View Full Version : The Noodle Agreement
Not to be confused with the noodle incident.
http://noodlesnooze.com/images/noodle_incident.gif
The noodle agreement is an exploitation of the tournament rules and scoring system, in that QA score is based upon maximum score alone, and G24 prohibits robots from throwing game objects to the other side of the field.
For effectively zero effort, both alliances can score the other alliance 40 points by simply dropping their noodles (litter) on the floor outside the player station. It is a huge net benefit to both alliances, for both the points, and no longer having to worry about noodles getting tossed into locations which could tangle on their robots.
And since the herculean task of putting a noodle into a trash can earns but 2 more points above the noodle agreement, there is very little incentive to spend time/effort/weight to attempt to accomplish the task.
It does mean one of the player stations will be cluttered with noodles, but the asymmetry of the map means one player station is better used than the other anyway. Good teams will also be able to minimize the quantity of time the station is cluttered by rapidly deploying the noodles near the end of the game.
But effectively, if the 6 teams on both alliances agree to do the noodle agreement will have almost a 40 point lead above any two alliances which fail to honor the noodle agreement.
Thoughts on the matter?
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 15:37
Simply Brilliant Sir!
Thought of this almost immediately, and it seems like a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I also cant think of a way to restrict teams from doing this, because teams will inevitably drop noodles on their own side while attempting to throw them over the center into their opponents side.
The counter is that both sides have to agree to it, and trust them to follow through. If one team does it and the other doesn't (or puts them in the landfill) it's advantageous. Basically a nerd version of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
This is a form of Prisoner's Dilemma.
The problem with the agreement is that it is beneficial for any individual alliance to deposit their noodles for the 10 points, meaning that one alliance gets 50 points and the other gets 0. This way, unless you can trust your opponent, it is in your best interest to deposit the noodles.
im interested to see how this and how coopertition works in elims :)
If you put the 10 noodles near the landfill (but not in it), you can easily push them in at the last moment if the other alliance doesn't follow through.
If you put the 10 noodles near the landfill (but not in it), you can easily push them in at the last moment if the other alliance doesn't follow through.
You can push them in even if they follow through... thats the dilemma
XaulZan11
03-01-2015, 15:49
And since the herculean task of putting a noodle into a trash can earns but 2 more points above the noodle agreement, there is very little incentive to spend time/effort/weight to attempt to accomplish the task.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but the potential for 18 additional points in the finals is enticing especially considering how easy it could be. I wouldn't write off that task.
im interested to see how this and how coopertition works in elims :)
Coopertition doesn't work in Eliminations. No points are awarded. I assume that this won't happen either.
Kyler Hagler
03-01-2015, 15:53
I literally brought this up to my team 20 minutes ago. Great minds think alike!
Coopertition doesn't work in Eliminations. No points are awarded. I assume that this won't happen either.
Just checked the manual and I think I'm missing the rule that says this. Can you let me know what rule number it is.
I had just assumed it worked in quarters and semis because i didn't see anything when I skimmed. I'm sure you're right
Coopertition doesn't work in Eliminations. No points are awarded. I assume that this won't happen either.
Yes. exactly.
And while coopertition earns a mere 20 points for a fairly difficult task of stacking 4 boxes, this earns 40 points for much less effort.
AutodeskGeek
03-01-2015, 16:00
We thought of this too! Like the others said, it won't matter in eliminations, but hey.. those teams that cooperated in qualifications will sure get a huge head start.
Yes. exactly.
And while coopertition earns a mere 20 points for a fairly difficult task of stacking 4 boxes, this earns 40 points for much less effort.
Coopertition is 40pts for a stack [1.1, table 1-2]
Just checked the manual and I think I'm missing the rule that says this. Can you let me know what rule number it is.
1.1, just under table 1-2
Coopertition is 40pts for a stack [1.1, table 1-2]
1.1, just under table 1-2
Thanks! I was looking at section 5 trying to find a rule specific to elims
Jonathan Norris
03-01-2015, 16:16
Reading through the rules this came up as a HUGE red flag for me... With how eliminations are structured this year, teams can game this system to try and knock off the top alliances in the quarters/semis, 40 points for noodles on the ground is very substantial. The lower/middle tier alliances can stick to the noodle agreement when playing each other, but not against the top alliance or two. I can see a situation where the middle alliances have a massive advantage in this playoff format.
Unfortunately this game gives too much power to the opposing alliance to prevent coopertition scoring, its almost human nature to try and help the underdog teams rank higher then powerhouse teams, there are 80 potential coopertition points to be denied by not cooperating (not sharing a yellow tote for coopertition stacks, and the noodle agreement). As much as this game tries not to be a competition, there is still a winner.
Verrazano
03-01-2015, 16:38
Even though it seems like a prisoners dilemma I don't think it is. If alliances say they will do the noodle agreement. And then one team/alliance doesn't then I think there will be serious repercussions, people would stop doing the noodle agreement with them meaning they wouldn't get their 40 points after the screwed another alliance. Also who would want to pick a team like that for elims? My team puts a lot of weight on how our teams work together when picking an alliance partner. Why would you pick a team that doesn't listen or lies.
im interested to see how this and how coopertition works in elims :)
I don't see this working out in eliminations... too cut-throat
My initial thoughts on how to make this work. You agree to the noodle agreement with the terms that you throw one noodle at a time. Alliance a throws one noodle and then alliance b throws another and back and forth. If one alliance stops, so does the other.
I really hope first gives an update that makes this not okay somehow.
I really hope first gives an update that makes this not okay somehow.
Any thoughts on how they would hypothetically make it work? I'm struggling to come up with a solution that works... even if they were to hypothetically introduce red and blue noodles that are alliance specific
Agreeing to the noodle agreement and then not following through would have serious repercussions. Not only would people not want to do the noodle agreement with you, but the teams you broke the deal with could very well be in picking positions. I know for sure I'd be crossing that team off my picklist no matter how good they were.
Coupled with the fact that if you want to break the disagreement, you have to convince your other alliance members as well, I don't think we'll see very many teams breaking this agreement.
Any thoughts on how they would hypothetically make it work? I'm struggling to come up with a solution that works... even if they were to hypothetically introduce red and blue noodles that are alliance specific
They can prohibit strategic throwing of a pool noodle above the wall and into your zone.
Or something similar, shouldn't be too hard...
Jonathan Norris
03-01-2015, 16:53
My initial thoughts on how to make this work. You agree to the noodle agreement with the terms that you throw one noodle at a time. Alliance a throws one noodle and then alliance b throws another and back and forth. If one alliance stops, so does the other.
I really hope first gives an update that makes this not okay somehow.
The amazing thing is that you don't even need to throw the noodles far, just plop them on the ground infront of the HP station, no robot interaction or human effort required. Because you can "throw" the noodles, you could just take all 10 and dump them over the wall at the last second of the match, BOOM 40 points each.
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 16:55
The amazing thing is that you don't even need to throw the noodles, just plop them on the ground infront of the HP station, no robot interaction or human effort required. Because you can "throw" the litter, you could just take all 10 and dump them over the wall at the last second of the match, BOOM 40 points each.
Only if you have trust in the other team though... one at a time in the last 10 seconds might be the safer way to go about it. As a human player for 2 years it is against my nature just to give the other team points like that. It's just such a difficult dilemma.
GaryVoshol
03-01-2015, 16:55
The amazing thing is that you don't even need to throw the noodles, just plop them on the ground infront of the HP station, no robot interaction or human effort required. Because you can "throw" the noodles, you could just take all 10 and dump them over the wall at the last second of the match, BOOM 40 points each.
At a cost of a foul per noodle in the final 20 seconds of the game (G33). Plus 40 points, minus 60 points. Oops.
They can prohibit strategic throwing of a pool noodle above the wall and into your zone.
Or something similar, shouldn't be too hard...
What if I'm "trying" to throw them into their side? I foresee lots of noodles falling into the same zone as the team trying to throw across the centerline.
this is why im having trouble thinking of a way to restrict this action
The amazing thing is that you don't even need to throw the noodles far, just plop them on the ground infront of the HP station, no robot interaction or human effort required. Because you can "throw" the noodles, you could just take all 10 and dump them over the wall at the last second of the match, BOOM 40 points each.
Noodles can not be thrown in the last 20 seconds of a match, G33.
Sorry, Jonathan, that's at the 21-second mark--nothing over the wall after 20 seconds remaining.
I mentioned this to some of our other mentors. Here's my take:
I don't care--particularly--if a team decides that they will accept every offer of a Noodle Agreement or decline every offer of a Noodle Agreement, or decide on a case-by-case basis. What I care about is that if a team accepts an offer, they need to follow through. If a team declines an offer, they need to make that clear from the outset.
Long story short, whatever your stance, make it clear and stick to it. Do NOT backstab your opponents. Do NOT backstab your partners. They'll both thank you later.
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 16:59
At a cost of a foul per noodle in the final 20 seconds of the game (G33). Plus 40 points, minus 60 points. Oops.
Yeah, it would have to be through the chute. The last 20 seconds are off limits for human players to introduce noodles OVER the wall.
Mineboy2300
03-01-2015, 17:02
Thats what I love about this years game. strategy like this are viable and help everyone in the game
Thought of this almost as soon as I read the rule, didn't expect I was the only one to think of it, but also didn't expect there to be a thread on CD about it by the time I got home. I think the noodle agreement is an excellent idea and will have to be a standard match arrangement for every qualification match unless somehow and updated patches it out.
Additional point, "The Noodle Agreement" is the best CD thread name I've seen in many a time.
Jonathan Norris
03-01-2015, 17:05
At a cost of a foul per noodle in the final 20 seconds of the game (G33). Plus 40 points, minus 60 points. Oops.
Ok you got me there :), I'm sure they can be dumped over earlier in the game, or one at a time through the chute in the last 20 seconds. Doesn't change how this affects the strategy of trying to take down the top alliances in the eliminations, this could easily be used to take 40 points away from the top alliance's averages. The only possible solutions I see is getting rid of the litter bonuses, or randomizing your opponents in the quarters and semi's (but that doesn't totally solve the issue).
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 17:08
The only fix I see is making litter scored in the landfill the same number of points as the litter bonus. And again, this still doesn't completely solve the issue.
What I would like to know is did the gdc see this coming or was there a loud slap of the head when they learned of it?
Ok you got me there :), I'm sure they can be dumped over earlier in the game, or one at a time through the chute in the last 20 seconds. Doesn't change how this affects the strategy of trying to take down the top alliances in the eliminations, this could easily be used to take 40 points away from the top alliance's averages. The only possible solutions I see is getting rid of the litter bonuses, or randomizing your opponents in the quarters and semi's (but that doesn't totally solve the issue).
You are assuming that the teams playing against the top ranked teams will not do the Noodle agreement with them. Rank 1 and 2 play Rank 7 and 8 in QF's. I'm 100% sure the Rank 7 and 8 alliances aren't going to purposely handicap themselves just so the rank 3-6 teams can advance.
In the SF you play each other team once, so even if 3 and 4 only TNA withselves, Rank 1 and 2 still get to TNA with themselves.
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 17:18
The only shared space of the field is the STEP. Can anyone think of a use for it in this strategy?
Verrazano
03-01-2015, 17:20
I think we should take the noodle agreement a step further. How about nobody moves their robot and we dump all our noodles on the floor. That way everyone ends the qualifiers with same score.
Sparkyshires
03-01-2015, 17:21
Coopertition doesn't work in Eliminations. No points are awarded. I assume that this won't happen either.
Does co-op score at all? I could see in the QF's, for ex. with 1 v 8, it would be mutually beneficial to co-op and get 40 point bonus.
Does co-op score at all? I could see in the QF's, for ex. with 1 v 8, it would be mutually beneficial to co-op and get 40 point bonus.
I had the same thought originally. This does not score in playoff matches (table 1.2 footnote)
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 17:22
I think we should take the noodle agreement a step further. How about nobody moves their robot and we dump all our noodles on the floor. That way everyone ends the qualifiers with same score.
WOW! Wouldn't that be something! A finals dictated solely by the random placement in the FMS! haha love it!
PandaHatMan
03-01-2015, 17:33
I don't see this working out in eliminations... too cut-throat
This could work in Elims. Due to how the finals matches work, you could agree to do this in both matches, boosting you and your partner's averages. Since you agree twice, you get those points twice. All the teams will end up doing this because it leaves them higher scoring by doing it.
Personally, I would have a designated guard robot to protect the noodles for the last few seconds. that robot would sit with the noodles in front of it. If you sense foul play, simply drive forwards. The other robots on you alliance would be unable to go against the agreement because the noodles are protected.
You could also agree that if the other alliance touches the noodles after entering play, the deal is off. Both teams get 10+ points for them being in barrels or landfill, etc.
Just realized that this "Noodle Agreement" is mutual littering lol. So much for the theme of recycling
Abhishek R
03-01-2015, 17:35
While this strategy is fully valid as outlined in the rules, it does bring up another dilemma. Say a team believes that is against their morals or does not believe that is the intent of the game. If a few teams decide to play the noodle strategy, these other teams will be forced to take part in order to keep up in the points standings, or else risk seeding low.
I don't like this loophole, personally.
This basically removes a significant portion of the game. I don't think it was intended, and wouldn't be surprised if there were a rules update invalidating it. I would certainly like such a rules update, because I don't want to have to abandon a potentially interesting part of the game simply because the scoring system has perverse incentives.
Duncan Macdonald
03-01-2015, 17:39
...Unfortunately this game gives too much power to the opposing alliance to prevent coopertition scoring...
Do you mean "The problem is that this game has coopertition scoring"?
If it doesn't require actions by both alliances to "earn" the points, then it wouldn't be cooperation.
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 17:43
But what point does this serve in elims? The team with the most points win, 40 points to both sides mean nothing. The difference in the score remains. The only instance I can think of where TNA comes into play in elims is who is willing to stab who in the back first, and because of this teams wouldn't want to do it in the first place! What's the point of doing it in elims?
p00rleno
03-01-2015, 17:49
Keep in mind elims are not head to head until the finals, so teams doing it *may* have an advantage over those who dont.
This is useless. Everyone agrees to have forty extra points. This benefits no one.
It doesn't matter whether team A has 10 points, team B has 20 points, and team C has 30 points or if team A has 50 points, team B has 60 points, and team C has 70 points. The result is exactly the same. C wins no matter what.
Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.
Duncan Macdonald
03-01-2015, 17:50
But what point does this serve in elims? The team with the most points win, 40 points to both sides mean nothing. The difference in the score remains. The only instance I can think of where TNA comes into play in elims is who is willing to stab who in the back first, and because of this teams wouldn't want to do it in the first place! What's the point of doing it in elims?
There is a 2 match round robin for the quarter finals with the highest average (total score) advancing. Hypothetically if alliances 7 and 8 don't participate then alliance 1 is at a big disadvantage.
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 17:52
This is useless. Everyone agrees to have forty extra points. This benefits no one.
