The case against SG9

It’s a bug in the way the post refresh works. The additional post is a phantom. It caught me a few times.

After you see what appears to be a double post, before you delete anything, open another tab or window with the same thread. Whenever I’ve done that, there was never a duplicate post.

You can also navigate away from the thread and then navigate back; that should show whether it’s a real duplicate post or a phantom duplicate.

Yep. Don’t care. It’s just a rule.

As I wrote elsewhere, If I were to wish for a change, I’d wish for the use of small explosives. That’s a rule change I would enjoy.

Now it is a race to who can build the fastest bot… because that is what s9 does, end creativity.

I agree with those who say that contemplating a lack of SG9 has no purpose. However, here’s my two cents.

Without SG9, the game becomes a quest to see who can hold the most cones. This is more of a quest for a fastest bot. Without SG9, bots are no longer required to hold the 4 pound pylon, greatly speeding up drives (Imagine this year, but every bot is 4 pounds heavier. How many turbo drives are there?). With SG9, bots must either adapt to the 4 pound penalty for scoring multiple cones, or become absurdly fast enough to drive across the field every time they pick up a cone.

Here is the way I see this discussion.

“Wouldn’t basketball be so much better if it wasn’t for that stupid dribbling rule? Basketball would be so much better if you didn’t have to bounce the ball on the floor. What a dumb rule.”

Every game has rules. It is the point of a game. It is better to stop analyzing the rules for changes and instead play the game.



If you don’t like the rules of the game, then don’t play.

I would say that with SG9 in place, there will be many interesting designs focused on bringing the mobile goal around with the robot. The rule will cause teams to evaluate whether it is more efficient to bring the mobile goal around with them, or to go get a cone and bring it to the mobile goal. SG9 just adds one more layer to the game.

I see it a different way. If i am driving and see a tree across the road, i might use some percent of my available resources seeing if i can remove the tree before immediately outfitting my car with legs to step over the tree.

I am mostly concerned that with the large number of rules, they will achieve the opposite result and all teams will be driven towards a single solution rather than allowing more room for creativity.

For instance, if they changed it slightly to say that you can not travel while possessing more than one cone, that could open up a huge number of creative robot designs.

In general, i believe VEX needs to lean far in the opposite direction. Rather than making more and more rules, they should be as minimalistic as possible. There will still be plenty in the hoard that build the two front runner robots, and there will still be push bots, but there will be more of the brilliant one off robots like Green Eggs and their transmission car wash weighted base tossing monster from Round Up.

Every rule limits the field of potential designs and strategies. Some rules are necessary or the game would become unmanagable. Some i believe were not fully considered before they were added to the book.

I’m not so sure I see the point of this discussion. But I agree that fewer rules can allow for more possibility. I’d say that instead of discussing in confusion we start asking on the official Q&A, questions like “what is the definition of stacked?” or “if my robot can do x, does y become legal?”. My question is “If our robot is carrying a base, can we use a scoring mechanism to possess and stack more than one cone on said base?”

It would seem the community is pretty divided on this (from the polling).

Interesting. Given the 56 / 44 split I’m not sure we can draw any real conclusions from this.

This is the result after one robot has been built and zero matches have been played. It would be very interesting to do this same poll in about 6 months and see what people think.