The Noodle Agreement

[alexander.h]

Originally Posted by Sparkyshires

however, if you threw a noodle over and knocked over a stack, would that be illegal?

nevermind the fact that would be highly impossible.

I don't see any rules stopping it, but the chances of a noodle knocking down a stack of totes ... Nah, I don't see it happening. However, there was this post ...

Originally Posted by Chinmay

one of the team members tied it into a knot before I tried this... lol they're pretty pliable and can be returned to semi straight before throwing... idk give it a shot with yours

... and this reply :

Originally Posted by Mike Marandola

This would be illegal per G16.

So, a single noodle won't knock down a stack and tying many together is not an option.

[Chris Hibner]

Personally, I dislike the noodle agreement.

I stopped reading after about four pages so I'm sorry if this has already been suggested, but I would modify the rule as follows:

Unprocessed litter: Points are awarded to the alliance with the least amount of unprocessed litter: 4 points multiplied by the difference in unprocessed litter between the two alliances.

Sorry, my wording could use improvement. Basically what I'm saying is if the red alliance has 3 pieces of unprocessed litter and blue has 5, then the difference is 2 (i.e. 5 - 3) and red would get 8 points (i.e. 4 * 2) for having the least amount of unprocessed liter.

[Sparkyshires]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Personally, I dislike the noodle agreement.

I stopped reading after about four pages so I'm sorry if this has already been suggested, but I would modify the rule as follows:

Unprocessed litter: Points are awarded to the alliance with the least amount of unprocessed litter: 4 points multiplied by the difference in unprocessed litter between the two alliances.

Sorry, my wording could use improvement. Basically what I'm saying is if the red alliance has 3 pieces of unprocessed litter and blue has 5, then the difference is 2 (i.e. 5 - 3) and red would get 8 points (i.e. 4 * 2) for having the least amount of unprocessed liter.

I agree completely. Easiest way to fix this problem, and don't have to change any rules severely, and all the game pieces stay the same.

[mjc49]

Originally Posted by Sparkyshires

I agree completely. Easiest way to fix this problem, and don't have to change any rules severely, and all the game pieces stay the same.

I second this suggestion. Seems like a good solution that doesn't require any change to game play.

[Doug Frisk]

It seems to me that the easiest way to nullify the Noodle Agreement is to switch from green noodles to red and blue noodles. The blue alliance gets points if blue noodles are beyond the red landfill or if they are recycled or in the blue landfill.

Same for the red alliance.

Now, dumping your noodles just costs you points.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by TomBuchler

I just had this thought to TNA. This agreement could be blown out of the water if FRC simply adjusted the rules and had blue colored noodles for the blue alliance and red colored noodles for the red alliance. And the objective would be to have the blue alliances noodles land in the red alliance area and vice versa to score points.

OK, so I wasn't the first one with this idea.

Alternatively, since FIRST has probably already purchased noodles, they could be IDed by wrapping a ring of red or blue gaff tape around the noodles.

[Squillo]

(Setting aside the red/blue solution, whether by noodle color or tape,) I'm curious as to why most people seem to be advocating the "+2/-2" solution, rather than simply a "-4" to the alliance with the unprocessed litter (rather than +4 to the opposite side). Can someone explain to me why "+2/-2" is better - as an incentive to avoid unprocessed litter, and also eliminate the benefit of TNA - than "-4"?

[rick.oliver]

Like Chris, I have not read all 14 pages of posts. Also not a fan of the agreement. However, unless it is somehow voided I would feel compelled to agree. Perhaps this has been communicated already, but ...

Is this the equivalent of 6 vs 0 from Breakaway?

What is the line between Coopertition and collusion?

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

Like Chris, I have not read all 14 pages of posts. Also not a fan of the agreement. However, unless it is somehow voided I would feel compelled to agree. Perhaps this has been communicated already, but ...

Is this the equivalent of 6 vs 0 from Breakaway?

What is the line between Coopertition and collusion?

In my opinion, the line was drawn when FIRST made a "game" where there were no winners.

To rank well during qualification matches, and advance through the playoff matches to the finals, teams will want to work to maximize their score for each match. Except for the final matches, winners of individual matches will not be declared, as this has no direct bearing on tournament performance in RECYCLE RUSH.

Given the focus of Recycle Rush, I feel that TNA is fully within the spirit of the game.

