The Noodle Agreement

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by pbhead

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.

we've made it to finals twice in 7 years, and they came in 2012 and 2013. we lost both. (maybe 1 more time in 2008-2009, i'm not sure)

i don't know where you're getting the idea that i'm on a super elite amazing team. we're an average team. we've had great years, we've had bad years. 2013 was incredible for us, 2014 was meh. 2011 was not great, 2012 was pretty good.

I believe that seed number is not the only factor going into what alliance # you will be on. In fact, it's FAR from the BIGGEST factor. 2012, we were seeded in the 30s. We got picked for #3 alliance. Our own team was surprised, except for a select few who was showing the teams what we could do despite our poor ranking.

I don't mean to sound rude, but seeding should not be your primary goal, it should be performance that you can show statistics and strategy about to other teams and convince them you are a good pick. And then back up your argument on the field.

[Yipyapper]

Why not just make TNA, then deposit one noodle and wait to see if the other human player deposits one? If you both do then start alternating the deposit until they're all gone. If you wait for the other person to do it and act quick you can still do it in under ten seconds, five if you both get going quickly. If the opposing team doesn't deposit the first one, all you did was give them 4 points and can now tell other teams about their backstabbery and quickly start throwing those foamy pieces of negotiation to the other side of the field.

I scrolled through 4 or 5 pages on this thread to check and see if anyone mentioned it, if they did I'm sorry :c

[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.

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by jtrv

we've made it to finals twice in 7 years, and they came in 2012 and 2013. we lost both. (maybe 1 more time in 2008-2009, i'm not sure)

i don't know where you're getting the idea that i'm on a super elite amazing team. we're an average team. we've had great years, we've had bad years. 2013 was incredible for us, 2014 was meh. 2011 was not great, 2012 was pretty good.

I believe that seed number is not the only factor going into what alliance # you will be on. In fact, it's FAR from the BIGGEST factor. 2012, we were seeded in the 30s. We got picked for #3 alliance. Our own team was surprised, except for a select few who was showing the teams what we could do despite our poor ranking.

I don't mean to sound rude, but seeding should not be your primary goal, it should be performance that you can show statistics and strategy about to other teams and convince them you are a good pick. And then back up your argument on the field.

i think he meant during the matches, when the #8 seed faces against the #1 seeded teams, usually having the #8 seeded teams destroyed by them, this happened to us last year at our district comp at Ellensburg, our #8 seeded alliance losing by about 70ish points to the #1 seeded alliance, and im sure other teams have had this also.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Yipyapper

Why not just make TNA, then deposit one noodle and wait to see if the other human player deposits one? If you both do then start alternating the deposit until they're all gone. If you wait for the other person to do it and act quick you can still do it in under ten seconds, five if you both get going quickly. If the opposing team doesn't deposit the first one, all you did was give them 4 points and can now tell other teams about their backstabbery and quickly start throwing those foamy pieces of negotiation to the other side of the field.

I scrolled through 4 or 5 pages on this thread to check and see if anyone mentioned it, if they did I'm sorry :c

And this is why agreements like this are risky. If ONE PERSON (or team, or alliance) does not want to uphold their end, they can theoretically take down the whole thing.

My overall position: Whatever you choose to do, make sure that 1) you make your position clear, either by accepting (or making) or declining an offer, and 2) if everybody accepts the offer, hold up your end. And if the other alliance doesn't hold up their end? Let's just say that how long they're off your picklist for is up to you. (And... if you're a top 8 team and they pick you, you could always decline.) Word will get around, even if it isn't from your team.

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by MikLast

i think he meant during the matches, when the #8 seed faces against the #1 seeded teams, usually having the #8 seeded teams destroyed by them, this happened to us last year at our district comp at Ellensburg, our #8 seeded alliance losing by about 70ish points to the #1 seeded alliance, and im sure other teams have had this also.

yes, but thats going away this year. at least the bo3 stuff. you can still advance even if you lose all 3 games.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

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?

