The Noodle Agreement

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Actually I think you will end up having no choice but to trust in this agreement since if most people are doing it which they probably will, you will be penalized by not getting the points. As Frank said, they won't be announcing wins and losses until the final rounds. The game isn't about winning, it's about having the highest average score possible.

Not really. If theres one SINGLE team that doesn't want to do it, the enemy alliance gets punished for trusting them.

Lets say red team 1 doesn't want to do it, red2/3 and blue1-3 want to. All teams drop the noodles on the ground on their side so the enemy team gets +40. Both red and blue get +40 at this point.

Well, red1 doesn't like this. They pick up the noodles and put them in containers or in the landfill. Now blue isn't at +40. Probably +32 or +28, while red stays at +40. Now you're in a bit of a problem if you're on blue.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by jtrv

Not really. If theres one SINGLE team that doesn't want to do it, the enemy alliance gets punished for trusting them.

Lets say red team 1 doesn't want to do it, red2/3 and blue1-3 want to. All teams drop the noodles on the ground on their side so the enemy team gets +40. Both red and blue get +40 at this point.

Well, red1 doesn't like this. They pick up the noodles and put them in containers or in the landfill. Now blue isn't at +40. Probably +32 or +28, while red stays at +40. Now you're in a bit of a problem if you're on blue.

Well of course there is always that risk but I think the vast majority of teams wouldn't want to be part of a controversy where they went against the wishes of the alliance without telling them. Really it's not much different than coopertition. If everyone does it, then there is no benefit to it. Of course people can promise to do coopertition with you and secretly decide not to but these cases are rare and few. Statistically, people are going to honor the decision much more often than not. Now come eliminations, that might all change.

[Trey178]

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.

[Pretzel]

I think the Noodle Agreement is interesting in that it can provide an extra coopertition bonus during the qualification rounds, but I'm not sure how I feel about it being used against specific alliances in elimination rounds. While I can see the side of the argument that says it merely helps to even the playing field against what are potentially the best two robots in the competition, I also feel that the best team should win regardless of if the others band against them with Noodle Agreements.

Perhaps a scoring change for elimination rounds to get rid of the ability to "gang up" on one team and deny them Noodle Agreement points, while still retaining the bonus coopertition points in qualification rounds? Something along the lines of the noodles removing points during eliminations and adding the points to the other team during qualification rounds would work to accomplish this, but there are probably more elegant solutions (if a change is made at all).

[Jared Russell]

FIRST should give the red alliance red noodles and the blue alliance blue noodles. UNPROCESSED LITTER bonuses can then only be given to noodles of the opposite alliance's color. Problem solved.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

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.

[jaykris284]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

FIRST should give the red alliance red noodles and the blue alliance blue noodles. UNPROCESSED LITTER bonuses can then only be given to noodles of the opposite alliance's color. Problem solved.

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

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Well of course there is always that risk but I think the vast majority of teams wouldn't want to be part of a controversy where they went against the wishes of the alliance without telling them. Really it's not much different than coopertition. If everyone does it, then there is no benefit to it. Of course people can promise to do coopertition with you and secretly decide not to but these cases are rare and few. Statistically, people are going to honor the decision much more often than not. Now come eliminations, that might all change.

In what world do you live in where you would get punished for not following the unwritten "agreement" between a couple alliances during qualifying matches?

Seriously. If you break it, so what. Sure some people will be upset and might not pick you. But you acted in your self interest, you want to win. That's the entire nature of competitive plays. To win.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by jtrv

In what world do you live in where you would get punished for not following the unwritten "agreement" between a couple alliances during qualifying matches?

Seriously. If you break it, so what. Sure some people will be upset and might not pick you. But you acted in your self interest, you want to win. That's the entire nature of competitive plays. To win.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to go along with TNA. If a team doesn't want to do it, they don't want to do it. That's fine. It's another thing though to give 5 other teams your word that you are going to do along with something and then not do it. Sure the team might be acting in their own self interest in the long run but most teams I know don't want to be known as lairs.

Edit: For the record, I don't actually like TNA and I hope there is a rule change. Nevertheless, it is a very legitimate strategy for teams to do.

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to go along with TNA. If a team doesn't want to do it, they don't want to do it. That's fine. It's another thing though to give 5 other teams your word that you are going to do along with something and then not do it. Sure the team might be acting in their own self interest in the long run but most teams I know don't want to be known as lairs.

Edit: For the record, I don't actually like TNA and I hope there is a rule change. Nevertheless, it is a very legitimate strategy for teams to do.

Yes, but there are people in this thread that act like if one person on your alliance agrees to it, youll be burned at the stake if you don't do it. Come on people. Nothings going to happen if you break it. You'd be silly to trust someone in a competition setting, no matter how much FIRST encourages "coopertition."

Tell me how coopertition would work if your team didn't get any benefits, only the opposing team, and each alliance had to fulfill an individual task.

(the "you"s are not directed at the quoted poster, rather the people going nuts in this thread about breaking it. i'd probably get in trouble for naming and shaming here though.)

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by jtrv

Yes, but there are people in this thread that act like if one person on your alliance agrees to it, youll be burned at the stake if you don't do it. Come on people. Nothings going to happen if you break it. You'd be silly to trust someone in a competition setting, no matter how much FIRST encourages "coopertition."

If I heard similar statements from a driver or key decision maker, I most likely wouldn't even consider picking them. From a purely competitive stand point, if you have proven you do not follow agreed upon strategies, I cannot trust you on my alliance.

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

If I heard similar statements from a driver or key decision maker, I most likely wouldn't even consider picking them. From a purely competitive stand point, if you have proven you do not follow agreed upon strategies, I cannot trust you on my alliance.

A lot of teams have ideal alliances very early on Saturday. Sometimes on Friday night. Of course, these alliances are never final and are incredibly subject to change.

If you act in your self interest, is that suddenly a bad thing? What? Since when, did I miss a memo?

I would argue if they break it, then it proves they are strongly in favor of winning. Wouldn't you want a team who wants to win?

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by jtrv

A lot of teams have ideal alliances very early on Saturday. Sometimes on Friday night. Of course, these alliances are never final and are incredibly subject to change.

If you act in your self interest, is that suddenly a bad thing? What? Since when, did I miss a memo?

I would argue if they break it, then it proves they are strongly in favor of winning. Wouldn't you want a team who wants to win?

that brings up the question then, do you want a team driven to win for themselves? or have a team who can work well with all teams and wont backstab you later on for personal gain?

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by MikLast

that brings up the question then, do you want a team driven to win for themselves? or have a team who can work well with all teams and wont backstab you later on for personal gain?

Why would you backstab your alliance during elims...?

Elims are what matter people. Getting #1 seed doesn't win you the regional. It doesn't give you anything but first pick.

[pbhead]

Originally Posted by jtrv

Why would you backstab your alliance during elims...?

Elims are what matter people. Getting #1 seed doesn't win you the regional. It doesn't give you anything but first pick.

Well. different teams have different goals.

My team, for example, has never made it to the finals. ever. For us, seed is the only thing that has mattered, and the goal for us this year is to simply be good enough to get to the finals.

So. sure, the noodle agreement does not help you when your team can manage to build a robot that can earn the maximum theoretical score solo with a minute to spare, but for the rest of us, optimizing our team's effort and scoring potential by abiding by the noodle agreement will be very useful.