The Noodle Agreement

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

...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]

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]

Keep in mind elims are not head to head until the finals, so teams doing it *may* have an advantage over those who dont.

[Jade Z]

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]

Originally Posted by Skyehawk

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]

Originally Posted by Jade Z

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.

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

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]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

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.

[StAxis]

Originally Posted by Jade Z

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.

[Morgeno]

Originally Posted by JosephC

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.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Morgeno

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]

Originally Posted by Jade Z

Just because everyone has 40 more points does not mean everyone benefits.

Originally Posted by Skyehawk

... 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]

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.

[wilful]

Originally Posted by aztecprincess98

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]

This is a situation where the utmost of gracious professionalism is required.

Interesting idea... now if only they add honor points haha

[bh202548]

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?