From a purely competitive standpoint, once you're in the playoffs, it doesn't matter. Their personal gain is exactly the same as yours - your alliance either advances, or it doesn't. You don't get a bigger trophy for scoring more points in playoffs than your alliance partners.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by 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.

How about looking at the difference in "scored noodles" and not just the total?
Example blue team tries to play TNA with red. Both dump all 10 noodles in their own zone. Both have 10 noodles .... Difference is zero so no added score to either side. Teams could still try to gain advantage of trying to throw into opposing side. This way some TNA "arrangement" would not benefit either team.

I do think that allowing this in ANY circumstance could lead to GDC unintended circumstances during elims though by collusion between two alliances to artificially raise one of the alliance's scores to beat out a higher ranked alliance's score that has already played

I would like to think that the intent of this game is to let alliances score as high as they can and let the best four (or two) scoring alliances move on during the playoffs.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

How about looking at the difference in "scored noodles" and not just the total?
Example blue team tries to play TNA with red. Both dump all 10 noodles in their own zone. Both have 10 noodles .... Difference is zero so no added score to either side. Teams could still try to gain advantage of trying to throw into opposing side. This way some TNA "arrangement" would not benefit either team.

I do think that allowing this in ANY circumstance could lead to GDC unintended circumstances during elims though by collusion between two alliances to artificially raise one of the alliance's scores to beat out a higher ranked alliance's score that has already played

I would like to think that the intent of this game is to let alliances score as high as they can and let the best four (or two) scoring alliances move on during the playoffs.

I like this suggestion...it minimizes rule changes, and keeps the spirit of the game as I understand it. It also encourages teams to score noodles in the recycling bins, since if the other team has 10 noodles on the field and they have 9 on the field with one in a bin, that's a net gain of one for them.

[cglrcng]

Just he fact that the possibility that TNA (and if not ammended by a GDC adjustment soon, or eventually, & very hopefully IMHO, before competition begins, since at least 2 great suggestions have already been mentioned in this thread alone, to negate any possible 6 team 2 alliance TNA effect like the +2Blue-2Red scoring, instead of +4Blue), & that it is an early day 1 strategy idea being discussed, and even a real issue on Kickoff day 2015...Has made me absolutely chuckle out loud all day today watching it build and be discussed, after the storm clouds and extensive discussion here not all that many months ago over another "6 Team/2 Alliance agreement" (that affected absolutely nobody except those 6 specific teams), that was done in the Finals at the Phoenix Regionals last year.

That was a healthy and hearty debate w/ many different views....But, this would be a game strategy "TNA," that if any 6 teams did go that way at any time....Almost everyone else would be forced to do so, as the QA points would quickly get away from those that did not agree, and the rest of the field gets left in the dust.

And yes, given the name of the game itself, it sure would seem contrary in "Recycle Rush", to leave all that trash round after round by agreement, "intentionally unrecycled" on both ends of the field constantly.

But, the rules are the rules, game strategy is, and must be worked up within the rules, and the rule currently allows and favors TNA as a very viable strategy and rewards it w/ high fairly guaranteed points for all 6 teams on the field for that particular game element using TNA as an agreed strategy.

Let us just hope the GDC sees this thread and adjusts the rules to easily just negate any possible "TNA being used as a continual strategy" that could cause the gumming up of the entire 2015 FRC Community, and possibly affect teams well into the future also. That fix of +2~-2=TNA benefit results of zero points (instead of +4~+4), would do so very easily.

And "The 2015 Day 1 Noodle Conspiracy" would be "Nothing but Trash on day 1" & therefore, the very idea of TNA would be "fully recycled!"

FIRST GDC, please highly consider to IMMEDIATELY RECYCLE that rule (actually a minor tweak, as the unrecycled trash would still maintain a total -4 point value as GDC designed, and should be a relatively fairly easy software scoring fix I'd think). PLEASE?

To do otherwise will or could fairly often force unintended coopertition that you may not have fully meant to design into this particular game. (Who knows...it may have been highly discussed there also by the GDC? They are a very smart group).

[Skyehawk]

I'm going to jump back into this thread after several hours of just watching.

