The case against SG9

SG9 is not there to limit your creativity, but to challenge you to be MORE creative. In the real world you may have arbitrary constraints that may not make sense but exist nonetheless.

Ask yourself and your team, how can we be more successful, despite this constraint, than other teams. I don’t have any special insight to why the GDC made this choice, but it was not random. (Nor would I hold your breath that it will change.)

@smtoney The thing I don’t like about it is that it forces your hand. It goes beyond the what of the game, and into the how. But like you said, <SG9> is probably here to stay

I feel that if you use what you know and put it together then you can creatively combat this problem and make a competitive and fun robot.

I agree saying that it makes it more of a challenge and that’s why it’s there. If you know how vex goes, a lot of things do not seem possible at first until someone else does it. Not meaning they can carry more than one cone legally but by being so fast and efficient it’ll seem like it would not matter.

It might end up like NbN, where the GDC forced us the choose the best option for scoring instead of the easiest. I think flywheels ended up much better at scoring balls than a lift ever could.

I agree that a limit to 1 cone is a little too restrictive.

If you got rid of NbN’s possession limit, that wouldn’t be the case.

At first I was really disappointed that SG9 excited and was planning to start a similar thread, but the more I think about it the more I agree that more capacity would go too quickly and be too focused on hoarding.
I really would still rather see a limit of 2-3, but it doesn’t ruin the game for me anymore.

That would quickly turn into Recycle Rush

If there was no possession limit in NbN then the field would be cleared 15 seconds into driver control every match. I think that the one cone possession limit will actually make the game a lot more interesting.

I was just stating that lifts would be the better options without a possession or expansion limit.

That is true, but it would have made the game a lot worse.

Probably. I’m not debating that.

I foreThe possession limit is to encourage people getting a goal and making a means of carrying it around. Unfortunately the mobile goals are in places that you need to knock a cone out of the way first.

I foresee an amalgam of team 62 and 44 robots from two different seasons. I think that will be the design to beat.

Yup, that’s exactly what I’ve been thinking aswell.

I assume you are referring to this autonomous jaw-dropper from team 62:

Which game and aspect of team 44 do you have in mind?

Pretty sure he means

In terms of moving weighted movable goals.

For me, personally, I don’t get caught up in what I think the game should be. Engineering is solving problems given the constraints at hand. The GDC has given us the problem and the constraints. I realize that this exercise in making the case against SG9 is just speculation. But the game rules are NOT going to change, no matter how hard some may want that to happen. Good Luck and have fun.

I agree. There is a lot of wasted intellectual energy going into this exercise. As the say: the rules are the rules!

so I posted this, but it got double posted, then I deleted the first post but now both posts are gone, so take 2!

I don’t think SG9 is designed to limit the amount cones a robot carries/controls, it’s designed to limit how the cones are carried and controlled. think about it, every year there’s some sort of challenge that you don’t need to overcome to play the game but is designed so that you have to overcome to be competitive at a higher level. Last season it was hanging (though in the end that ended up only being good for skills IMO), before that, lifting, before that the skyrise. This year you have to drag heaving mobile goals around the field to control more than 1 cone at a time. It’s something that you don’t have to do to play the game or even be competitive early season, but I think once we get later into the season it will be important.