It doesn't matter whether team A has 10 points, team B has 20 points, and team C has 30 points or if team A has 50 points, team B has 60 points, and team C has 70 points. The result is exactly the same. C wins no matter what.
Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.
Awe, but here is the flaw in your argument, not all the teams will do it, it's risk and reward.
There is a 2 match round robin for the quarter finals with the highest average (total score) advancing. Hypothetically if alliances 7 and 8 don't participate then alliance 1 is at a big disadvantage.
I see, sorry, I haven't gone over that part of the rules. My bad.
Sparkyshires
03-01-2015, 17:56
While this strategy is fully valid as outlined in the rules, it does bring up another dilemma. Say a team believes that is against their morals or does not believe that is the intent of the game. If a few teams decide to play the noodle strategy, these other teams will be forced to take part in order to keep up in the points standings, or else risk seeding low.
I don't like this loophole, personally.
Exactly, but it's what has to be done. That's why I hate games like this. It's gonna be just like overdrive or whatever, where there are gonna be teams throwing matches or competing against each other. I can just see it, right around Saturday before lunch time, the last couple matches, one team wants to co-op but another on the alliance doesn't there could be some inter-alliance conflicts.
This is useless. Everyone agrees to have forty extra points. This benefits no one.
It doesn't matter whether team A has 10 points, team B has 20 points, and team C has 30 points or if team A has 50 points, team B has 60 points, and team C has 70 points. The result is exactly the same. C wins no matter what.
Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.
I think it might happen just because some teams won't do it, and if they don't then it proves a benefit to alliances that do agree to do it. Basically becomes a "We have to do it because if we don't we fall behind" kind of mentality.
It means nothing if it's done or not as long as everyone is doing it, but the minute any one team stops it becomes worth doing.
Agreeing to the noodle agreement and then not following through would have serious repercussions. Not only would people not want to do the noodle agreement with you, but the teams you broke the deal with could very well be in picking positions. I know for sure I'd be crossing that team off my picklist no matter how good they were.
Coupled with the fact that if you want to break the disagreement, you have to convince your other alliance members as well, I don't think we'll see very many teams breaking this agreement.
That's why you break the noodle agreement in the semis, against the number 1 seed. I'm not saying I endorse this, just talking through the strategy involved. Because at that point the noodle agreement could be the determiner between who moves on and who stays, so backstabbing the top alliance has pros. And then next competition, chances are very few people know you did it, or maybe they do and that effects you, but in the short term you get a blue banner. It's a very dangerous situation, and one of the few things I'm really looking forward to seeing play out.
It's a very dangerous situation, and one of the few things I'm really looking forward to seeing play out.
I'm not. This sounds like a great way to get a lot of people very upset and generally make the experience less-enjoyable for everyone.
Metagaming of this sort does not strike me as particularly "graciously professional," especially when it potentially involves dishonesty.
S.P.A.M.er 17
03-01-2015, 18:06
Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.
... not all the teams will do it, it's risk and reward.
Since seeding is determined by average score first, everyone who decides to do it will have a nice qualifier score boost. If you don't, you will be at a disadvantage. The risk that the other team might seed higher than you doesn't seem as bad as the increased effort into scoring the noodles to make up for the 40 lost points.
aztecprincess98
03-01-2015, 18:09
This is kind of a two way street, you can agree to the Noodle Agreement, but it is another part to abide by the agreement. Teams can easily change their decisions and begin to throw the noodles onto the opposing alliance's side and score points for their own alliance. :)
This is kind of a two way street, you can agree to the Noodle Agreement, but it is another part to abide by the agreement. Teams can easily change their decisions and begin to throw the noodles onto the opposing alliance's side and score points for their own alliance. :)
have you tried throwing the pool noodles? Even the pristine ones don't work so well especially over a wall, and at competition they are only going to get worse. Personally I don't see thrown pool noodles being a thing, but you should try it for yourself. There might be a strategy for throwing them that I haven't thought of.
SamCyanide
03-01-2015, 18:16
This is a situation where the utmost of gracious professionalism is required.
Interesting idea... now if only they add honor points haha
bh202548
03-01-2015, 18:19
I think it makes more sense that alliances try and score half of their noodles in the recycling bin(depending on the two alliances capabilities) and the other 5 of the noodles should be left for the noodle agreement. This leads to max points unless one team got all of the recycling bins on the step. So do you think this is better or that it is better to leave all ten noodles for the noodle agreement?
edit: okay I figured it out.
I don't see why anyone would trust this agreement. You can't get in trouble for violating it. I think if you do this you're asking to give the other team up to 40 points if you suddenly realize they didn't follow through. People aren't going to act in the benefit of the enemy team.
The question you have to ask yourself: Do I want to win?
If yes: don't follow through.
if no: then you should question why you are coming up with the mutual idea in the first place.
I'm not. This sounds like a great way to get a lot of people very upset and generally make the experience less-enjoyable for everyone.
Metagaming of this sort does not strike me as particularly "graciously professional," especially when it potentially involves dishonesty.
Well, it's like the only thing we can watch play out that involves any strategy so...
At least it'll be interesting from a psychological standpoint.
I do agree that it isn't really in the spirit of FRC, but it's going to happen and I'm going to watch the heck out of it.
it's going to happen and I'm going to watch the heck out of it.
$10 says we see a rule update addressing this.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
03-01-2015, 18:36
edit: okay I figured it out.
I don't see why anyone would trust this agreement. You can't get in trouble for violating it. I think if you do this you're asking to give the other team up to 40 points if you suddenly realize they didn't follow through. People aren't going to act in the benefit of the enemy team.
The question you have to ask yourself: Do I want to win?
If yes: don't follow through.
if no: then you should question why you are coming up with the mutual idea in the first place.
Actually I think you will end up having no choice but to trust in this agreement since if most people are doing it which they probably will, you will be penalized by not getting the points. As Frank said, they won't be announcing wins and losses until the final rounds. The game isn't about winning, it's about having the highest average score possible.
I know this might get some people to disagree, but the more I think about this the less I want to do TNA. I really don't think this is the way the game is meant to be played. The video calls these pieces "litter" for a reason: to deter us from giving the other alliance those points. And there are probably teams who are already planning on how to get the noodle in the recycling bin. What if, for some unforeseen reason, those teams do not see or hear about TNA? They will be out of part of their plan for this game. I honestly hope a rule is put into play to stop TNA from being able to happen. Just my personal opinion and people, including from my own team, may disagree.
This is useless. Everyone agrees to have forty extra points. This benefits no one.
It doesn't matter whether team A has 10 points, team B has 20 points, and team C has 30 points or if team A has 50 points, team B has 60 points, and team C has 70 points. The result is exactly the same. C wins no matter what.
Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
03-01-2015, 18:56
This is useless. Everyone agrees to have forty extra points. This benefits no one.
It doesn't matter whether team A has 10 points, team B has 20 points, and team C has 30 points or if team A has 50 points, team B has 60 points, and team C has 70 points. The result is exactly the same. C wins no matter what.
Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.
You stated this earlier in the thread. But I can see many situations, especially in the beginning of a regional where not everyone does this because of not being aware or for strategic reasons. Then it becomes a must have to do it because it gives you a free edge over others that don't decide to do it. As others stated, it's more of a do it or suffer kind of decision but I'm sure there will be some that don't which does make it benefit people.
A really awesome video explaining the prisoner's delima. Show this to your team and then have a discussion.
http://youtu.be/t9Lo2fgxWHw
EricDrost
03-01-2015, 19:09
Scenario:
The 2nd, 7th, and 8th alliances all collaborate to use The Noodle Agreement (TNA), but not with the 1st alliance.
QF3( 2 v 7 ) - TNA
QF4( 1 v 8 ) - No TNA
QF7( 2 v 8 ) - TNA
QF8( 1 v 7 ) - No TNA
Alliance 2 gets +40 to Average Score
Alliances 7 and 8 get +20 to Average Score
Alliance 1 gets +0 to Average Score
This is a real problem. Unprocessed Litter needs to become -4 to Alliance's score (not +4 to Opposing Alliance's score) or removed from scoring entirely.
Or this:
The way I see FIRST removing the ability to have the noodle agreement is they will probably change it so that one alliance gains 2 points and the other loses 2 points (so that the noodle agreement will net 0 points for each alliance)
The way I see FIRST removing the ability to have the noodle agreement is they will probably change it so that one alliance gains 2 points and the other loses 2 points (so that the noodle agreement will net 0 points for each alliance)
Skyehawk
03-01-2015, 19:14
Scenario:
This is a real problem. Unprocessed Litter needs to become -4 to Alliance's score (not +4 to Opposing Alliance's score) or removed from scoring entirely.
Or this:
This is the only solution that I see working.
botbuddy
03-01-2015, 19:29
This is useless. Everyone agrees to have forty extra points. This benefits no one.
It doesn't matter whether team A has 10 points, team B has 20 points, and team C has 30 points or if team A has 50 points, team B has 60 points, and team C has 70 points. The result is exactly the same. C wins no matter what.
Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.
Here's where your thinking is going - in an ideal situation, if everyone inflates their points by 40 through the noodle agreement, "40" is the new "0", and relative rankings remain exactly the same.
But the fact is, 40 does not equal zero. 40 points is 40 points that you can LOSE.
Think of it like this. Without the noodle agreement, let's say team A has 10 points, B has 20 points, and C has 30 points. If team B takes a severe beating in fouls and are supposed to lose 30 points, the most team B can lose is 20 points.
But with the noodle agreement, the numbers change to A has 50, B has 60, and C has 70. If team B takes the same penalty as in the first scenario, they lose 30 points, and suddenly the game is changed - team B is now ranked last, behind team A.
Reality isn't perfect. Point penalties will happen, and statistically speaking, the 40 point inflation will widen the range of possible values and can change the game.
wolfgang42
03-01-2015, 19:31
I'd just like to point out that this is a form of iterated prisoner's dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dil emma).
Within a match, you can see what the other alliance is doing and react accordingly. The optimal strategy is therefore tit-for-tat: Put a noodle in, wait for the other side to put one in, and then alternate. This guarantees that you can't lose more than 4 points.
In the larger context of the event, it turns into a multi-player iterated prisoner's dilemma. I don't know what the optimal strategy is, but I would anticipate that teams will only agree to the Noodle Agreement with other teams who have not defected in the past; thus, if a team wishes to continue benefiting from the Noodle Agreement it is in their best interest to not defect. (Obviously this depends on the news of the defection getting around; if the NA becomes an important strategy this is likely to happen.)
Kevin Sevcik
03-01-2015, 19:32
+2/-2 is a really great suggestion if they want to rule out TNA but still keep the noodle throwing incentive they so obviously desire. It nixes any TNA advantage, but keeps some of the absolute benefit for Red to try to force noodles onto Blue.
olapmonkey
03-01-2015, 19:42
So why not just take this concept to the next level and form a noodle treaty for the entire regional. The likely playout would have everyone doing a noodle alliance as soon as the first one was executed, so why not just make a treaty that everyone signs at the regional saying no noodles will be put in play. If a team doesn't sign, then everyone else executes automatic noodle alliances unless they are facing the non-signing team. In time...all would simply sign the treaty and noodles would have no play in the game.
I personally would like to see rule G24 repealed with regards to noodles as it would invalidate this noodle alliance silliness and let the teams focus on building awesome robots that can pick up and fling noodles to the other side in addition to stackin things
These things are throwable. After a half hour of practice I can throw 30-40 feet semi reliably (50% on 20 throws)
http://youtu.be/vyboSYt6J8I
Some example throws. The far edge of the key is 31 feet from the sideline
These things are throwable. After a half hour of practice I can throw 30-40 feet semi reliably (50% on 20 throws)
http://youtu.be/vyboSYt6J8I
Some example throws. The far edge of the key is 31 feet from the sideline
those are pristine condition noodles. you can forget about them being anything like that on the actual game field.
those are pristine condition noodles. you can forget about them being anything like that on the actual game field.
one of the team members tied it into a knot before I tried this... lol they're pretty pliable and can be returned to semi straight before throwing... idk give it a shot with yours :)
matthewdenny
03-01-2015, 20:24
FIRST could also color code the noodles. Red team throws red noodles, and only get 4 points for red noodles in the blue zone. I'm sure there are more details to work out, but I've only had the manual for a day.
Actually I think you will end up having no choice but to trust in this agreement since if most people are doing it which they probably will, you will be penalized by not getting the points. As Frank said, they won't be announcing wins and losses until the final rounds. The game isn't about winning, it's about having the highest average score possible.
Not really. If theres one SINGLE team that doesn't want to do it, the enemy alliance gets punished for trusting them.
Lets say red team 1 doesn't want to do it, red2/3 and blue1-3 want to. All teams drop the noodles on the ground on their side so the enemy team gets +40. Both red and blue get +40 at this point.
Well, red1 doesn't like this. They pick up the noodles and put them in containers or in the landfill. Now blue isn't at +40. Probably +32 or +28, while red stays at +40. Now you're in a bit of a problem if you're on blue.
Sparkyshires
03-01-2015, 20:26
You have to admit though, this is a fair point. Personally, I think my team has already decided we're not going to. It's not very graciously professional, and you leave yourself too open to have bad blood created between teams that could last a lifetime. Instead of risk someone backstabbing you and just overall not going the FIRST way, it'll be better to just not do it.
HINT TO THE GDC HINT HINT: I very much think the rule should get changed to a normalizing thing, for ex if blue alliance has 7 on the floor, and red has 4, instead of adding 28 to red and 16 to blue, normalize it so that it's comparable to blue has 3, and red has 0, and then only add 12 to red's score. This does minimal change to the rule's, and totally nullifies the noodle agreement dilemna.
Grim Tuesday
03-01-2015, 20:28
This "Noodle Coopertition" was apparent to a number of members on our team as well. Is it possible that the GDC totally missed it (a la 2011 spring powered minibots) or is this another coopertition aspect? The GDC is made up of extremely intelligent and talented individuals and this is a pretty huge flaw (if it is indeed one) for them not to have noticed. Personally, I really enjoy the idea of the highly strategic gameplay it brings.
To anyone who says this is "not GP," that's a whole argument in and of itself, but with this game especially, the goal is for both alliances to score as many points by themselves as possible at a time. There is not semblance of this being a real sport (like Breakaway, where 6v0 was very controversial because of the soccer roots). TNA is the epitome of coopertition, if pulled off correctly, and any bad blood created will be well deserved.
There are problems with making noodles -4 and -2. All scoring in this game is based entirely on what your alliance is able to do. Making noodles a negative changes your score based on the actions of the opposing alliance. This messes with the entire scoring and seeding system for this game. If the GDC does choose to "fix" this, then I think the best solution is red and blue noodles, though you do lose the aspect of accidentally littering your side of the field.
alopex_rex
03-01-2015, 20:36
HINT TO THE GDC HINT HINT: I very much think the rule should get changed to a normalizing thing, for ex if blue alliance has 7 on the floor, and red has 4, instead of adding 28 to red and 16 to blue, normalize it so that it's comparable to blue has 3, and red has 0, and then only add 12 to red's score. This does minimal change to the rule's, and totally nullifies the noodle agreement dilemna.
