![]() |
The Noodle Agreement
Not to be confused with the noodle incident.
![]() 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? |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Simply Brilliant Sir!
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
im interested to see how this and how coopertition works in elims :)
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
I literally brought this up to my team 20 minutes ago. Great minds think alike!
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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 |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
Or something similar, shouldn't be too hard... |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
this is why im having trouble thinking of a way to restrict this action |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Thats what I love about this years game. strategy like this are viable and help everyone in the game
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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?
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
The only shared space of the field is the STEP. Can anyone think of a use for it in this strategy?
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Just realized that this "Noodle Agreement" is mutual littering lol. So much for the theme of recycling
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
If it doesn't require actions by both alliances to "earn" the points, then it wouldn't be cooperation. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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?
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Keep in mind elims are not head to head until the finals, so teams doing it *may* have an advantage over those who dont.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
Metagaming of this sort does not strike me as particularly "graciously professional," especially when it potentially involves dishonesty. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. :)
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
This is a situation where the utmost of gracious professionalism is required.
Interesting idea... now if only they add honor points haha |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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?
|
Re: 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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
A really awesome video explaining the prisoner's delima. Show this to your team and then have a discussion.
http://youtu.be/t9Lo2fgxWHw |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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: Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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)
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
I'd just like to point out that this is a form of iterated prisoner's dilemma.
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.) |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
+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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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 |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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 |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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). |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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.
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
![]() |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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? |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
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? |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
Quote:
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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. |
Re: The Noodle Agreement
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
|
Re: The Noodle Agreement
I have a feeling this may be used near the end of the qualification matches. In which teams need XXX points to rank higher.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:59. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi