Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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?

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.)

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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?

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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).

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

Well, the Coopertition bins I'm pretty sure are disabled during eliminations.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.)

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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?

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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?

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

While in theory this is ideal, FIRST works with its vendors well in advance and probably already has an order for all green noodles.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

yes, but thats going away this year. at least the bo3 stuff. you can still advance even if you lose all 3 games.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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).

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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".

Re: 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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

This is not true. fouls decrease your own score. 3.1.3. This was a change for 2015.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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!"

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

________________________

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

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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"

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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."

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

I thought botbuddy was referring to noodle litter points. Re-reading it, your interpretation seems like the correct one.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

This idea was brought up in my meeting. Could work... assuming you have trust in the other alliance

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

Me too!

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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).

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

ME either!

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

Yes

Yes

If it changes I think this is the way to go.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

I still cannot get over how they missed this one.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

I meant if the agreement was in place--defense focused in on the ramp.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

That match there was no agreement...and there was too many point rewarded for the endgame that year. The stacking hardly mattered.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

Oh, I get it now. Thanks for the clarification!

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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!

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

Never mind.

Gotta read that manual ... ::rtm::

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

however, if you threw a noodle over and knocked over a stack, would that be illegal?

nevermind the fact that would be highly impossible.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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....

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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 ...

... and this reply :

So, a single noodle won't knock down a stack and tying many together is not an option.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

I second this suggestion. Seems like a good solution that doesn't require any change to game play.

Re: The Noodle Agreement
 

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.