YES.
please.
TNA seemed cool at first, but the more I think about it the more it seems like it would just be annoying for everyone. It's an exploitation of the rules, that doesn't even have anything to do with robot functionality. If rankings were heavily affected by who did or didn't go along with TNA, it would give the entire competition an air of illegitimacy. Events should be tests of robots, not large-scale experiments in game theory.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
03-01-2015, 20:37
Not really. If theres one SINGLE team that doesn't want to do it, the enemy alliance gets punished for trusting them.
Lets say red team 1 doesn't want to do it, red2/3 and blue1-3 want to. All teams drop the noodles on the ground on their side so the enemy team gets +40. Both red and blue get +40 at this point.
Well, red1 doesn't like this. They pick up the noodles and put them in containers or in the landfill. Now blue isn't at +40. Probably +32 or +28, while red stays at +40. Now you're in a bit of a problem if you're on blue.
Well of course there is always that risk but I think the vast majority of teams wouldn't want to be part of a controversy where they went against the wishes of the alliance without telling them. Really it's not much different than coopertition. If everyone does it, then there is no benefit to it. Of course people can promise to do coopertition with you and secretly decide not to but these cases are rare and few. Statistically, people are going to honor the decision much more often than not. Now come eliminations, that might all change.
Such a passionate discussion, and it's only day 1! But this trust dependent loophole seems to have caused some headaches. I'll bring it up with my team but they may very well leave it on a back burner because there are other elements to design around.
I think the Noodle Agreement is interesting in that it can provide an extra coopertition bonus during the qualification rounds, but I'm not sure how I feel about it being used against specific alliances in elimination rounds. While I can see the side of the argument that says it merely helps to even the playing field against what are potentially the best two robots in the competition, I also feel that the best team should win regardless of if the others band against them with Noodle Agreements.
Perhaps a scoring change for elimination rounds to get rid of the ability to "gang up" on one team and deny them Noodle Agreement points, while still retaining the bonus coopertition points in qualification rounds? Something along the lines of the noodles removing points during eliminations and adding the points to the other team during qualification rounds would work to accomplish this, but there are probably more elegant solutions (if a change is made at all).
Jared Russell
03-01-2015, 21:27
FIRST should give the red alliance red noodles and the blue alliance blue noodles. UNPROCESSED LITTER bonuses can then only be given to noodles of the opposite alliance's color. Problem solved.
Jacob Bendicksen
03-01-2015, 21:39
Ignoring whether it's graciously professional for a moment, I do think it's a fascinating version of the iterated prisoner's dilemma. There's a lot of trust and potential gain involved, and once a team defects, they won't be trusted again. I agree with the previous posters who say that a tit-for-tat approach will be the best: watch the human player across the field, and when they put one in, you put one in. It minimizes losses, and increases trust.
FIRST could also color code the noodles. Red team throws red noodles, and only get 4 points for red noodles in the blue zone. I'm sure there are more details to work out, but I've only had the manual for a day.
I think this is the best solution, if FIRST decides to prevent this situation via a rule change. No points are awarded to RED if BLUE drops its own noodles its side. RED only receives points for getting its own (red-colored) noodles to the BLUE side. The color allows referees to easily determine which noodles originated on each side.
A variation of the agreement still would exist, where each team agrees not to remove the noodles that the other team throws across the field, but this is less of a problem (because it is harder to throw the noodle ~35 feet over the opposing alliance's LANDFILL ZONE than to just drop the noodles on your side).
The one side effect I can think of for this change is this removes the "penalty" (not really a penalty, a bonus to the other side) for accidentally dropping one of your noodles and failing to remove it. I don't think this is a particularly important component of the game though.
Mike Marandola
03-01-2015, 21:41
one of the team members tied it into a knot before I tried this... lol they're pretty pliable and can be returned to semi straight before throwing... idk give it a shot with yours :)
This would be illegal per G16.
http://i.imgur.com/ROtuiAx.png
So why not just take this concept to the next level and form a noodle treaty for the entire regional. The likely playout would have everyone doing a noodle alliance as soon as the first one was executed, so why not just make a treaty that everyone signs at the regional saying no noodles will be put in play. If a team doesn't sign, then everyone else executes automatic noodle alliances unless they are facing the non-signing team. In time...all would simply sign the treaty and noodles would have no play in the game.
This seems to be really unnecessary and very very unfair. Honestly, I can't imagine and don't want to see any kind of situation where teams agree to this.
Punishing teams for defending a valid and fair coopertition based strategy to artificially inflate your own poorer methods, and then rubbing this in their face by using their own better idea and then banning them from ANY possible degree of success in competition AT ALL (because yes, 40 points per match is that huge) is cruel and undeniably non gp.
It'd be like making all teams agree last year to not give the game pieces to the good high goal scorers just so low goal bots can do better; it's not their fault your strategy is poorer, don't punish them over it.
Grim Tuesday
03-01-2015, 21:58
This seems to be really unnecessary and very very unfair. Honestly, I can't imagine and don't want to see any kind of situation where teams agree to this.
Punishing teams for defending a valid and fair coopertition based strategy to artificially inflate your own poorer methods, and then rubbing this in their face by using their own better idea and then banning them from ANY possible degree of success in competition AT ALL (because yes, 40 points per match is that huge) is cruel and undeniably non gp.
It'd be like making all teams agree last year to not give the game pieces to the good high goal scorers just so low goal bots can do better; it's not their fault your strategy is poorer, don't punish them over it.
You say poorer methods, I say more efficient use of time both in match and during the build season.
How about a modification of the noodle agreement: We each agree to dump 7 noodles (28 pts) and each alliance gets 3 to play with. Then you can use your noodles how you wish with your complicated mechanism you spent time during the season designing and we still both gain a large value.
The marginal value between a noodle dump and a noodle in a bin is 2 pts. I think you could make a new stack (4 pts, opportunity for bin pts) faster than you could stick a noodle in a bin no matter when it happens (noodle in bin before stack, noodle in bin while already on the stack, etc...) The goal is to increase your QS during quals. Taking TNA will increase your score by 40, and also give you opportunity to spend time scoring more and increase it even further. Other than a doublecross, I challenge you to find me a time when it is not advantageous to take the noodle agreement.
Another question for discussion: I suspect many people would say refusing to cooperate with the yellow totes would be against GP. At the same time, I've heard that coopertating with noodles is not GP. Both lead to 40 pts for both alliances. What is the difference between them?
IronicDeadBird
03-01-2015, 22:02
Team B doesn't lose points. Their opposing alliance gains points.
Does anybody else find it odd in a game where everything was designed to be contained and robots were with an alliance and no interference from an opposing alliance the gdc decided.. "Yeah how about this game piece helps the other side"
Shout out to The cold noodle war sounds like a harsh time in college...
If you just made it so that it didn't bump the opposing side wouldn't it work roughly the same and have the same risk reward?
Jeanne Boyarsky
03-01-2015, 22:08
YHINT TO THE GDC HINT HINT: I very much think the rule should get changed to a normalizing thing, for ex if blue alliance has 7 on the floor, and red has 4, instead of adding 28 to red and 16 to blue, normalize it so that it's comparable to blue has 3, and red has 0, and then only add 12 to red's score. This does minimal change to the rule's, and totally nullifies the noodle agreement dilemna.
I was thinking this when my team discussed it earlier today. It keeps the spirit of the rule and prevents gaming it.
Personally, I think the agreement is detrimental to the game in three ways:
1) It allows for the potential to gang up on the strongest alliance in the semifinal if the other three cooperate with each other but not the strongest one, giving them a 40 point advantage. This is a much stronger threat than in the quarters, where the numbers 7 and 8 alliances are unlikely to give up 20 points (and 40 points probably isn't even enough to knock out the number 1 alliance anyway).
2) It trivializes an interesting part of the game. Scoring the noodles in the recycling containers is perhaps the hardest engineering challenge this game provides (with respect to mechanisms, I think some of the autonomous tasks may be harder regarding control systems), and is worth at most 60 points (you can get more, but it requires the other alliance to throw their noodles across the field, which won't happen with TNA). TNA provides 40 of those points without any challenge, making building a noodle-handling mechanism much less competitive than it would be otherwise.
3) It complicates an already confusing game when trying to explain it to non-FIRST spectators. Do we want to explain (to potential sponsors or other supporters) why teams are deliberately scoring for each other? How about why, though the theme of the game is recycling, teams are choosing instead to leave the LITTER on the ground?
At low levels, points from TNA are likely to exceed points from actual robot actions. I'm not sure how the GDC envisioned this game, but I would be surprised if this was their intention.
I think that most teams will want to use the noodles for scoring in the recycling bins (or throwing if they are able to), because that gives them a more distinct advantage against other teams than TNA since it doesn't increase your opponent's score. TNA basically gives a short term strategic advantage before heralding a long-term hassle for everyone, and decreased game diversity (it removes an interesting element of the game). At that point it doesn't really do anything but make the game less fun and interesting for everyone, which really isn't in the spirit of FIRST.
At any particular regional (assuming the rules aren't changed to disallow TNA in the future) there will probably be a period staring from the beginning of qualifications in which no team will want to do the noodle agreement for fear of starting a "TNA ripple" through the entire competition. Nobody wants to be "that guy" or "that team," especially considering how much TNA goes against FIRST values and robotic design competition.
alopex_rex
03-01-2015, 22:22
I seriously hope they fix this before competitions. The points are so big, especially for early levels of competition, that would be a great benefit for any team participating. And if you know about it, then all you can do is...play along, whether you like it or not.
If it isn't fixed, I fear 2015 will be forever known as the "the noodle agreement year", where competitions were decided by teams' performance in a prisoner's dilemma unrelated to the actual game. Jumping to worst case scenarios is premature though, there's still plenty of time to work this out.
I must also add that although our team may play along with TNA if it comes to that, I could never abide conspiring to punish a team or teams for violating meta-rules we have created. That would just be wrong.
Deja vu...
Not many of us have been around long enough to remember, but 2003's Stack Attack had very close to the same kind of qualification scoring and the same argument. That year, instead of "don't pick up litter", it was "don't knock down stacks". The result was so much argument and ill will between teams that we thought they'd never do anything like that again.
KineticCougar
03-01-2015, 22:29
I think there needs to be a compromise within this agreement. Do you think that teams will be willing to leave 5 noodles in the litter bin? This could allow teams to move the noodles into the landfill zone if the opposing alliances are dishonest. Also, do you think most teams will be throwing their noodles into the opposing alliance zone? Tell me your thoughts please
I have a feeling this may be used near the end of the qualification matches. In which teams need XXX points to rank higher.
You say poorer methods, I say more efficient use of time both in match and during the build season.
How about a modification of the noodle agreement: We each agree to dump 7 noodles (28 pts) and each alliance gets 3 to play with. Then you can use your noodles how you wish with your complicated mechanism you spent time during the season designing and we still both gain a large value.
I get what you're saying; teams in a perfect world should be rewarded for their mechanisms, but there's alot to be said for the fact that you can't retaliate against teams for wanting their own routes to success. My issue isn't with teams who want to score their own noodles, but the fact that the "agreement" in question (see post 76) involves sabbatoging teams who behave in a way that certain teams won't like but that is still gp and perfectly legal. I can see the argument for retaliating against teams who break agreements they consent to, or who refuse any degree of cooperation at all, but forcing teams into your chosen model by threatening to kick them straight out of the rankings is cruel.
Forcing every team at an event into behaving according to whatever model you think is best is just asking for trouble, because there will be teams made to suffer under it through no fault of their own. I think noodle alliances will really have to be handled on a case by case basis. Alliances deserve to be able to advocate for what works best for them in each particular situation, not be silenced into following some artificial standard imposed on them by teams who feel threatened. Using the threat of effectively kicking a team out of competition because they have their own ideas is not cool.
They're going to solve this issue quite simply... Either by putting red or blue tape to denote what litter belongs to which alliance or by some other similar means.
Mike Bortfeldt
03-01-2015, 22:39
Another potential "fix" using red and blue noodles is to have +4 for your noodles in the opposing alliance zone and -4 for your noodles in your own zone.
so on a somewhat related note would i be legal to pick up a recycling can and then take it to the human player and have him/her put it in the can?
alopex_rex
03-01-2015, 22:44
To be realistic, nothing involving a large scale agreement between teams is going to happen. This includes any proposals for "compromise" or "treaties". The idea of all 40+ teams at a competition getting together and agreeing on a treaty, or anything, is ridiculous. If TNA stays legal, decisions about it will be made team by team, match by match. (Probably for the better...the idea that teams could get together and conspire to force teams to follow their rules, and punish those that break them, is chilling.)
so would i be legally possible to have your bot pick up the can and bring it to the human player and then have him/her insert it in to the can via the shoot, and then have the bot place the can atop of a prebuilt stack of crates?
Rangel(kf7fdb)
03-01-2015, 22:47
so would i be legally possible to have your bot pick up the can and bring it to the human player and then have him/her insert it in to the can via the shoot, and then have the bot place the can atop of a prebuilt stack of crates?
According to the rules, this is perfectly legal. Although, we haven't tried or seen anyone doing this through the human player station to see if it's feasible.
Another question for discussion: I suspect many people would say refusing to cooperate with the yellow totes would be against GP. At the same time, I've heard that coopertating with noodles is not GP. Both lead to 40 pts for both alliances. What is the difference between them?
Yeah, that's a huge part of the problem. Teams view what's "gp" or not largely from their own perspective. At least for me, I try to use it in the most intense circumstances, but for me and you and everyone here, that applies to different things (e.g. the example above: to me it seems very un gp, but someone with a more "anything goes" attitude might think conspiracies against particular teams across an entire regional, since they're not illegal, aren't too bad an idea if it can serve to their own benefit).
Nobody wants to be "that guy" or "that team," especially considering how much TNA goes against FIRST values and robotic design competition.
I must strongly disagree with this sentiment.
TNA is gracious professionalism just as much as any coopertition points have been in the past. More so, because it is not explicitly stated in the rules.
More importantly, perhaps, if a noodle agreement is made, but then broken, and thus backstabbing the opposing alliance who expected the noodle agreement. Is, just that: A backstab. and very anti-GP.
I do hope that rule G24 is amended, indeed, to allow for robots specializing in noodle manipulation, but at this point, the noodle agreement is far too optimal in score vs effort to not be done. Also, if the rule is changed too late (and perhaps it already is too late), robot designs will already be fairly set, parts ordered, and such, and the 'meta' in as much as ratios of robot types. has already been affected.
Let me list the pros vs cons as I see them, as far as the 6 teams on the field during the qualifying matches will see it:
Pros-
Weight, design time, space, complexity are all saved.
A guaranteed 40 points
No risk of flying or fallen noodles interrupting stacking operations.