[Pretzel]

Originally Posted by Squillo

(Setting aside the red/blue solution, whether by noodle color or tape,) I'm curious as to why most people seem to be advocating the "+2/-2" solution, rather than simply a "-4" to the alliance with the unprocessed litter (rather than +4 to the opposite side). Can someone explain to me why "+2/-2" is better - as an incentive to avoid unprocessed litter, and also eliminate the benefit of TNA - than "-4"?

The reason this could be seen as more beneficial, compared to simply a -4 for the other team, is because there are no wins and losses in qualifications. By making it a simple -4 only penalizes the alliance who happened to face a good noodle thrower and didn't or couldn't process the litter. A +2/-2 solution would provide a lesser penalty to the opposing team while still giving a benefit to the team that few the noodles. I think that the same issue is still found in the +2/-2 solution, albeit to a lesser extent, and think that merely color coding the noodles with some gaffers tape would be a more appropriate solution than subtracting points in qualifications.

It's unfair (in my opinion) to the opposing alliance to be penalized for an action of the other team when they aren't competing against each other in terms of winning or losing each match. My reasoning for this is that, due to robot design or some other factors, teams may not be able to push noodles into the landfill zone to prevents "penalty" to their score even if they are able to push the taller crates more easily to score. The seeding points are supposed to be based on how well you can score points, not how well your opponents can "de-score" them by throwing noodles.

That said, I still think the Noodle Agreement provides interesting strategic opportunities during the course of the qualification matches. I just don't like how it can be used to artificially deflate the scores of a specific alliance (compared to the others) in the finals. I would be fine with noodles simply being a -4 or +2/-2 in finals since then you negate the Noodle Agreement while still giving an opportunity for a skilled noodle thrower to elevate their team above the rest. I think it's safe to assume that teams should at least be able to bulldoze noodles into the landfill during the finals, whereas it might not be the case in qualifications due to differing robot designs (which may cause noodles to become entangled if he teams drives over them instead of pushing them, depending on design and ground clearance).

I eagerly await the first rules update to see what actions - if any - will be taken by FIRST in regards to the Noodle Agreement. We'll get to see if it was a intended strategy (or an unintended strategy that isn't necessarily disliked by FIRST), or if it's something that FIRST doesn't wish to see at competitions.

[Kevin Selavko]

I think that the best available options are to:

1. Leave it as it is, GDC already thought of this
2. Allow robots to throw litter to the other side
3. Increase the points for having a litter in a recycling can to 8 points
4. Give the team with the least unprocessed litter the difference in number of litter
5. Give teams 30 points if they have no unprocessed litter on their side of the field

(5. will give teams the points of the noodle agreement if they have all ten of their noodles in the landfill zone)

Personally I think 5 is the best option.

[Partheosis]

I'm not too sure how I feel about this strategy. As the human player on my team, I believe I would agree to this against an alliance that I trust. I'm not so sure about others, especially those with teams that usually play to win. I feel that rookie teams will easily be enticed into this agreement for a free advantage.

This is a thread that I'd recommend to any human player. Does anyone know of any other good threads discussing important human player strategies/info/pasta treaties?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Kevin Selavko

I think that the best available options are to:

1. Give teams 30 points if they have no unprocessed litter on their side of the field

(5. will give teams the points of the noodle agreement if they have all ten of their noodles in the landfill zone)

Personally I think 5 is the best option.

Unprocessed Litter is worth +4 each, or 40 points.

[Kevin Selavko]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Unprocessed Litter is worth +4 each, or 40 points.

30 points for no unprocessed litter, 10(1) for all your noodles in the landfill zone is a total of 40.

The 30 points gives teams an incentive to still put in the litter to get more points(1 in landfill and 4 for getting it to the other side) and also it is a large incentive to clean up your side of the field in the last 20 seconds(no more encouraging littering on your own side).

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Kevin Selavko

30 points for no unprocessed litter, 10(1) for all your noodles in the landfill zone is a total of 40.

The 30 points gives teams an incentive to still put in the litter to get more points(1 in landfill and 4 for getting it to the other side) and also it is a large incentive to clean up your side of the field in the last 20 seconds(no more encouraging littering on your own side).

But most teams would then be driven to completely bypass litter the whole match in order to get 30 free points and not worry about dropping litter. This would essentially remove litter from the game (I guess that's good for the recycling theme, but not for the gameplay).