The Noodle Agreement

[jtrv]

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.

[Morgeno]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

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.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Morgeno

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]

Originally Posted by jtrv

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.

[Hgree56]

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.

[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.

[Rangel]

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.

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.

[nlj007]

A really awesome video explaining the prisoner's delima. Show this to your team and then have a discussion.
http://youtu.be/t9Lo2fgxWHw

[EricDrost]

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:

Originally Posted by Hjax

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)

[Hjax]

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]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

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]

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.

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]

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.)

[Kevin Sevcik]

+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]

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