Time not spent worrying about noodles is more time spent completing other tacks, potentially further increasing both alliance's scores.
A way to build trust with the enemy alliance.
Cons-
2 points lost per stacked can which could have had a noodle in it.
one player feeding station is effectively inoperable for the last ~10 seconds of the match, if fed though the feeder station. ~30 seconds if tossed over the top.
Potential backstab by the enemy alliance: but very not GP and as such not expected.
Any rational team will find the pros of the noodle agreement far outweigh the cons.
Frankly. if G24 is amended to allow robot noodle manipulation, even then The noodle agreement, in as far as total point scored is superior to having a noodle manipulator on your team. Your noodle manipulator will still score you 40 points, perhaps up to 80 if it can pick up off the floor, and hold all 20 noodles for a last second shotgun burst of noodles to the enemy side of the field (improbable to say the least), but now you have to deal with noodles annoying your robots, and you have one less stack manipulator... Manipulating the noodles in this way feels very non-optimal, as far as scoring goes, compared agreeing to the noodle agreement, and having a third stacking bot.
Frankly. As the rules are written right now... the noodle agreement is kind of like Jury Nullification.
Not explicitly in the rules.
No one tells you about it.
But incredibly important for the preservation of justice... i mean. optimal game play.
Deja vu...
Not many of us have been around long enough to remember, but 2003's Stack Attack had very close to the same kind of qualification scoring and the same argument. That year, instead of "don't pick up litter", it was "don't knock down stacks". The result was so much argument and ill will between teams that we thought they'd never do anything like that again.
Yes. I remember hearing about this. It was the year before I joined, but I was told the story of, and well remembered what I believe was kind of the the very first cooperation in FIRST.
To be realistic, nothing involving a large scale agreement between teams is going to happen. This includes any proposals for "compromise" or "treaties". The idea of all 40+ teams at a competition getting together and agreeing on a treaty, or anything, is ridiculous. If TNA stays legal, decisions about it will be made team by team, match by match. (Probably for the better...the idea that teams could get together and conspire to force teams to follow their rules, and punish those that break them, is chilling.)
Most certainly. TNA, if not amended, will be match by match. If an alliance feels they can do better without TNA that with, that is clearly their decision, and as long as the other alliance is aware, no harm is done for that particular match.
I would suspect that for the playoffs, those top teams will be very careful in their noodle agreements, and not do anything which might be consider anti-gp... just as I have never seen those top teams not use their time out to help the other guys and win by default.
Sparkyshires
03-01-2015, 23:17
I was thinking this when my team discussed it earlier today. It keeps the spirit of the rule and prevents gaming it.
Exactly. There's no coloring the noodles, no added game prep, and it keeps the spirit of the rule, but doesn't let people exploit it by mutually scoring for each other. It's the simplest solution.
diddoarch710
03-01-2015, 23:18
im interested to see how this and how coopertition works in elims :)
Well, the Coopertition bins I'm pretty sure are disabled during eliminations.
Well of course there is always that risk but I think the vast majority of teams wouldn't want to be part of a controversy where they went against the wishes of the alliance without telling them. Really it's not much different than coopertition. If everyone does it, then there is no benefit to it. Of course people can promise to do coopertition with you and secretly decide not to but these cases are rare and few. Statistically, people are going to honor the decision much more often than not. Now come eliminations, that might all change.
In what world do you live in where you would get punished for not following the unwritten "agreement" between a couple alliances during qualifying matches?
Seriously. If you break it, so what. Sure some people will be upset and might not pick you. But you acted in your self interest, you want to win. That's the entire nature of competitive plays. To win.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
03-01-2015, 23:50
In what world do you live in where you would get punished for not following the unwritten "agreement" between a couple alliances during qualifying matches?
Seriously. If you break it, so what. Sure some people will be upset and might not pick you. But you acted in your self interest, you want to win. That's the entire nature of competitive plays. To win.
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to go along with TNA. If a team doesn't want to do it, they don't want to do it. That's fine. It's another thing though to give 5 other teams your word that you are going to do along with something and then not do it. Sure the team might be acting in their own self interest in the long run but most teams I know don't want to be known as lairs.
Edit: For the record, I don't actually like TNA and I hope there is a rule change. Nevertheless, it is a very legitimate strategy for teams to do.
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to go along with TNA. If a team doesn't want to do it, they don't want to do it. That's fine. It's another thing though to give 5 other teams your word that you are going to do along with something and then not do it. Sure the team might be acting in their own self interest in the long run but most teams I know don't want to be known as lairs.
Edit: For the record, I don't actually like TNA and I hope there is a rule change. Nevertheless, it is a very legitimate strategy for teams to do.
Yes, but there are people in this thread that act like if one person on your alliance agrees to it, youll be burned at the stake if you don't do it. Come on people. Nothings going to happen if you break it. You'd be silly to trust someone in a competition setting, no matter how much FIRST encourages "coopertition."
Tell me how coopertition would work if your team didn't get any benefits, only the opposing team, and each alliance had to fulfill an individual task.
(the "you"s are not directed at the quoted poster, rather the people going nuts in this thread about breaking it. i'd probably get in trouble for naming and shaming here though.)
XaulZan11
04-01-2015, 00:05
Yes, but there are people in this thread that act like if one person on your alliance agrees to it, youll be burned at the stake if you don't do it. Come on people. Nothings going to happen if you break it. You'd be silly to trust someone in a competition setting, no matter how much FIRST encourages "coopertition."
If I heard similar statements from a driver or key decision maker, I most likely wouldn't even consider picking them. From a purely competitive stand point, if you have proven you do not follow agreed upon strategies, I cannot trust you on my alliance.
If I heard similar statements from a driver or key decision maker, I most likely wouldn't even consider picking them. From a purely competitive stand point, if you have proven you do not follow agreed upon strategies, I cannot trust you on my alliance.
A lot of teams have ideal alliances very early on Saturday. Sometimes on Friday night. Of course, these alliances are never final and are incredibly subject to change.
If you act in your self interest, is that suddenly a bad thing? What? Since when, did I miss a memo?
I would argue if they break it, then it proves they are strongly in favor of winning. Wouldn't you want a team who wants to win?
A lot of teams have ideal alliances very early on Saturday. Sometimes on Friday night. Of course, these alliances are never final and are incredibly subject to change.
If you act in your self interest, is that suddenly a bad thing? What? Since when, did I miss a memo?
I would argue if they break it, then it proves they are strongly in favor of winning. Wouldn't you want a team who wants to win?
that brings up the question then, do you want a team driven to win for themselves? or have a team who can work well with all teams and wont backstab you later on for personal gain?
that brings up the question then, do you want a team driven to win for themselves? or have a team who can work well with all teams and wont backstab you later on for personal gain?
Why would you backstab your alliance during elims...?
Elims are what matter people. Getting #1 seed doesn't win you the regional. It doesn't give you anything but first pick.
Why would you backstab your alliance during elims...?
Elims are what matter people. Getting #1 seed doesn't win you the regional. It doesn't give you anything but first pick.
Well. different teams have different goals.
My team, for example, has never made it to the finals. ever. For us, seed is the only thing that has mattered, and the goal for us this year is to simply be good enough to get to the finals.
So. sure, the noodle agreement does not help you when your team can manage to build a robot that can earn the maximum theoretical score solo with a minute to spare, but for the rest of us, optimizing our team's effort and scoring potential by abiding by the noodle agreement will be very useful.
Well. different teams have different goals.
My team, for example, has never made it to the finals. ever. For us, seed is the only thing that has mattered, and the goal for us this year is to simply be good enough to get to the finals.
So. sure, the noodle agreement does not help you when your team can manage to build a robot that can earn the maximum theoretical score solo with a minute to spare, but for the rest of us, optimizing our team's effort and scoring potential by abiding by the noodle agreement will be very useful.
we've made it to finals twice in 7 years, and they came in 2012 and 2013. we lost both. (maybe 1 more time in 2008-2009, i'm not sure)
i don't know where you're getting the idea that i'm on a super elite amazing team. we're an average team. we've had great years, we've had bad years. 2013 was incredible for us, 2014 was meh. 2011 was not great, 2012 was pretty good.
I believe that seed number is not the only factor going into what alliance # you will be on. In fact, it's FAR from the BIGGEST factor. 2012, we were seeded in the 30s. We got picked for #3 alliance. Our own team was surprised, except for a select few who was showing the teams what we could do despite our poor ranking.
I don't mean to sound rude, but seeding should not be your primary goal, it should be performance that you can show statistics and strategy about to other teams and convince them you are a good pick. And then back up your argument on the field.
Yipyapper
04-01-2015, 00:55
Why not just make TNA, then deposit one noodle and wait to see if the other human player deposits one? If you both do then start alternating the deposit until they're all gone. If you wait for the other person to do it and act quick you can still do it in under ten seconds, five if you both get going quickly. If the opposing team doesn't deposit the first one, all you did was give them 4 points and can now tell other teams about their backstabbery and quickly start throwing those foamy pieces of negotiation to the other side of the field.
I scrolled through 4 or 5 pages on this thread to check and see if anyone mentioned it, if they did I'm sorry :c
jaykris284
04-01-2015, 00:56
FIRST should give the red alliance red noodles and the blue alliance blue noodles. UNPROCESSED LITTER bonuses can then only be given to noodles of the opposite alliance's color. Problem solved.
While in theory this is ideal, FIRST works with its vendors well in advance and probably already has an order for all green noodles.
we've made it to finals twice in 7 years, and they came in 2012 and 2013. we lost both. (maybe 1 more time in 2008-2009, i'm not sure)
i don't know where you're getting the idea that i'm on a super elite amazing team. we're an average team. we've had great years, we've had bad years. 2013 was incredible for us, 2014 was meh. 2011 was not great, 2012 was pretty good.
I believe that seed number is not the only factor going into what alliance # you will be on. In fact, it's FAR from the BIGGEST factor. 2012, we were seeded in the 30s. We got picked for #3 alliance. Our own team was surprised, except for a select few who was showing the teams what we could do despite our poor ranking.
I don't mean to sound rude, but seeding should not be your primary goal, it should be performance that you can show statistics and strategy about to other teams and convince them you are a good pick. And then back up your argument on the field.
i think he meant during the matches, when the #8 seed faces against the #1 seeded teams, usually having the #8 seeded teams destroyed by them, this happened to us last year at our district comp at Ellensburg, our #8 seeded alliance losing by about 70ish points to the #1 seeded alliance, and im sure other teams have had this also.
Why not just make TNA, then deposit one noodle and wait to see if the other human player deposits one? If you both do then start alternating the deposit until they're all gone. If you wait for the other person to do it and act quick you can still do it in under ten seconds, five if you both get going quickly. If the opposing team doesn't deposit the first one, all you did was give them 4 points and can now tell other teams about their backstabbery and quickly start throwing those foamy pieces of negotiation to the other side of the field.
I scrolled through 4 or 5 pages on this thread to check and see if anyone mentioned it, if they did I'm sorry :c
And this is why agreements like this are risky. If ONE PERSON (or team, or alliance) does not want to uphold their end, they can theoretically take down the whole thing.
My overall position: Whatever you choose to do, make sure that 1) you make your position clear, either by accepting (or making) or declining an offer, and 2) if everybody accepts the offer, hold up your end. And if the other alliance doesn't hold up their end? Let's just say that how long they're off your picklist for is up to you. (And... if you're a top 8 team and they pick you, you could always decline.) Word will get around, even if it isn't from your team.
i think he meant during the matches, when the #8 seed faces against the #1 seeded teams, usually having the #8 seeded teams destroyed by them, this happened to us last year at our district comp at Ellensburg, our #8 seeded alliance losing by about 70ish points to the #1 seeded alliance, and im sure other teams have had this also.
yes, but thats going away this year. at least the bo3 stuff. you can still advance even if you lose all 3 games.
Jacob Bendicksen
04-01-2015, 01:21
that brings up the question then, do you want a team driven to win for themselves? or have a team who can work well with all teams and wont backstab you later on for personal gain?
From a purely competitive standpoint, once you're in the playoffs, it doesn't matter. Their personal gain is exactly the same as yours - your alliance either advances, or it doesn't. You don't get a bigger trophy for scoring more points in playoffs than your alliance partners.
Bob Steele
04-01-2015, 01:35
+2/-2 is a really great suggestion if they want to rule out TNA but still keep the noodle throwing incentive they so obviously desire. It nixes any TNA advantage, but keeps some of the absolute benefit for Red to try to force noodles onto Blue.
How about looking at the difference in "scored noodles" and not just the total?
Example blue team tries to play TNA with red. Both dump all 10 noodles in their own zone. Both have 10 noodles .... Difference is zero so no added score to either side. Teams could still try to gain advantage of trying to throw into opposing side. This way some TNA "arrangement" would not benefit either team.
I do think that allowing this in ANY circumstance could lead to GDC unintended circumstances during elims though by collusion between two alliances to artificially raise one of the alliance's scores to beat out a higher ranked alliance's score that has already played
I would like to think that the intent of this game is to let alliances score as high as they can and let the best four (or two) scoring alliances move on during the playoffs.
Jacob Bendicksen
04-01-2015, 01:44
How about looking at the difference in "scored noodles" and not just the total?
Example blue team tries to play TNA with red. Both dump all 10 noodles in their own zone. Both have 10 noodles .... Difference is zero so no added score to either side. Teams could still try to gain advantage of trying to throw into opposing side. This way some TNA "arrangement" would not benefit either team.
I do think that allowing this in ANY circumstance could lead to GDC unintended circumstances during elims though by collusion between two alliances to artificially raise one of the alliance's scores to beat out a higher ranked alliance's score that has already played
I would like to think that the intent of this game is to let alliances score as high as they can and let the best four (or two) scoring alliances move on during the playoffs.
I like this suggestion...it minimizes rule changes, and keeps the spirit of the game as I understand it. It also encourages teams to score noodles in the recycling bins, since if the other team has 10 noodles on the field and they have 9 on the field with one in a bin, that's a net gain of one for them.
Just he fact that the possibility that TNA (and if not ammended by a GDC adjustment soon, or eventually, & very hopefully IMHO, before competition begins, since at least 2 great suggestions have already been mentioned in this thread alone, to negate any possible 6 team 2 alliance TNA effect like the +2Blue-2Red scoring, instead of +4Blue), & that it is an early day 1 strategy idea being discussed, and even a real issue on Kickoff day 2015...Has made me absolutely chuckle out loud all day today watching it build and be discussed, after the storm clouds and extensive discussion here not all that many months ago over another "6 Team/2 Alliance agreement" (that affected absolutely nobody except those 6 specific teams), that was done in the Finals at the Phoenix Regionals last year.
That was a healthy and hearty debate w/ many different views....But, this would be a game strategy "TNA," that if any 6 teams did go that way at any time....Almost everyone else would be forced to do so, as the QA points would quickly get away from those that did not agree, and the rest of the field gets left in the dust.