I find TNA a tantalizing new aspect to FRC, we have had copertition in the past, but this brings it to a whole new level. In its original form co-op meant an even gain for both alliances (i.e. 20 points each) we now face the dilemma of an uneven split (i.e. 22-18) While the difference in the amount of points awarded is fairly minimal we could see a back-stab situation (i.e. 40-0).
This brings us into ethics, the spirit of FIRST is GP, so who is going to be the first to say "I have a greater desire to win." And what repercussions will that have? Will we see back-stab after back-stab? Counter back-stabs? Will 2015 be remembered as the "Year of The Noodle Agreement"?
If (by some miracle) back-stabbing does not take place and TNA thrives in competition, with every team participating we see a situation that results in closer QA's but an overall sense of accomplishment by the teams in the competition as a whole (win or loose). On the flip side, if none of the teams participate in TNA then we see QA's that have a larger spread and compitition as normal.
But here is where it gets interesting, suppose half the teams decide on TNA for their own reasons, and the other half don't. Here we see the widest spread of QA's with some serious mix-ups with the seeding. Granted there have been years in the past where teams have been carried to the top that do not deserve to be there, but what happens if there are 3 or 4 of the top 8 teams that simply get carried by this noodle agreement. This poses a serious problem for any team under the top 8.

In my experience my team has always found our way into the top 8, not too difficult if you have friendship amongst the other teams (especially spanning multiple years). Trust is built. But if TNA stays in place we are seeing an expedited trust, and with it comes some expedited bad blood (especially if a back-stab results in an 80+ point difference and a solid hit to QA.

As much as I would love to see how TNA would work in a competition (a fascinating social experiment). I agree that It has to be stopped, for fear of REALLY screwing up the game and resulting in the "Year of The Noodle Agreement".

[cglrcng]

OK...Now.....Any way that CD can add a "TNA Green Noodle" Smilie over there on the right------------------------------------------------------->
LOL! <-----I'm just going to use that 1 for now to denote the way I felt all day chuckling about this thread, and the existing designed rules and situation, that the added game play element (unresolved trash), created. Too much.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ether

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

This is not true. fouls decrease your own score. 3.1.3. This was a change for 2015.

[Caleb Sykes]

TNA is very interesting to me. I'm still pretty on the fence if I would prefer it changed or not.

However, I find it hilarious that the game piece is named LITTER in a recycling themed game. If these rules are kept the same, here are some things you might hear at competition this year:
"We only want to litter if you litter as well"
"WHY AREN'T THEY LITTERING!"
"Wait, I forget, were we supposed to litter just now?"
"I can't believe they didn't litter."
"You said that you were going to litter and you didn't, we're going to cross you off our pick list now."
"There's only 30 seconds left, quick, litter as much as you can!"

[cglrcng]

Skyhawk...Go watch the 2 videos below.....1st 1 with no (2 Alliance/6 Team), game strategy agreement (defense was played, red won, up 1~0).

The 2nd 1 was played with a 6 Team~2 Alliance Game Strategy Agreement. It can work, there has to be much trust for sure. To do otherwise once a 6 team/2 alliance coopertition agreement is reached that is, is to invite nothing short of absolute terror. (There was also an agreement as part of that, that if it was voided by even 1 party pretty much at all during the match and intentional defensive contact was made (note what happens w/ the blue ball at one point, and how much the blue bot avoided getting in reds way then once red began the inbound), everything about the agreement was null and voided too though I understand! Therefore, the defense war was back on at that point, and defense would be back on the table).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWGcQ1dx4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQtXL7n93JA

That only affected those 6 specific teams ever, and only pretty much took out the ref's except for possible inbounding foul calls...And it caused a lot of controversy, and much discussion here in a thread. It would not have changed any real results, the right 3 teams were the winners & finalists in the end. (But, TNA would be from week zero throughout the Championships and affect possibly everyone in 1 way, or another).

6 teams doing something every single match, can only lead to many failures. (I see some real nightmares ahead....beyond the just begun build season).