The Noodle Agreement

[dilley]

so would i be legally possible to have your bot pick up the can and bring it to the human player and then have him/her insert it in to the can via the shoot, and then have the bot place the can atop of a prebuilt stack of crates?

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by dilley

so would i be legally possible to have your bot pick up the can and bring it to the human player and then have him/her insert it in to the can via the shoot, and then have the bot place the can atop of a prebuilt stack of crates?

According to the rules, this is perfectly legal. Although, we haven't tried or seen anyone doing this through the human player station to see if it's feasible.

[pabeekm]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

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?

Yeah, that's a huge part of the problem. Teams view what's "gp" or not largely from their own perspective. At least for me, I try to use it in the most intense circumstances, but for me and you and everyone here, that applies to different things (e.g. the example above: to me it seems very un gp, but someone with a more "anything goes" attitude might think conspiracies against particular teams across an entire regional, since they're not illegal, aren't too bad an idea if it can serve to their own benefit).

[pbhead]

Originally Posted by Newo

Nobody wants to be "that guy" or "that team," especially considering how much TNA goes against FIRST values and robotic design competition.

I must strongly disagree with this sentiment.

TNA is gracious professionalism just as much as any coopertition points have been in the past. More so, because it is not explicitly stated in the rules.

More importantly, perhaps, if a noodle agreement is made, but then broken, and thus backstabbing the opposing alliance who expected the noodle agreement. Is, just that: A backstab. and very anti-GP.

I do hope that rule G24 is amended, indeed, to allow for robots specializing in noodle manipulation, but at this point, the noodle agreement is far too optimal in score vs effort to not be done. Also, if the rule is changed too late (and perhaps it already is too late), robot designs will already be fairly set, parts ordered, and such, and the 'meta' in as much as ratios of robot types. has already been affected.

Let me list the pros vs cons as I see them, as far as the 6 teams on the field during the qualifying matches will see it:

Pros-
Weight, design time, space, complexity are all saved.
A guaranteed 40 points
No risk of flying or fallen noodles interrupting stacking operations.
Time not spent worrying about noodles is more time spent completing other tacks, potentially further increasing both alliance's scores.
A way to build trust with the enemy alliance.

Cons-
2 points lost per stacked can which could have had a noodle in it.
one player feeding station is effectively inoperable for the last ~10 seconds of the match, if fed though the feeder station. ~30 seconds if tossed over the top.
Potential backstab by the enemy alliance: but very not GP and as such not expected.

Any rational team will find the pros of the noodle agreement far outweigh the cons.

Frankly. if G24 is amended to allow robot noodle manipulation, even then The noodle agreement, in as far as total point scored is superior to having a noodle manipulator on your team. Your noodle manipulator will still score you 40 points, perhaps up to 80 if it can pick up off the floor, and hold all 20 noodles for a last second shotgun burst of noodles to the enemy side of the field (improbable to say the least), but now you have to deal with noodles annoying your robots, and you have one less stack manipulator... Manipulating the noodles in this way feels very non-optimal, as far as scoring goes, compared agreeing to the noodle agreement, and having a third stacking bot.


Frankly. As the rules are written right now... the noodle agreement is kind of like Jury Nullification.

Not explicitly in the rules.
No one tells you about it.
But incredibly important for the preservation of justice... i mean. optimal game play.

[pbhead]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes. I remember hearing about this. It was the year before I joined, but I was told the story of, and well remembered what I believe was kind of the the very first cooperation in FIRST.

Originally Posted by 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.)

Most certainly. TNA, if not amended, will be match by match. If an alliance feels they can do better without TNA that with, that is clearly their decision, and as long as the other alliance is aware, no harm is done for that particular match.

I would suspect that for the playoffs, those top teams will be very careful in their noodle agreements, and not do anything which might be consider anti-gp... just as I have never seen those top teams not use their time out to help the other guys and win by default.

[Sparkyshires]

Originally Posted by Jeanne Boyarsky

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

Exactly. There's no coloring the noodles, no added game prep, and it keeps the spirit of the rule, but doesn't let people exploit it by mutually scoring for each other. It's the simplest solution.

[diddoarch710]

Originally Posted by Chinmay

im interested to see how this and how coopertition works in elims

Well, the Coopertition bins I'm pretty sure are disabled during eliminations.

[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]

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.