And yes, given the name of the game itself, it sure would seem contrary in "Recycle Rush", to leave all that trash round after round by agreement, "intentionally unrecycled" on both ends of the field constantly.
But, the rules are the rules, game strategy is, and must be worked up within the rules, and the rule currently allows and favors TNA as a very viable strategy and rewards it w/ high fairly guaranteed points for all 6 teams on the field for that particular game element using TNA as an agreed strategy.
Let us just hope the GDC sees this thread and adjusts the rules to easily just negate any possible "TNA being used as a continual strategy" that could cause the gumming up of the entire 2015 FRC Community, and possibly affect teams well into the future also. That fix of +2~-2=TNA benefit results of zero points (instead of +4~+4), would do so very easily.
And "The 2015 Day 1 Noodle Conspiracy" would be "Nothing but Trash on day 1" & therefore, the very idea of TNA would be "fully recycled!"
FIRST GDC, please highly consider to IMMEDIATELY RECYCLE that rule (actually a minor tweak, as the unrecycled trash would still maintain a total -4 point value as GDC designed, and should be a relatively fairly easy software scoring fix I'd think). PLEASE?:D
To do otherwise will or could fairly often force unintended coopertition that you may not have fully meant to design into this particular game. (Who knows...it may have been highly discussed there also by the GDC? They are a very smart group).
Skyehawk
04-01-2015, 02:08
I'm going to jump back into this thread after several hours of just watching.
I find TNA a tantalizing new aspect to FRC, we have had copertition in the past, but this brings it to a whole new level. In its original form co-op meant an even gain for both alliances (i.e. 20 points each) we now face the dilemma of an uneven split (i.e. 22-18) While the difference in the amount of points awarded is fairly minimal we could see a back-stab situation (i.e. 40-0).
This brings us into ethics, the spirit of FIRST is GP, so who is going to be the first to say "I have a greater desire to win." And what repercussions will that have? Will we see back-stab after back-stab? Counter back-stabs? Will 2015 be remembered as the "Year of The Noodle Agreement"?
If (by some miracle) back-stabbing does not take place and TNA thrives in competition, with every team participating we see a situation that results in closer QA's but an overall sense of accomplishment by the teams in the competition as a whole (win or loose). On the flip side, if none of the teams participate in TNA then we see QA's that have a larger spread and compitition as normal.
But here is where it gets interesting, suppose half the teams decide on TNA for their own reasons, and the other half don't. Here we see the widest spread of QA's with some serious mix-ups with the seeding. Granted there have been years in the past where teams have been carried to the top that do not deserve to be there, but what happens if there are 3 or 4 of the top 8 teams that simply get carried by this noodle agreement. This poses a serious problem for any team under the top 8.
In my experience my team has always found our way into the top 8, not too difficult if you have friendship amongst the other teams (especially spanning multiple years). Trust is built. But if TNA stays in place we are seeing an expedited trust, and with it comes some expedited bad blood (especially if a back-stab results in an 80+ point difference and a solid hit to QA.
As much as I would love to see how TNA would work in a competition (a fascinating social experiment). I agree that It has to be stopped, for fear of REALLY screwing up the game and resulting in the "Year of The Noodle Agreement".
OK...Now.....Any way that CD can add a "TNA Green Noodle" Smilie over there on the right------------------------------------------------------->
LOL!:deadhorse: ::ouch:: :D <-----I'm just going to use that 1 for now to denote the way I felt all day chuckling about this thread, and the existing designed rules and situation, that the added game play element (unresolved trash), created. Too much.
Team B doesn't lose points. Their opposing alliance gains points.
This is not true. fouls decrease your own score. 3.1.3. This was a change for 2015.
Caleb Sykes
04-01-2015, 02:16
TNA is very interesting to me. I'm still pretty on the fence if I would prefer it changed or not.
However, I find it hilarious that the game piece is named LITTER in a recycling themed game. If these rules are kept the same, here are some things you might hear at competition this year:
"We only want to litter if you litter as well"
"WHY AREN'T THEY LITTERING!"
"Wait, I forget, were we supposed to litter just now?"
"I can't believe they didn't litter."
"You said that you were going to litter and you didn't, we're going to cross you off our pick list now."
"There's only 30 seconds left, quick, litter as much as you can!"
Skyhawk...Go watch the 2 videos below.....1st 1 with no (2 Alliance/6 Team), game strategy agreement (defense was played, red won, up 1~0).
The 2nd 1 was played with a 6 Team~2 Alliance Game Strategy Agreement. It can work, there has to be much trust for sure. To do otherwise once a 6 team/2 alliance coopertition agreement is reached that is, is to invite nothing short of absolute terror. (There was also an agreement as part of that, that if it was voided by even 1 party pretty much at all during the match and intentional defensive contact was made (note what happens w/ the blue ball at one point, and how much the blue bot avoided getting in reds way then once red began the inbound), everything about the agreement was null and voided too though I understand! Therefore, the defense war was back on at that point, and defense would be back on the table).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWGcQ1dx4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQtXL7n93JA
That only affected those 6 specific teams ever, and only pretty much took out the ref's except for possible inbounding foul calls...And it caused a lot of controversy, and much discussion here in a thread. It would not have changed any real results, the right 3 teams were the winners & finalists in the end. (But, TNA would be from week zero throughout the Championships and affect possibly everyone in 1 way, or another).
6 teams doing something every single match, can only lead to many failures. (I see some real nightmares ahead....beyond the just begun build season).:D
TNA is very interesting to me. I'm still pretty on the fence if I would prefer it changed or not.
However, I find it hilarious that the game piece is named LITTER in a recycling themed game. If these rules are kept the same, here are some things you might hear at competition this year:
"We only want to litter if you litter as well"
"WHY AREN'T THEY LITTERING!"
"Wait, I forget, were we supposed to litter just now?"
"I can't believe they didn't litter."
"You said that you were going to litter and you didn't, we're going to cross you off our pick list now."
"There's only 30 seconds left, quick, litter as much as you can!"
________________________
Yes..."Recycling would be fully OUT THE WINDOW!" Not good in a game named "Recycle RUSH!":D (I should be sleeping instead of laughing about the predicament of possible FRC wide TNA. But, I can't quit laughing enough to lay my head down yet). That, and I'm currently formatting a proposed "TNA littering contract" form between page reads.:D "Forget Recycling...Wanna sign a contract to litter?" Or,...We only agree to recycle 5 times, and litter 5 times...No, we want the rights to recycle 3 times and litter 7 times.......Oh boy!:D
Why would you backstab your alliance during elims...?
Elims are what matter people. Getting #1 seed doesn't win you the regional. It doesn't give you anything but first pick.
Assuming you don't follow TNA, you will want to be in the top 8 just to be safe. If you are known for breaking form like that, you're less likely to be picked. Unless your robot is amazing and stellar, it's not in your best interests to go against a strategy that has been agreed on.
Now, if you state you're not going to follow it from the beginning, that's fine.
Just imagine the TNA all agreed to, last Q Match of the day, seedings hang in the balance, that poor 1 student that just has to introduce that last bit of litter onto the field (given that if attempted properly, so as to trim down the chances of anyone possibly stepping out on your agreement, they alternated back & forth, introducing them late in the game blue/red/blue/red, etc., and that very last one in the students hands & haste & excitement to get that last litter noodle quickly onto the field catches the very edge of the hole, folds completely in half, and the timer runs out! Oyyyyyyy! (What kind of an effect can those 4 points have in a match). Plenty.
Maybe that is why they will allow a human player to become a driver in 2015! (I'm not doing that again....you go take that real pressure being the "Agreed Noodle Litterer!" I'll drive).:D
rich2202
04-01-2015, 06:04
The easy scoring change to prevent a Noodle Agreement is:
Only the net difference is scored.
So if Red has 4 Litter on the field (outside the landfill/scored container), and Blue has 6, then Red gets the benefit of +2 Litter (2 less than Blue), or 8 points.
You stated this earlier in the thread. But I can see many situations, especially in the beginning of a regional where not everyone does this because of not being aware or for strategic reasons. Then it becomes a must have to do it because it gives you a free edge over others that don't decide to do it. As others stated, it's more of a do it or suffer kind of decision but I'm sure there will be some that don't which does make it benefit people.
Sorry, I was having issues with CD. I still can't even see my previous post, but I know it's there. Don't mean to be obnoxious.
Mrjcowman
04-01-2015, 08:40
FIRST could also color code the noodles. Red team throws red noodles, and only get 4 points for red noodles in the blue zone. I'm sure there are more details to work out, but I've only had the manual for a day.
Everyone seems to think color coding is a good idea, and I suppose it's viable, but what of this strategy? Assuming the opposing alliance littered your side, you could litter your side, too, and you have twice the noodles to then score atop containers or in the landfill. On the flipside of the coin, if you don't manage to throw into their zone, then it's litter you are responsible for and you must pick it up, or be penalized because there's litter on your side.
Ignoring any sense of throwing litter at anybody, focusing solely on your half of the game, the point is to stack totes, recycle bins, and process litter. Everyone litters, so it doesn't matter how it got there, if you don't process it, the opposing alliance gets the advantage.
The Noodle Agreement, if the other alliance were to go against it, would just result in you having more noodles to potentially score with if you have a bot on your alliance that can handle noodles. Really, this has the potential to make a whole different kind of robot a viable alliance member, and suddenly the one that's good at picking up noodles is the MVP. Assuming you don't color-code the noodles.
Mrjcowman
04-01-2015, 08:51
How about looking at the difference in "scored noodles" and not just the total?
Example blue team tries to play TNA with red. Both dump all 10 noodles in their own zone. Both have 10 noodles .... Difference is zero so no added score to either side. Teams could still try to gain advantage of trying to throw into opposing side. This way some TNA "arrangement" would not benefit either team.
I do think that allowing this in ANY circumstance could lead to GDC unintended circumstances during elims though by collusion between two alliances to artificially raise one of the alliance's scores to beat out a higher ranked alliance's score that has already played
I would like to think that the intent of this game is to let alliances score as high as they can and let the best four (or two) scoring alliances move on during the playoffs.
The net gain idea is good, but, unfortunately, that still ends up with it somehow being okay if both sides are covered in litter, as long as they are equally covered in litter. I'd venture to say, from a "recycle rush" standpoint, that's still kinda wrecking the spirit of the game.
It would make far more sense if processed litter was worth more points than unprocessed litter. It encourages proper disposal techniques as opposed to littering, increases the benefit of the strategy I mentioned above, and, if alliances still wanted to make noodle agreements, makes the easy way out worth a lot less. If you wanted to get real points for a noodle agreement, you would agree to put equal numbers of noodles in the landfill.
Sparkyshires
04-01-2015, 09:12
The net gain idea is good, but, unfortunately, that still ends up with it somehow being okay if both sides are covered in litter, as long as they are equally covered in litter. I'd venture to say, from a "recycle rush" standpoint, that's still kinda wrecking the spirit of the game.
It would make far more sense if processed litter was worth more points than unprocessed litter. It encourages proper disposal techniques as opposed to littering, increases the benefit of the strategy I mentioned above, and, if alliances still wanted to make noodle agreements, makes the easy way out worth a lot less. If you wanted to get real points for a noodle agreement, you would agree to put equal numbers of noodles in the landfill.
While that sounds good, the probably is that this is FRC, not FLL. While I love FIRST's impact on younger kids to make them try and want to do good in the world when they grow up and inspire them from a young age, that has never been FRC's goal. FRC has always been through and through, a competition where gracious professionalism and advancing STEM in the community is the most important. We have never had a themed game, because as rude as this may sound, it's childish. We are big boys and girls and deserve a big game to get hype about. The moment they start unbalancing the score points, (or have to rebalance everything after kickoff which would be a nightmare) - which anyone who plays league of legends knows that such a major score change would cause havoc among everything else - just to send the same message that it's bad to litter, is the moment that FRC has lost it's way in my opinion. FRC is not going to get popular in the community through games named stuff like "recycle rush"
Actually, there is no need to even drop the noodles into the playing field. Noodles in the bin in the drivers station area count as unscored so would therefore count for the other team. So both teams could just agree to leave all their noodles in their bin rather than making a clutter.
Sparkyshires
04-01-2015, 09:21
Actually, there is no need to even drop the noodles into the playing field. Noodles in the bin in the drivers station area count as unscored so would therefore count for the other team. So both teams could just agree to leave all their noodles in their bin rather than making a clutter.
That's actually false. If you look at the top of page 22, it says: "Finally,
LITTER F remains in the Bin and does not score as an UNPROCESSED LITTER Bonus as it is not on the FIELD."
Tem1514 Mentor
04-01-2015, 09:29
After reading all of these very interesting ideas on the TNA and then going back into the manual at section 1.1 that states “RECYCLE RUSH is a recycling-themed game…” which to me means leaving LITTER or creating LITTER would not be in the sprit of the game so hopefully the GDC will provide a team update on Tuesday that makes LITTER a MINUS point value then we can all back to task at hand to help clean up our world rather then make a mess of it. IMHO
Ian Chin
04-01-2015, 09:40
The Noodle Agreement probably would not work for two reasons.
Reason 1:
If everyone leaves their noodles on the floor then no one actually benefits from it.
Reason 2:
Because of reason 1, you wouldn't be able to trust the other team.
As a spectator I think watching the human players tossing the noodles would be incredibly fun to watch!! I'm fairly optimistic that this issue will be addressed soon enough in the game rules.
Sparkyshires
04-01-2015, 09:50
The Noodle Agreement probably would not work for two reasons.
Reason 1:
If everyone leaves their noodles on the floor then no one actually benefits from it.
Reason 2:
Because of reason 1, you wouldn't be able to trust the other team.
Nope, everyone gets a +40 in that situation. If you're saying that if everyone at a competition does it, then that's highly unlikely.
You don't even need to alternate. Each HP can preload a noodle in the chute then hold up their free arm. They drop arms and push in the litter simultaneously.
I don't like this. I hope the GDC fixes the scoring rules in a way that removes any incentive for both teams to leave litter on their sides.
Any rule change needs to modify the game in a way that doesn't force referees to judge whether there was intent to make a noodle agreement vs teams accidentally leaving litter in a particular place. That would be even worse.
fouls decrease your own score. 3.1.3. This was a change for 2015.
I thought botbuddy was referring to noodle litter points. Re-reading it, your interpretation seems like the correct one.
bharrison6
04-01-2015, 11:10
They can prohibit strategic throwing of a pool noodle above the wall and into your zone.
Or something similar, shouldn't be too hard...
Or they could just make those points count against you rather than for the other team. I know first hates to take points away, but engineering uses negative numbers all the time.
alopex_rex
04-01-2015, 11:20
Having unprocessed litter points count against you would mean there wouldn't be much incentive for the other alliance to try and throw litter to your side. Getting 4 points benefits them directly, removing 4 from you helps them very little. I believe this is why litter counts positive in the first place.
