[FVC]: Longer competitions

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

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!

Originally Posted by fredliu168

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 whereever) 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 managably-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.

[rswsmay]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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]

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]

Originally Posted by KathieK

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]

Originally Posted by KathieK

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

[KathieK]

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

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

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.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by KathieK

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

[artdutra04]

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.

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.)

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.

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

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

ConnVex 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]

Originally Posted by rswsmay

• 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/show...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

1. 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....
   
2. 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?

[rswsmay]

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.

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

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/show...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

1. 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....
   
2. 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]

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.

[Cartwright]

Originally Posted by MGoelz

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]

Originally Posted by rswsmay

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.

Originally Posted by rswsmay

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)

Originally Posted by rswsmay

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]

Originally Posted by rswsmay

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

[rswsmay]

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.

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

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