The Noodle Agreement

[Debbie]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

While this strategy is fully valid as outlined in the rules, it does bring up another dilemma. Say a team believes that is against their morals or does not believe that is the intent of the game. If a few teams decide to play the noodle strategy, these other teams will be forced to take part in order to keep up in the points standings, or else risk seeding low.

I don't like this loophole, personally.

ME either!

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.

Agreed.

I feel this whole idea goes against the spirit of FIRST, and I hope the GDC does something to prevent it. I personally am done reading it, and hope that teams focus on making themselves the best, rather than ruining the chances of a team that has worked hard to get to high ranked spot.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by 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!"

See now this is why I love this. Did anyone consider how funny "Year of the Noodle Agreement" sounds out of context?

But in all seriousness I think there is something inherently GP about two opposing alliances agreeing to give each other points. Isolate that, "Red and Blue alliances agree to give each other points".

The other angle is that this is entirely not the point of the game as stated above. However I don't think it is against FIRST values for the reason I stated above. Also could the GDC really miss this? Yet I do think it should be done away with. At this point it is clear that between teams who don't know about this, do know and don't want to, and do know and do want to you will have a lot of salt and confusion.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Also could the GDC really miss this?

Frisbee rain in 2013.
Dead balls in 2014.
6v0 in 2010.


Just what I can think of off the top of my head... They've missed some other "obvious" problems in the past. Because this is up so early, and so loudly, I think they'll be on it in TU#1.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by p00rleno

Easy fix, color the noodles. Red litter can only be unprocessed on the blue side, blue litter on the red side. Either side's litter can be scored in the landfill though, because if that's all you can manage to do (go for 1 point per noodle), there's no reason to take it away.

The problem there is that "unprocessed litter" is not only litter from the other alliance, but also litter that your alliance dropped and didn't "clean up". If they were colored, there would be no penalty for a robot accidentally dropping a noodle when they tried to score it in a recycling bin.

[Andy Brockway]

Section 3.1.2 states that the litter can only be scored by placing in the Recycling Container, placing in the Landfill or throwing it on to the opposite side of the field.

Seems like the GDC did not intend for anyone to intentionally place Litter on their own side of the field in order to score for the other side.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by bharrison6

Or they could just make those points count against you rather than for the other team. I know first hates to take points away, but engineering uses negative numbers all the time.

Yes

Originally Posted by Nemo

I don't like this. I hope the GDC fixes the scoring rules in a way that removes any incentive for both teams to leave litter on their sides.

Any rule change needs to modify the game in a way that doesn't force referees to judge whether there was intent to make a noodle agreement vs teams accidentally leaving litter in a particular place. That would be even worse.

Yes

If it changes I think this is the way to go.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by EricH

...Dead balls in 2014.

I still cannot get over how they missed this one.

[Josh4eyes]

If you look at rule 3.1.3, it states that "a FOUL will be issued and six (6) points will be decremented from the offending ALLIANCE’S score"

To be clear, I think this clears up this whole entire argument.
Fouls are taken from your score instead of your opponents.

[Koko Ed]

I guess we'r recycling old debates too!

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I guess we'r recycling old debates too!

It's very interesting that this has been a debate before. I didn't know the tournament rules for 2003 (I was in 3rd grade!) so I looked them up:

Both teams in the losing alliance get their own alliance score in Qualifying Points (QP’s). Both teams
in the winning alliance get their own score plus twice the losing alliance’s score in QP's.

Similar to 2010 it looks like it rewarded high scoring losses more than a low scoring win - discouraging defense. But 2003 was a game with winning and losing.



I think there's a key difference to this year's game. There is no winning and losing until the very last match. It's not fixing a match if there's no match to be played. The goal for each alliance is to pure and simple get the most points in the match.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

It's very interesting that this has been a debate before. I didn't know the tournament rules for 2003 (I was in 3rd grade!) so I looked them up:



Similar to 2010 it looks like it rewarded high scoring losses more than a low scoring win - discouraging defense. But 2003 was a game with winning and losing.



I think there's a key difference to this year's game. There is no winning and losing until the very last match. It's not fixing a match if there's no match to be played. The goal for each alliance is to pure and simple get the most points in the match.

It took a minute to make a stack and mere seconds to destroy it.
It's like they took away the violence from the 2003 game and replaced it with the passive co-existence of 2001.

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

It's very interesting that this has been a debate before. I didn't know the tournament rules for 2003 (I was in 3rd grade!) so I looked them up:



Similar to 2010 it looks like it rewarded high scoring losses more than a low scoring win - discouraging defense. But 2003 was a game with winning and losing.



I think there's a key difference to this year's game. There is no winning and losing until the very last match. It's not fixing a match if there's no match to be played. The goal for each alliance is to pure and simple get the most points in the match.

It sounds like the same seeding rules as 2010. What's interesting is that I don't think there was quite as much negative controversy over the 2010 6v0 compared to the 2003 one.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

It sounds like the same seeding rules as 2010. What's interesting is that I don't think there was quite as much negative controversy over the 2010 6v0 compared to the 2003 one.

Actually... that's because 2003 was 2v2 with no defense being played. 2010 had quite a bit of controversy, particularly after Curie Match 100. And the GDC "fixed" the problem early (5 points to the winner of the match guaranteed), and USUALLY it was one alliance simply shutting themselves down.

2003 (and 2015) require both alliances to agree.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually... that's because 2003 was 2v2 with no defense being played. 2010 had quite a bit of controversy, particularly after Curie Match 100. And the GDC "fixed" the problem early (5 points to the winner of the match guaranteed), and USUALLY it was one alliance simply shutting themselves down.

2003 (and 2015) require both alliances to agree.

2003 had quite alot of defense being played.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

2003 had quite alot of defense being played.

I meant if the agreement was in place--defense focused in on the ramp.