TomBuchler
04-01-2015, 11:23
I just had this thought to TNA. This agreement could be blown out of the water if FRC simply adjusted the rules and had blue colored noodles for the blue alliance and red colored noodles for the red alliance. And the objective would be to have the blue alliances noodles land in the red alliance area and vice versa to score points.
bharrison6
04-01-2015, 11:25
While that sounds good, the probably is that this is FRC, not FLL. While I love FIRST's impact on younger kids to make them try and want to do good in the world when they grow up and inspire them from a young age, that has never been FRC's goal. FRC has always been through and through, a competition where gracious professionalism and advancing STEM in the community is the most important. We have never had a themed game, because as rude as this may sound, it's childish. We are big boys and girls and deserve a big game to get hype about. The moment they start unbalancing the score points, (or have to rebalance everything after kickoff which would be a nightmare) - which anyone who plays league of legends knows that such a major score change would cause havoc among everything else - just to send the same message that it's bad to litter, is the moment that FRC has lost it's way in my opinion. FRC is not going to get popular in the community through games named stuff like "recycle rush"
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, however I can agree that as a mentor and educator trying to grow a program its hard to get students excited about a game like this as opposed to a game like last year. It's exciting to see robots run into each other at full speed and have pushing matches. At the same time this kind of game has more roots in actual robotics used in industry. I think the mechanics used in this kind of game. (Pick, Stack and place) could be introduced in a more exciting way, rather than a recycling themed game.
mannybjh
04-01-2015, 11:28
This idea was brought up in my meeting. Could work... assuming you have trust in the other alliance
ttldomination
04-01-2015, 11:52
... assuming you have trust in the other alliance
This is it right here. The million dollar question.
In my mind, if a coach stares me in the eye, agrees to this, and shakes my hand, that's really the end of it. I'll trust him/her to make this happen and alert me if their alliance changes their mind.
However, renege on this, and you're word means nothing anymore. I may even come onto CD and let everyone know that your team can't be trusted to hold their promises moving forward.
I give it one week, maybe two, before teams leverage this option and the rankings end up being a little skewed. However, after the initial adoption period, this'll be a common occurrence, in my mind.
- Sunny G.
tindleroot
04-01-2015, 12:04
I suppose the entirety of FRC could make a "TNA Blacklist" for teams that have gone back on their promise, but that sounds way too dark and against Gracious Professionalism that I'm not sure if that's a good idea.
I suppose the entirety of FRC could make a "TNA Blacklist" for teams that have gone back on their promise, but that sounds way too dark and against Gracious Professionalism that I'm not sure if that's a good idea.
Call me an optimist, but i dont think either will a 'blacklist' nor a team going back on their word (at least purposefully) will happen.
Sparkyshires
04-01-2015, 12:30
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, however I can agree that as a mentor and educator trying to grow a program its hard to get students excited about a game like this as opposed to a game like last year. It's exciting to see robots run into each other at full speed and have pushing matches. At the same time this kind of game has more roots in actual robotics used in industry. I think the mechanics used in this kind of game. (Pick, Stack and place) could be introduced in a more exciting way, rather than a recycling themed game.
Exactly. Looking back at my post, I realized it sounded a lot more argumentative than I meant, my bad o.O let me try and say it a different way: I am the CO of the MCJROTC program at my school, and we've got a bunch of lugheads running around here doing push-ups wherever they can. Over the past four year's I've actually managed to get two of them to join the team and a bunch to come to the competitions, because it looks awesome. That's the whole idea of FIRST, right? Don't just have the geeks and the nerds, but the jockeys and everyone enjoy it and get excited. How am I going to convince those freshman and sophomore that they should come to this competition? In my opinion, that's been a major part of FRC that they've done absolutely beautifully these last couple years. I'm simply frustrated that at least on the spectator aspect of this game for people that haven't already done FRC, it is severely lacking.
GaryVoshol
04-01-2015, 12:39
For those who are saying that this doesn't support the concept of recycling:
After 16 years involvement with FLL, where there is always a themed game, I have to say that you can't read an interpretation into the game based on the theme. FLL has never done that. The theme is the theme; the game is the game. For example, one of the tasks this year was to shoot a ball into a net, like soccer. But the ball had to stay in the net; if it bounced back out the mission was not accomplished, unlike soccer where the goal would be scored whether the ball stayed in the net or not.
So discuss TNA on its merits alone, not on whether it violates the theme of the game. Because that doesn't matter.
...
I really hope first gives an update that makes this not okay somehow.
Me too!
Call me an optimist, but i dont think either will a 'blacklist' nor a team going back on their word (at least purposefully) will happen.
Riiight.
I know for a fact that some teams have internal blacklists. And I also know for a fact that this is NOT the first time this sort of discussion has happened, and there WERE teams that broke the agreement (if it was made).
p00rleno
04-01-2015, 13:14
Easy fix, color the noodles. Red litter can only be unprocessed on the blue side, blue litter on the red side. Either side's litter can be scored in the landfill though, because if that's all you can manage to do (go for 1 point per noodle), there's no reason to take it away.
While this strategy is fully valid as outlined in the rules, it does bring up another dilemma. Say a team believes that is against their morals or does not believe that is the intent of the game. If a few teams decide to play the noodle strategy, these other teams will be forced to take part in order to keep up in the points standings, or else risk seeding low.
I don't like this loophole, personally. ME either!
I'm not. This sounds like a great way to get a lot of people very upset and generally make the experience less-enjoyable for everyone.
Metagaming of this sort does not strike me as particularly "graciously professional," especially when it potentially involves dishonesty. Agreed.
I feel this whole idea goes against the spirit of FIRST, and I hope the GDC does something to prevent it. I personally am done reading it, and hope that teams focus on making themselves the best, rather than ruining the chances of a team that has worked hard to get to high ranked spot.
jman4747
04-01-2015, 14:35
TNA is very interesting to me. I'm still pretty on the fence if I would prefer it changed or not.
However, I find it hilarious that the game piece is named LITTER in a recycling themed game. If these rules are kept the same, here are some things you might hear at competition this year:
"We only want to litter if you litter as well"
"WHY AREN'T THEY LITTERING!"
"Wait, I forget, were we supposed to litter just now?"
"I can't believe they didn't litter."
"You said that you were going to litter and you didn't, we're going to cross you off our pick list now."
"There's only 30 seconds left, quick, litter as much as you can!"
See now this is why I love this. Did anyone consider how funny "Year of the Noodle Agreement" sounds out of context? :p
But in all seriousness I think there is something inherently GP about two opposing alliances agreeing to give each other points. Isolate that, "Red and Blue alliances agree to give each other points".
The other angle is that this is entirely not the point of the game as stated above. However I don't think it is against FIRST values for the reason I stated above. Also could the GDC really miss this? Yet I do think it should be done away with. At this point it is clear that between teams who don't know about this, do know and don't want to, and do know and do want to you will have a lot of salt and confusion.
Also could the GDC really miss this?
Frisbee rain in 2013.
Dead balls in 2014.
6v0 in 2010.
Just what I can think of off the top of my head... They've missed some other "obvious" problems in the past. Because this is up so early, and so loudly, I think they'll be on it in TU#1.
tindleroot
04-01-2015, 15:05
Easy fix, color the noodles. Red litter can only be unprocessed on the blue side, blue litter on the red side. Either side's litter can be scored in the landfill though, because if that's all you can manage to do (go for 1 point per noodle), there's no reason to take it away.
The problem there is that "unprocessed litter" is not only litter from the other alliance, but also litter that your alliance dropped and didn't "clean up". If they were colored, there would be no penalty for a robot accidentally dropping a noodle when they tried to score it in a recycling bin.
Andy Brockway
04-01-2015, 15:11
Section 3.1.2 states that the litter can only be scored by placing in the Recycling Container, placing in the Landfill or throwing it on to the opposite side of the field.
Seems like the GDC did not intend for anyone to intentionally place Litter on their own side of the field in order to score for the other side.
jman4747
04-01-2015, 15:25
Or they could just make those points count against you rather than for the other team. I know first hates to take points away, but engineering uses negative numbers all the time.
Yes
I don't like this. I hope the GDC fixes the scoring rules in a way that removes any incentive for both teams to leave litter on their sides.
Any rule change needs to modify the game in a way that doesn't force referees to judge whether there was intent to make a noodle agreement vs teams accidentally leaving litter in a particular place. That would be even worse.
Yes
If it changes I think this is the way to go.
...Dead balls in 2014.
I still cannot get over how they missed this one.
Josh4eyes
04-01-2015, 16:58
If you look at rule 3.1.3, it states that "a FOUL will be issued and six (6) points will be decremented from the offending ALLIANCE’S score"
To be clear, I think this clears up this whole entire argument.
Fouls are taken from your score instead of your opponents.
I guess we'r recycling old debates too! (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19272&highlight=collusion)
Grim Tuesday
04-01-2015, 19:25
I guess we'r recycling old debates too! (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19272&highlight=collusion)
It's very interesting that this has been a debate before. I didn't know the tournament rules for 2003 (I was in 3rd grade!) so I looked them up:
Both teams in the losing alliance get their own alliance score in Qualifying Points (QP’s). Both teams
in the winning alliance get their own score plus twice the losing alliance’s score in QP's.
Similar to 2010 it looks like it rewarded high scoring losses more than a low scoring win - discouraging defense. But 2003 was a game with winning and losing.
I think there's a key difference to this year's game. There is no winning and losing until the very last match. It's not fixing a match if there's no match to be played. The goal for each alliance is to pure and simple get the most points in the match.
It's very interesting that this has been a debate before. I didn't know the tournament rules for 2003 (I was in 3rd grade!) so I looked them up:
Similar to 2010 it looks like it rewarded high scoring losses more than a low scoring win - discouraging defense. But 2003 was a game with winning and losing.
I think there's a key difference to this year's game. There is no winning and losing until the very last match. It's not fixing a match if there's no match to be played. The goal for each alliance is to pure and simple get the most points in the match.
It took a minute to make a stack and mere seconds to destroy it.
It's like they took away the violence from the 2003 game and replaced it with the passive co-existence of 2001.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
04-01-2015, 19:37
It's very interesting that this has been a debate before. I didn't know the tournament rules for 2003 (I was in 3rd grade!) so I looked them up:
Similar to 2010 it looks like it rewarded high scoring losses more than a low scoring win - discouraging defense. But 2003 was a game with winning and losing.
I think there's a key difference to this year's game. There is no winning and losing until the very last match. It's not fixing a match if there's no match to be played. The goal for each alliance is to pure and simple get the most points in the match.
It sounds like the same seeding rules as 2010. What's interesting is that I don't think there was quite as much negative controversy over the 2010 6v0 compared to the 2003 one.
It sounds like the same seeding rules as 2010. What's interesting is that I don't think there was quite as much negative controversy over the 2010 6v0 compared to the 2003 one.
Actually... that's because 2003 was 2v2 with no defense being played. 2010 had quite a bit of controversy, particularly after Curie Match 100. And the GDC "fixed" the problem early (5 points to the winner of the match guaranteed), and USUALLY it was one alliance simply shutting themselves down.
2003 (and 2015) require both alliances to agree.
Actually... that's because 2003 was 2v2 with no defense being played. 2010 had quite a bit of controversy, particularly after Curie Match 100. And the GDC "fixed" the problem early (5 points to the winner of the match guaranteed), and USUALLY it was one alliance simply shutting themselves down.
2003 (and 2015) require both alliances to agree.
2003 had quite alot of defense being played. (http://youtu.be/30uLiM4e-bI?list=UUuzxDvpIVAMewEMnZWrp-NQ)
2003 had quite alot of defense being played. (http://youtu.be/30uLiM4e-bI?list=UUuzxDvpIVAMewEMnZWrp-NQ)
I meant if the agreement was in place--defense focused in on the ramp.
I meant if the agreement was in place--defense focused in on the ramp.
That match there was no agreement...and there was too many point rewarded for the endgame that year. The stacking hardly mattered.
jvriezen
04-01-2015, 20:58
Didn't read all of this, but I see the suggestion of using Red/Blue noodles was suggested but I agree, that won't happen, due to the fact the green ones are likely already ordered. However, a couple wraps of blue/red electrical tape around the center of the noodle would color code them just fine, at relatively low cost.
Lil' Lavery
04-01-2015, 21:05
2003 had quite alot of defense being played. (http://youtu.be/30uLiM4e-bI?list=UUuzxDvpIVAMewEMnZWrp-NQ)
He's referring to the collusion debates that circled in 2003, where alliances agreed not to knock over each others' stacks in order to mutually increase their qualifying scores in that year's ranking system.
Mrjcowman
04-01-2015, 22:13
While that sounds good, the probably is that this is FRC, not FLL. While I love FIRST's impact on younger kids to make them try and want to do good in the world when they grow up and inspire them from a young age, that has never been FRC's goal. FRC has always been through and through, a competition where gracious professionalism and advancing STEM in the community is the most important. We have never had a themed game, because as rude as this may sound, it's childish. We are big boys and girls and deserve a big game to get hype about. The moment they start unbalancing the score points, (or have to rebalance everything after kickoff which would be a nightmare) - which anyone who plays league of legends knows that such a major score change would cause havoc among everything else - just to send the same message that it's bad to litter, is the moment that FRC has lost it's way in my opinion. FRC is not going to get popular in the community through games named stuff like "recycle rush"
That may be. I agree, it's a little childish and not the most exciting idea for a game name they've had, but the fact of the matter is, it's not subject to change, so there's no use in complaining about it or debating its merit. Rather, we should focus on turning the game into an exciting one, which doesn't exactly happen if every team just dumps a bunch of game pieces on the ground and leaves them there. If the point value for processed and unprocessed litter was switched, it wouldn't affect the point balance so much, except perhaps making it more worth your while to move the litter than leave it lying around. If you don't want to look at it from a moral standpoint, at least look at it from a game standpoint: 20 game pieces would suddenly be moving and having purpose rather than sitting around like rubble.
Actually, there is no need to even drop the noodles into the playing field. Noodles in the bin in the drivers station area count as unscored so would therefore count for the other team. So both teams could just agree to leave all their noodles in their bin rather than making a clutter.
Read the rules again, and look at the Figure that deals with unprocessed Litter, look below the Figure diagram marked A~F, then read that Litter that stays in the Drum, is not considered Unprocessed Litter as it is not on the field. No Points for either alliance according to that rule for Litter in the drum "F" on the diagram.
Still that Figure diagram & rules still does not deal w/ Litter still in human player hands or zones and not in the drum, up to 4 Human Players at a time possibly possessing Litter (when the end of the match buzzer sounds, or half entered into the field or not).
Isn't LITTER always a huge problem? Why should it be any different in this game, than in the real world? Answer; It isn't.
To FIRST: In order to stop this, make the non landfill litter count as -2 for the side it is on and + 2 for the opponent.
-Sincerely, The guy who will have to use all of his will-power not to screw other alliances in eliminations with this.
The problem with this is the sheer power it holds. Regardless of my moral views on TNA, I want to rank well in the system. Really well. And likely, 40 points per match will be a huge difference in the system.
