces teams to produce bots that can run for three matches in a row, in a manner similar to that which occurs during the finals.

The one other item that needs to be addressed is forcing a team to compete when their partner is a no-show. My solution is to have all teams that have just competed to remain ready to fill in for any teams that are not present or become disabled during a match. The last grouping of the day would be used as backup for the first grouping.

--Bill Wiley
Coach, Vexy Things

gblake

01-06-2007, 17:41

You mention a second field increasing costs: a second day of a venue also increases costs, probably a lot more than a second field would cost. A field costs 1300 dollars, and different groups borrowing each other's fields makes a lot of sense to negate that cost.So "Yes", we agree. One way to make success more likely in a 35-team, 7-match, one-day, inexpensive, "small" event is buying or finding, fetching and returning a second field, and then having enough volunteers in place to keep both fields humming during the event.

I never said it couldn't/shouldn't be done, I simply pointed out that some folks in some locations might not immediately identify that approach as a small or inexpensive approach....

Same goes for attempting to stay on a schedule that attempts to fit 35 teams times 7 matches per team into 6 hours. I never said it couldn't be done. I just said that if the next few seasons contain dramatically more "small and inexpensive" 35-team, 7-match, 1-day events than this last season held (as a hypothetical consequence of both significant and rapid growth, and hypothetical FIRST encouragement of that style of tournament); then I predict that a lot of the tournaments are going to run long. I don't say this becuse running on time is impossible; I say it because I predict that there will be a lot of "newbies" running and participating in those events.

My true, big-picture, bottom-line is that these sorts of topics are never black and white. The only realistic "answers" are always compromises. A clever governing body will encourage the compromises that align best with their long-term objectives and will not get distracted by transient conditions that can be overcome by a little patience.

I would love to hear those official long-term FVC objectives for three reasons.
1) I could align my local league efforts with the vision (either to contribute to it, or to complement it).
2) I could offer positive feedback and constructive criticism based on my local experiences. These could be combined with the experiences of other locations to help establish what the FVC governing body has to make common across all locations, and what it can leave optional or unspecified.
3) I could pass the objectives/vision on to my peers, local financial sponsors, local team sponsors, etc. so that they aren't surprised (in some bad way) as the program matures and so that they can plan their long-term investments.

To return to the thread's topic... The subject of "the length of a typical FVC event" is right smack in the middle of any conversation about how FVC might chose to pursue its long term objectives. I have profited from the discussion so far.

Blake

artdutra04

01-06-2007, 17:55

The one other item that needs to be addressed is forcing a team to compete when their partner is a no-show. My solution is to have all teams that have just competed to remain ready to fill in for any teams that are not present or become disabled during a match. The last grouping of the day would be used as backup for the first grouping.While your solution may be hard to actually implement (such as deciding which teams need to stay behind, how those matches would factor into rankings, how you can input a surrogate team 'on the fly' with the scoring software, how you would eliminate the other team from that match, etc.), a similar solution of a 'placebo (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39910)' robot might be feasible. In the FRC almost a decade ago, there used to be placebo robots that were used as 'stand-ins' for no-show teams. They never actually did anything (one was a remote-controlled vacuum cleaner), but they were there just for the show.

KathieK

01-06-2007, 20:58

To return to the thread's topic... The subject of "the length of a typical FVC event" is right smack in the middle of any conversation about how FVC might chose to pursue its long term objectives. I have profited from the discussion so far.well, the thread's topic was to test the waters to see if anyone was interested in a social/networking event on Friday night, actually, but I am also enjoying the conversation, so please keep contributing your ideas... :)

ManicMechanic

02-06-2007, 11:54

You are right that if everyone is making the hike from the pits to the field and back every 60 minutes, then everyone is losing about 45 minutes of productivity during those 60. Slowing down the pace of the matches is one degree of freedom that can be used to reduce this waste (Seems dissatisfying). Changing the location of the field or pits is another option (tough). Dividing the team to conquer the jobs is another way (Seems fairly easy to me, but maybe others would hate it).

Blake

One other way that I could see to reduce wasted travel to the pits in Atlanta is to open one of the gates from the competition floor to the stands so that immediately following a match, teams could watch other teams (would greatly improve scouting), rather than running back and forth. This would some introduce some complications but I think they could be fairly easily addressed.

