The Noodle Agreement

[pabeekm]

Originally Posted by 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.

This seems to be really unnecessary and very very unfair. Honestly, I can't imagine and don't want to see any kind of situation where teams agree to this.
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.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by pabeekm

This seems to be really unnecessary and very very unfair. Honestly, I can't imagine and don't want to see any kind of situation where teams agree to this.
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.

You say poorer methods, I say more efficient use of time both in match and during the build season.


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?

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Ether

Team B doesn't lose points. Their opposing alliance gains points.

Does anybody else find it odd in a game where everything was designed to be contained and robots were with an alliance and no interference from an opposing alliance the gdc decided.. "Yeah how about this game piece helps the other side"
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?

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Originally Posted by Sparkyshires

YHINT 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.

I was thinking this when my team discussed it earlier today. It keeps the spirit of the rule and prevents gaming it.

[John]

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.

[Newo]

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.

[alopex_rex]

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.

[BethMo]

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.

[KineticCougar]

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

[tbarban]

I have a feeling this may be used near the end of the qualification matches. In which teams need XXX points to rank higher.

[pabeekm]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

You say poorer methods, I say more efficient use of time both in match and during the build season.


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.

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.

[TylerS]

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.

[Mike Bortfeldt]

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.

[dilley]

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?

[alopex_rex]

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.)