If we could get everyone in FRC to agree not to do it (you know... like some rule...) then all would be good. There would be no issue. But if its not illegal, then teams that utilize this will likely be at a huge advantage to teams that do not. Or rather, teams who choose not to will be at a huge disadvantage. Regardless of the gameplay involved, there's no way I am going to place my team at a large disadvantage if I can avoid it legally. That's pretty much all there is to it to me, so if that means participating in TNA, you bet you bot I will.
And yeah, FIRST, to avoid this, just neutralize the # of litter on each side by subtracting the smaller or equal number from the larger and award the points to the correct alliance. Done.
alexander.h
05-01-2015, 10:12
G24 :
ROBOTS may not cause TOTES, RECYCLING CONTAINERS, and/or LITTER to completely transfer from their side of the FIELD,
or from the STEP, onto the opposite side of the FIELD.
VIOLATION: FOUL. If egregious or strategic, RED CARD and offending ROBOT will be DISABLED.
According to G24 (and this, hoping that no modifications will be brought to the dilemma presented by the Noodle Agreement), if we throw noodles to the opposite side, and this is being strategic (as mentioned in the rule), there will be a foul in the beginning, but then a red card will be given and the robot will possibly be disabled as well. How is this advantageous to us?
By the way, I apologize if this was already mentioned and answered, but I admit that I didn't have enough time to read all the posts.
According to G24 (and this, hoping that no modifications will be brought to the dilemma presented by the Noodle Agreement), if we throw noodles to the opposite side, and this is being strategic (as mentioned in the rule), there will be a foul in the beginning, but then a red card will be given and the robot will possibly be disabled as well. How is this advantageous to us?
By the way, I apologize if this was already mentioned and answered, but I admit that I didn't have enough time to read all the posts.
Alexander. G24 applies to the Robot and not the Human Player. The Human Player is free to throw the noodle onto the field any distance possible.
-Bernie
alexander.h
05-01-2015, 10:17
Alexander. G24 applies to the Robot and not the Human Player. The Human Player is free to throw the noodle onto the field any distance possible.
-Bernie
Oh, I get it now. Thanks for the clarification!
alexander.h
05-01-2015, 10:25
Alexander. G24 applies to the Robot and not the Human Player. The Human Player is free to throw the noodle onto the field any distance possible.
-Bernie
Wait. If you say that G24 doesn't apply to the Human Player, then, in theory, would it be possible to throw totes to knock down the opposing team's stacks? I know this might not be the best sportsmanship ever, but is it possible? Thanks!
alexander.h
05-01-2015, 10:30
Wait. If you say that G24 doesn't apply to the Human Player, then, in theory, would it be possible to throw totes to knock down the opposing team's stacks? I know this might not be the best sportsmanship ever, but is it possible? Thanks!
Never mind.
G34 :
TOTES may only be introduced to the FIELD through the TOTE CHUTE.
VIOLATION: FOUL per TOTE.
Gotta read that manual ... ::rtm::
The_ShamWOW88
05-01-2015, 10:35
Wait. If you say that G24 doesn't apply to the Human Player, then, in theory, would it be possible to throw totes to knock down the opposing team's stacks? I know this might not be the best sportsmanship ever, but is it possible? Thanks!
G34 - Totes may only be entered into the field through the Tote Chute.
So no, HP's can not throw totes over the wall which would be highly dangerous in its own right.
Sparkyshires
05-01-2015, 11:03
G34 - Totes may only be entered into the field through the Tote Chute.
So no, HP's can not throw totes over the wall which would be highly dangerous in its own right.
however, if you threw a noodle over and knocked over a stack, would that be illegal?
nevermind the fact that would be highly impossible.
According to G24 (and this, hoping that no modifications will be brought to the dilemma presented by the Noodle Agreement), if we throw noodles to the opposite side, and this is being strategic (as mentioned in the rule), there will be a foul in the beginning, but then a red card will be given and the robot will possibly be disabled as well. How is this advantageous to us?
By the way, I apologize if this was already mentioned and answered, but I admit that I didn't have enough time to read all the posts.
That rule is for ROBOTs, not Human Players. Once the Litter is on the field, it is stuck to the Alliance it lands on. It cannot be moved out of that Alliance zone, either to the other Alliance or off the field, per rule. It has to either be processed into that Alliance's Land Fill (+1 point), into a Recycling Bin (+6 points), or left unprocessed (+4 points for other Alliance).
Edit: Yeesh. That'll teach me to leave a thread open without realizing before replying....
alexander.h
05-01-2015, 11:20
however, if you threw a noodle over and knocked over a stack, would that be illegal?
nevermind the fact that would be highly impossible.
I don't see any rules stopping it, but the chances of a noodle knocking down a stack of totes ... Nah, I don't see it happening. However, there was this post ...
one of the team members tied it into a knot before I tried this... lol they're pretty pliable and can be returned to semi straight before throwing... idk give it a shot with yours :)
... and this reply :
This would be illegal per G16.
http://i.imgur.com/ROtuiAx.png
So, a single noodle won't knock down a stack and tying many together is not an option.
Chris Hibner
05-01-2015, 12:03
Personally, I dislike the noodle agreement.
I stopped reading after about four pages so I'm sorry if this has already been suggested, but I would modify the rule as follows:
Unprocessed litter: Points are awarded to the alliance with the least amount of unprocessed litter: 4 points multiplied by the difference in unprocessed litter between the two alliances.
Sorry, my wording could use improvement. Basically what I'm saying is if the red alliance has 3 pieces of unprocessed litter and blue has 5, then the difference is 2 (i.e. 5 - 3) and red would get 8 points (i.e. 4 * 2) for having the least amount of unprocessed liter.
Sparkyshires
05-01-2015, 12:08
Personally, I dislike the noodle agreement.
I stopped reading after about four pages so I'm sorry if this has already been suggested, but I would modify the rule as follows:
Unprocessed litter: Points are awarded to the alliance with the least amount of unprocessed litter: 4 points multiplied by the difference in unprocessed litter between the two alliances.
Sorry, my wording could use improvement. Basically what I'm saying is if the red alliance has 3 pieces of unprocessed litter and blue has 5, then the difference is 2 (i.e. 5 - 3) and red would get 8 points (i.e. 4 * 2) for having the least amount of unprocessed liter.
I agree completely. Easiest way to fix this problem, and don't have to change any rules severely, and all the game pieces stay the same.
I agree completely. Easiest way to fix this problem, and don't have to change any rules severely, and all the game pieces stay the same.
I second this suggestion. Seems like a good solution that doesn't require any change to game play.
Doug Frisk
05-01-2015, 14:18
It seems to me that the easiest way to nullify the Noodle Agreement is to switch from green noodles to red and blue noodles. The blue alliance gets points if blue noodles are beyond the red landfill or if they are recycled or in the blue landfill.
Same for the red alliance.
Now, dumping your noodles just costs you points.
Doug Frisk
05-01-2015, 14:22
I just had this thought to TNA. This agreement could be blown out of the water if FRC simply adjusted the rules and had blue colored noodles for the blue alliance and red colored noodles for the red alliance. And the objective would be to have the blue alliances noodles land in the red alliance area and vice versa to score points.
OK, so I wasn't the first one with this idea.
Alternatively, since FIRST has probably already purchased noodles, they could be IDed by wrapping a ring of red or blue gaff tape around the noodles.
(Setting aside the red/blue solution, whether by noodle color or tape,) I'm curious as to why most people seem to be advocating the "+2/-2" solution, rather than simply a "-4" to the alliance with the unprocessed litter (rather than +4 to the opposite side). Can someone explain to me why "+2/-2" is better - as an incentive to avoid unprocessed litter, and also eliminate the benefit of TNA - than "-4"?
rick.oliver
05-01-2015, 15:40
Like Chris, I have not read all 14 pages of posts. Also not a fan of the agreement. However, unless it is somehow voided I would feel compelled to agree. Perhaps this has been communicated already, but ...
Is this the equivalent of 6 vs 0 from Breakaway?
What is the line between Coopertition and collusion?
Grim Tuesday
05-01-2015, 15:48
Like Chris, I have not read all 14 pages of posts. Also not a fan of the agreement. However, unless it is somehow voided I would feel compelled to agree. Perhaps this has been communicated already, but ...
Is this the equivalent of 6 vs 0 from Breakaway?
What is the line between Coopertition and collusion?
In my opinion, the line was drawn when FIRST made a "game" where there were no winners.
To rank well during qualification matches, and advance through the playoff matches to the finals, teams will want to work to maximize their score for each match. Except for the final matches, winners of individual matches will not be declared, as this has no direct bearing on tournament performance in RECYCLE RUSH.
Given the focus of Recycle Rush, I feel that TNA is fully within the spirit of the game.
(Setting aside the red/blue solution, whether by noodle color or tape,) I'm curious as to why most people seem to be advocating the "+2/-2" solution, rather than simply a "-4" to the alliance with the unprocessed litter (rather than +4 to the opposite side). Can someone explain to me why "+2/-2" is better - as an incentive to avoid unprocessed litter, and also eliminate the benefit of TNA - than "-4"?
The reason this could be seen as more beneficial, compared to simply a -4 for the other team, is because there are no wins and losses in qualifications. By making it a simple -4 only penalizes the alliance who happened to face a good noodle thrower and didn't or couldn't process the litter. A +2/-2 solution would provide a lesser penalty to the opposing team while still giving a benefit to the team that few the noodles. I think that the same issue is still found in the +2/-2 solution, albeit to a lesser extent, and think that merely color coding the noodles with some gaffers tape would be a more appropriate solution than subtracting points in qualifications.
It's unfair (in my opinion) to the opposing alliance to be penalized for an action of the other team when they aren't competing against each other in terms of winning or losing each match. My reasoning for this is that, due to robot design or some other factors, teams may not be able to push noodles into the landfill zone to prevents "penalty" to their score even if they are able to push the taller crates more easily to score. The seeding points are supposed to be based on how well you can score points, not how well your opponents can "de-score" them by throwing noodles.
That said, I still think the Noodle Agreement provides interesting strategic opportunities during the course of the qualification matches. I just don't like how it can be used to artificially deflate the scores of a specific alliance (compared to the others) in the finals. I would be fine with noodles simply being a -4 or +2/-2 in finals since then you negate the Noodle Agreement while still giving an opportunity for a skilled noodle thrower to elevate their team above the rest. I think it's safe to assume that teams should at least be able to bulldoze noodles into the landfill during the finals, whereas it might not be the case in qualifications due to differing robot designs (which may cause noodles to become entangled if he teams drives over them instead of pushing them, depending on design and ground clearance).
I eagerly await the first rules update to see what actions - if any - will be taken by FIRST in regards to the Noodle Agreement. We'll get to see if it was a intended strategy (or an unintended strategy that isn't necessarily disliked by FIRST), or if it's something that FIRST doesn't wish to see at competitions.
Kevin Selavko
05-01-2015, 16:01
I think that the best available options are to:
Leave it as it is, GDC already thought of this
Allow robots to throw litter to the other side
Increase the points for having a litter in a recycling can to 8 points
Give the team with the least unprocessed litter the difference in number of litter
Give teams 30 points if they have no unprocessed litter on their side of the field
(5. will give teams the points of the noodle agreement if they have all ten of their noodles in the landfill zone)
Personally I think 5 is the best option.
Partheosis
05-01-2015, 16:06
I'm not too sure how I feel about this strategy. As the human player on my team, I believe I would agree to this against an alliance that I trust. I'm not so sure about others, especially those with teams that usually play to win. I feel that rookie teams will easily be enticed into this agreement for a free advantage.
This is a thread that I'd recommend to any human player. Does anyone know of any other good threads discussing important human player strategies/info/pasta treaties?
I think that the best available options are to:
Give teams 30 points if they have no unprocessed litter on their side of the field
(5. will give teams the points of the noodle agreement if they have all ten of their noodles in the landfill zone)
Personally I think 5 is the best option.
Unprocessed Litter is worth +4 each, or 40 points.
Kevin Selavko
05-01-2015, 16:33
Unprocessed Litter is worth +4 each, or 40 points.
30 points for no unprocessed litter, 10(1) for all your noodles in the landfill zone is a total of 40.
The 30 points gives teams an incentive to still put in the litter to get more points(1 in landfill and 4 for getting it to the other side) and also it is a large incentive to clean up your side of the field in the last 20 seconds(no more encouraging littering on your own side).
tindleroot
05-01-2015, 16:50
30 points for no unprocessed litter, 10(1) for all your noodles in the landfill zone is a total of 40.
The 30 points gives teams an incentive to still put in the litter to get more points(1 in landfill and 4 for getting it to the other side) and also it is a large incentive to clean up your side of the field in the last 20 seconds(no more encouraging littering on your own side).
But most teams would then be driven to completely bypass litter the whole match in order to get 30 free points and not worry about dropping litter. This would essentially remove litter from the game (I guess that's good for the recycling theme, but not for the gameplay).
Kevin Selavko
05-01-2015, 16:53
It is already removed from the game as it was intended intended, and launching the noodles across the field would give you the possibility of 4 points instead of 1.
Kevin Selavko
05-01-2015, 16:59
Or to really mess with teams they could put noodles by the starting cans and totes.
MrJohnston
05-01-2015, 18:07
I really don't like the noodle agreement. If the rules are not changed with an update, my team will participate - those noodle points will really weigh heavily into scores in preliminary rounds. Good robots that do not participate in the agreement will be eliminated. Frankly, I really don't like this.
I would really like to see the rule changed: unprocessed litter on my side would cause my team a four point penalty.
I think it makes more sense that alliances try and score half of their noodles in the recycling bin(depending on the two alliances capabilities) and the other 5 of the noodles should be left for the noodle agreement. This leads to max points unless one team got all of the recycling bins on the step. So do you think this is better or that it is better to leave all ten noodles for the noodle agreement?
That's what I was thinking, too. That would involve less risk in case the other alliance doesn't follow through. And it would give you an opportunity to score 6 points instead of 4 (which is a more realistic goal with just 5 noodles, instead of 10).
221Sarahborg
06-01-2015, 00:48
As being on drive team last year I found it extremely difficult to get some of the teams including human players to stick to a plan that we had executed and decided on before our match, let alone two alliances on a very impactful agreement that you won't have time to discuss with the other side while the match is in play.
It's also a matter of full trust in both alliances to follow through with your decision made, let alone the possibility of it working out correctly. If anyone breaks that agreement then it will make you or your alliance members look untrustworthy and risk losing that possible consideration for alliance selections. Once those noodles are ran over or torn up after a few matches it may not make it so easy to fly it, like we discovered at a team meeting tonight. I know last year there were a few human players at my home regional who claimed they were great at throwing in the ball without fouling, yet almost cost us the matches due to fouls from the human player. That could make it a risk at least with some teams and competitions that those who may need to throw in the noodles aren't good at it.