1) A gatekeeper would be needed to make sure that only appropriate badges would receive admittance from the stands to the floor.
2) FIRST would need to decide whether to permit teams to carry their robots into the stands, since spectators are not required to wear safety glasses. If not, a robot "parking lot" with "valet" could be designated -- leave your robots on the floor when you go to the stands.

Yes, we would hate the divide and conquer strategy (we are a young team trying to deepen our bench, so I realize that the more developed teams would not necessarily feel this way). Our students stuck together most of the time, and much learning occurred through the continual running commentary that went on, especially right after a match. One member would reflect on the team's performance, another would chime in a suggestion, others would critique/analyze it, and the whole team would arrive at a consensus as to whether they would implement that change for the next match. Some of these comments were strategy-related, some design-related for the future. They also made many observations on other teams' strategies & designs and incorporated some of the ideas from earlier matches into later matches. As demonstrated by the requirements of the engineering journal, reflecting is an important part of the experience, not only after a tournament, but in the middle of the process.

If teams could travel from the floor to the stands, I think adding one extra match on Thursday afternoon and one on Friday morning (for a total of 6) would not cause too much extra stress (on the teams -- I don't know about the tournament staff). But I would not recommend trying to squeeze in 7. While a limited number of matches may cause teams to feel that the rankings were unfair, the crux of the matter is this: did the limited number of matches result in the best teams being excluded from the finals, causing the "wrong alliance" to come out on top? I think not! When done right, alliance selection paints a better picture than limited statistics can.

Ben Mitchell

04-06-2007, 11:21

One other way that I could see to reduce wasted travel to the pits in Atlanta is to open one of the gates from the competition floor to the stands so that immediately following a match, teams could watch other teams (would greatly improve scouting), rather than running back and forth. This would some introduce some complications but I think they could be fairly easily addressed.

Although that would have been great, (we were trying to get a stair put in in atlanta for a while), an easier solution would be to simply have an extra team member in the stands.

I personally would have preferred to see a two day event at the nationals, however, for whatever reason (I don't know) it wasn't.

Regionals, however, I think work better as 1 day events, because as soon as an event becomes an overnight venture, cost spikes - securing the location overnight, reserving the venue another day, getting volunteers, etc all adds up. Plus the 1 day events run great - I think they are a lot more efficient than 2 day FRC events. I also think that FRC events could be done in one day, but there are too many teams and the reset time is longer than vex fields, thus 2 day events for FRC.

KathieK

04-06-2007, 11:31

One of the reasons teams at Championships needed to return to their pits was for the judges to interview them! Several teams that had been identified as potential award-winners never seemed to be in their pits when we came around. :(

When you have such small teams as ours on FVC, it's difficult to do scouting, visit the practice area, travel back and forth from pits to competition field, and still staff your pit with enough team members that the judges can interview you. It's one of those things we have to work on, as the program evolves.

ManicMechanic

04-06-2007, 16:04

Although that would have been great, (we were trying to get a stair put in in atlanta for a while), an easier solution would be to simply have an extra team member in the stands.

My primary rationale for wanting to open up the stands is to give the field personnel (drivers, coaches) a place to rest their feet, and an extra member in the stands doesn't address this. Scouting for 30 minutes (rather than scurrying) is only a secondary benefit.

In 2005, I counted 7 round trips from pit to Dome on the first day alone -- 5 qualifying matches, one drivers' meeting, and Opening Ceremonies. Add to that one practice match and the trip to the interview room (which they didn't have in 2005), and I believe that you're looking at diminishing returns: physical exhaustion and mental distraction --> more missed matches/no shows/poor performance for non-robot reasons --> less fairness, rather than more.

One of the reasons teams at Championships needed to return to their pits was for the judges to interview them! Several teams that had been identified as potential award-winners never seemed to be in their pits when we came around. :(

While judging at an FLL State Championship, I found that the most successful way to find teams was to snag them as they left the competition floor immediately after a round. With a schedule in hand, I knew exactly when and where the teams would leave the field, and I had 3 rounds during which to catch them. On rare occasions when 2 teams were leaving the field at the same time, I would simply grab the first, then ask them to stand by until I grabbed the second. In this way, 88 teams were successfully found and interviewed in 8 hours.

One thing I don't recommend is trying to interview teams while they are queuing up in preparation for a round. They are usually distracted/focused on their field performance and will give a much better interview after a match than before.

Yolande