(Setting aside the red/blue solution, whether by noodle color or tape,) I'm curious as to why most people seem to be advocating the "+2/-2" solution, rather than simply a "-4" to the alliance with the unprocessed litter (rather than +4 to the opposite side). Can someone explain to me why "+2/-2" is better - as an incentive to avoid unprocessed litter, and also eliminate the benefit of TNA - than "-4"?
Negating TNA would require a zero difference or equation.....Noodle (Unprocessed Litter) is worth +4 to the opposing alliance...simply put, 20 noodles dumped is worth +40/+40 or 80 points split (software changes cost money & time), changing rules. +2/-2 each is still 4 points.
But, dump 20 noodles (Unprocessed litter using the +2/-2 penalty, Unprocessed litter still worth 4 points a each....only you dump 10 on your side +2X10=20 points & -2X10=-20 points equals ZERO GAIN for each side & alliance....Noodle Dilemma gone like the wind...NO TNA (The Noodle Agreement)=FULLY RECYCLED & only a minor scoring code software change.
It is the easiest solution....And I'm a lazy man looking to fully negate the foolish possibility of TNA and have each pc. of Litter still be worth the same math amount as designed by the GDC.
-4 is another solution, but the GDC made it +4 for a reason....Recycling LITTER IS IMPORTANT in RECYCLE RUSH.
Bulldozing Litter once great stackers have stacked won't be as easy as you think once 2 walls are built. LOL. You better have a camera on that bot! Or you will be driving through your own hard built stacks.
+40 points every match to both Alliances is almost impossible to pass up if fairly within the rules.....=The 2015 FIRST FRC NOODLE DILEMMA! Think with your noodle. Qualifying Averaged scoring determines everything this year w/ tiebreakers! (It only takes 6 teams to force all to abide by TNA, or simply "goodbye yellow brick road)".
=Not fun when left in the dust, simply because of a poor thought out ruleset.
There are enough stacking dilemmas if you do not use a Grey TOTE and place that Recycling Container w/ litter therein or thereon. Mistakes will be made. And they will be a shame. Each time performed.:D
I don't know if this has been suggested, as I may have missed it in the thread, but in my mind the easiest rule change to prevent shenanigans would be to remove any sort of point value to unscored noodles. If a noodle is lying on the ground it is treated the same as a tote or recycling bin on the ground, e.g. it means absolutely nothing.
This prevents the noodle agreement, prevents bad blood between teams, and allows teams that design the ability to manipulate noodles to go about their job unmolested. I just think this is the simplest solution.
The Machine
06-01-2015, 13:34
I think that with FIRST's value of good sportsmanship, people will honor their word, and in the case that they don't, word will spread quickly that they can't be trusted.
Poolitics are all fun and games until Saturday morning when feelings get hurt as teams go for ranking positions.
What if we want to practice noodles in bins on Friday? Are we against the spirit of TNA? What if a team says NO, THOU SHALT ABIDE AND NOODLE TEH FIELD, and then tries to hoard the noodles to do so?
TNA is a tangent that needs to be made irrelevant, IMO.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
06-01-2015, 14:12
Poolitics are all fun and games until Saturday morning when feelings get hurt as teams go for ranking positions.
What if we want to practice noodles in bins on Friday? Are we against the spirit of TNA? What if a team says NO, THOU SHALT ABIDE AND NOODLE TEH FIELD, and then tries to hoard the noodles to do so?
TNA is a tangent that needs to be made irrelevant, IMO.
Honestly, I don't think anyone would be mad at a team for doing this. It's their decision. The only time people will get upset is when a team says they will go along with TNA and doesn't do it. It won't even be that big of a deal though if you both put in the noodle one at a time.
Andrea C.
06-01-2015, 14:29
I am not a fan of the Noodle Agreement. I believe that it unnecessarily detracts from the mission of the game to the detriment of teams making the effort to meet its challenges through engineering. Hard-earned points scored by robots performing very complicated tasks should not be overshadowed by humans inflating scores by tossing noodles on the field. As the game manual stands right now, though, it is a legitimate scoring strategy that must be considered.
I appreciate all the thought given by other forum members to potential solutions to this dilemma, and think a couple of them are good ways to preserve the integrity of Recycle Rush. I had a different thought that I haven't seen come up yet, though, and I'd like your opinions on it:
Let's imagine for the sake of argument that the GDC didn't want to alter the point structure of the game or bother with color-coding noodles, but also didn't want Noodle Agreements to be a factor. What if FRC simply asked teams not to entertain any kind of Noodle Agreement? In your opinions, would the honor system prevail, or would there be backdoor dealings? Would suspicions of shady pacts damage reputations and relationships, or would teams trust in the honesty of their counterparts?
(My first post on Chief Delphi -- please be gentle!)
Rangel(kf7fdb)
06-01-2015, 14:34
I am not a fan of the Noodle Agreement. I believe that it unnecessarily detracts from the mission of the game to the detriment of teams making the effort to meet its challenges through engineering. Hard-earned points scored by robots performing very complicated tasks should not be overshadowed by humans inflating scores by tossing noodles on the field. As the game manual stands right now, though, it is a legitimate scoring strategy that must be considered.
I appreciate all the thought given by other forum members to potential solutions to this dilemma, and think a couple of them are good ways to preserve the integrity of Recycle Rush. I had a different thought that I haven't seen come up yet, though, and I'd like your opinions on it:
Let's imagine for the sake of argument that the GDC didn't want to alter the point structure of the game or bother with color-coding noodles, but also didn't want Noodle Agreements to be a factor. What if FRC simply asked teams not to entertain any kind of Noodle Agreement? In your opinions, would the honor system prevail, or would there be backdoor dealings? Would suspicions of shady pacts damage reputations and relationships, or would teams trust in the honesty of their counterparts?
(My first post on Chief Delphi -- please be gentle!)
Personally if FIRST came out and said they don't want the noodle agreement but refused to make any rule changes then I think it changes nothing. Plenty of people have made pretty reasonably suggestions on how to fix this and to simply tell teams we don't like this is not going to cut it.
RachetIsLife
06-01-2015, 14:35
One of the things you could do is have the other team put one noodle in, then your team puts one in, then back and forth to ensure that no team has more than a 4 point advantage.
Let's imagine for the sake of argument that the GDC didn't want to alter the point structure of the game or bother with color-coding noodles, but also didn't want Noodle Agreements to be a factor. What if FRC simply asked teams not to entertain any kind of Noodle Agreement? In your opinions, would the honor system prevail, or would there be backdoor dealings? Would suspicions of shady pacts damage reputations and relationships, or would teams trust in the honesty of their counterparts?
(My first post on Chief Delphi -- please be gentle!)
Welcome!
If the GDC asked us to eliminate all noodle agreements, I think we'd still get at least the normal bell curve of teams who agree, teams who rolled their eyes at TNA to begin with, and teams who will defy the GDC for personal gain.
Entering my 11th season overall and 9th season as a driver coach (maybe...) this is why I think so. I've been asked to ram other robots in an attempt to break them. Teams have asked me to throw matches since it would help their ranking and ours didn't matter at the time. A team once asked me to try to split up an eliminations alliance by throwing a match. In 2013 a couple of alliance partners hoarded discs so they could make less than 20% of their full field shots, even after agreeing that we'd split the discs evenly amongst the alliance. In 2014, an alliance partner tried to take our autonomous ball out of our robot so they could try their 2-ball autonomous since they didn't want to "take a chance" on our ~80% shot rate after very few matches.
Each year, we've performed in roughly 20-30 matches, and each year there were 1-2 where these examples of non-GP behavior occurred. Thus if the GDC relies on GP-based adherence to their desires about TNA, I think teams will still encounter it at competition.
Andrea C.
06-01-2015, 15:23
Entering my 11th season overall and 9th season as a driver coach (maybe...) this is why I think so. I've been asked to ram other robots in an attempt to break them. Teams have asked me to throw matches since it would help their ranking and ours didn't matter at the time. A team once asked me to try to split up an eliminations alliance by throwing a match. In 2013 a couple of alliance partners hoarded discs so they could make less than 20% of their full field shots, even after agreeing that we'd split the discs evenly amongst the alliance. In 2014, an alliance partner tried to take our autonomous ball out of our robot so they could try their 2-ball autonomous since they didn't want to "take a chance" on our ~80% shot rate after very few matches.
I'm speechless. I truly did not expect that. I'm sad to hear it, frankly. In that case, I hope that the GDC tweaks scoring in such a way as to remove any incentive to participate in pasta pacts.
jvriezen
06-01-2015, 15:27
Too bad the "The Noodle Agreement" wasn't called "The Litter Agreement" then it would be abbreviated "TLA" which is a TLA (Three Letter Acronym)
In any case, I predict, as many others, that it won't survive past this coming Thursday.
Keep in mind there are 3 teams per alliance, so your team would have to convince not three but FIVE other teams to do it. If you can manage to do that, I'll be impressed.
XenObliv
06-01-2015, 16:00
It will be a challenge to persuade five teams to agree to simply GIVE the opposite alliance points. For so long the games have been win or lose, change is hard, as a result it will come about slowly.
I really don't like the noodle agreement. If the rules are not changed with an update, my team will participate - those noodle points will really weigh heavily into scores in preliminary rounds. Good robots that do not participate in the agreement will be eliminated. Frankly, I really don't like this.
I would really like to see the rule changed: unprocessed litter on my side would cause my team a four point penalty.
I agree that would be much better, however, I think a 2 point penalty would be a bit more reasonable.
fun game when both teams can just throw stuff on the ground and wait, then get +40 each...
The_ShamWOW88
06-01-2015, 16:36
Frank just posted a Team Update regarding this...
Frank just posted a Team Update regarding this...
Link?
Link?
The team updates (web viewer) does have something listed under today's date on the table of contents. I cant see the info though.
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/competition-manual-and-related-documents
ScottOliveira
06-01-2015, 16:47
Link?
http://contentviewer.adobe.com/s/FIRST/29d775cf-7df1-5bea-97a2-3309a6deda88/FRCTeamUpdates/02.html#page_1
Only seems to be up on the web viewer, not the pdf.
ScottOliveira
06-01-2015, 16:48
The team updates (web viewer) does have something listed under today's date on the table of contents. I cant see the info though.
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/competition-manual-and-related-documents
For the web viewer you have to use the down arrows to get to another page, simply scrolling won't work (a poor design in my opinion).
The_ShamWOW88
06-01-2015, 16:49
Link?
This should work.
They haven't updated the rule yet but they're working on a rule change.
http://contentviewer.adobe.com/s/FIRST/29d775cf-7df1-5bea-97a2-3309a6deda88/FRCTeamUpdates/02.html#page_0
Jon Stratis
06-01-2015, 16:50
It looks like it hasn't posted to the website yet, but it came up in my iPhone app a few minutes ago.
It's a long note about colluding in noodles, how the GDC considered it but thought it would happen very much, how they wanted to keep the rules simple, how they see it as detrimental, and ending with a note that it is something they will be addressing in a future update.
Screenshot attached, not sure how readable it will be.
nxtmonkeys
06-01-2015, 16:53
Awww! I was looking forward to walking around at competitions and asking people if they had heard the "noodle news" and giving them a pamphlet on the noodle agreement.
It only lasted about two days.
tl;dr (but you should)
So, in this case, we will be making some changes to the rules to discourage this activity. They wont be perfect, but they should be an improvement,
Rangel(kf7fdb)
06-01-2015, 16:56
Was hoping for the actual change to be told but I suppose it's better than nothing. I think this all discourages noodle manipulation for the most part though. We still don't know if collusion will still be possible or if it won't. Just that they will implement a rule to discourage it more. A team designing a strategy around noodle manipulation would be pretty dark in the water right now.
Was hoping for the actual change to be told but I suppose it's better than nothing. I think this all discourages noodle manipulation for the most part though. We still don't know if collusion will still be possible or if it won't. Just that they will implement a rule to discourage it more. A team designing a strategy around noodle manipulation would be pretty dark in the water right now.
Agreed. And even, the current update, almost makes the noodle agreement even more favorable due to the extra sentence added talking about the variability of the noodle game pieces!
Agreed. And even, the current update, almost makes the noodle agreement even more favorable due to the extra sentence added talking about the variability of the noodle game pieces!
Is variability in game piece really that big of "news"? Back in 2012, balls varied wildly. In 2013, the height of the rungs to the pyramid varied ~2" competition to competition, and even sometimes from one side of the field to another! If you expected foam noodles to stay in pristine condition all throughout the competition, you were in for a surprise anyways...
MrJohnston
06-01-2015, 18:55
I am reasonably pleased by the post. Sure, I would have loved to see the actual rule change, but simply knowing that the GDC prefers that we not have a Noodle Agreement is a good... I'm sure it will fix the problem to the point that such noodling will not greatly affect that standings.....
KineticCougar
06-01-2015, 19:17
Have you read the team update released today by FRC? Is the noodle agreement out? The director of FRC said that they will make rules to discourage this activity.
Have you read the team update released today by FRC? Is the noodle agreement out? The director of FRC said that they will make rules to discourage this activity.
I've read it.
MORE IMPORTANT than the note is that the GDC not only is working on taking action now, but that they found not one, but TWO methods of collusion prior to releasing the game, and eliminated one before release, then worked their hardest to simplify the rules and still remove TNA as much as they could.
They're getting a lot better at identifying potential trouble spots! I would guess that they've got some ideas already and are just taking extra time to kick them around and make sure they won't cause worse problems.
sviridovt
07-01-2015, 07:47
Interesting that they said it wont completely remove the loophole but only discourage it. I would think they would add colors to the noodles and then penalize you for litter of your color on your side. Honestly I think the best option would be to allow the robots to throw the noodles, since then there is a high chance that most alliances would have a noodle throwing robot, making the noodle agreement much harder to agree on.
Tem1514 Mentor
07-01-2015, 09:00
Interesting that they said it wont completely remove the loophole but only discourage it. I would think they would add colors to the noodles and then penalize you for litter of your color on your side. Honestly I think the best option would be to allow the robots to throw the noodles, since then there is a high chance that most alliances would have a noodle throwing robot, making the noodle agreement much harder to agree on.
Unless they change G24, having a noodle throwing robot doesn't seem to make much sense. Now if the same robot could instead place a noodle into a bin, now that is worth something. There are other good uses as well but I will let you figure them out. :)
sviridovt
07-01-2015, 09:13
Unless they change G24, having a noodle throwing robot doesn't seem to make much sense. Now if the same robot could instead place a noodle into a bin, now that is worth something. There are other good uses as well but I will let you figure them out. :)
Yeah, thats what I was talking about, amending G24 to allow robots throwing noodles to the other side.
Either way, generally speaking I dont think putting litter in cans should be a priority, I think time could be spent better building 6 high stacks, plus since you can put noodles directly into the bin from the human station its really not necessary to build noodle loaders, just bring the bin to the loading station, which most robots would probably be able to do, so its actually not as big of an issue as it first seems.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.