[Team Update] 2015-01-06 The Noodle Agreement

[dellagd]

Link to PDF

Originally Posted by Frank

Team Update 2015-01-06

General Updates

This note is from Frank Merrick, Director of FRC Hello teams! For this part of today’s update I wanted to include a note directly from me, rather than generically from the Game Design Committee. I lead the GDC, so all information released by the GDC ultimately has my OK, but I thought it might help to let you know I’m writing this particular note myself.

There has been significant discussion and some anxiety on the Chief Delphi forums over what some are calling ‘The Noodle Agreement’, in which the two alliances in a Recycle Rush match could agree to collude, legally under the current rules, to simply drop their own litter on their side of the field, then not touch it, effectively giving both alliances easy bonuses to their score. The GDC talked about this specific possibility before the game was released. We actually talked about two different ways alliances could collude regarding noodles.

We had briefly considered, then quickly rejected, having the opposing alliance receive a bonus for ALL litter not in scoring position in the possession of an alliance. In other words, an alliance would have received a bonus for litter still sitting in the other alliance’s bin. This was rejected right away, as we realized passive collusion would be easy – both alliances simply needed to agree to not touch the litter in their own bins, and it would be immediately obvious if one alliances was not holding up their side of the bargain. This led to the current rules, in which any litter remaining in the bin has no effect on the score.

The second form of collusion we had discussed was what is being talked about on the forums – both alliances dumping all their own litter on their side of the field and leaving it. This form of collusion is more difficult to pull off, as both alliances need to take some physical action to bring it about, and there would be some natural concern over whether or not the other alliance was going to follow through with their commitment. A game of chicken could ensue. Also, it seems that getting all six teams on both alliances to agree to take a physical action like this, that many would perceive as being contrary to the spirit of the game – if not the rules – would be trickier than taking no physical action, as in the option above, and simply letting the points accumulate passively.

This year we worked hard to keep the rules simple, and to keep both penalties and rules to a minimum number. I’ll give you a specific example of an approach we occasionally used. You will note there are no rules in the manual giving penalties for teams building stacks of totes more than six high. Very high stacks are still somewhat of a concern, however, as they are harder for field reset to deal with and potentially could lead to game pieces exiting the field if the stacks are tipped over. Rather than telling teams they can’t build over six totes high, and assigning a penalty to that, we simply said, per Section 3.1.2.3, that if any portion of the tote extends over the backstops on the scoring platforms, they won’t be counted as scored. In this way, teams have no incentive to build high, as it’s a waste of resources they otherwise could have turned into points. Will we still occasionally see high stacks? I think so. Some teams will have not picked up on this element in the manual, as it’s not a ‘G’ numbered rule and has no penalty assigned to it. For those teams, we think they’ll quickly get up to speed at events. The cost, though, of more aggressively working to prevent these outlying actions within the rules is a more complex manual, more nuisance penalties, and something else the refs have to watch for. We essentially were willing to keep the manual simpler in exchange for likely more often seeing stacks higher than we would like to.

We took a similar approach with the second form of collusion with the litter. We don’t know how often this would happen at actual events, and actively preventing it likely means more complicated rules. However, looking at the forums, the possibility of this noodle agreement happening at events looks as if it’s creating some concern in the community, and distracting from other strategic elements of the game. This still may not be likely to happen often at events under the current rules, but if it does, I think they will be less enjoyable.

So, in this case, we will be making some changes to the rules to discourage this activity. They won’t be perfect, but they should be an improvement. Game Design, like robot design, means working through many trade-offs. The changes are not ready for today’s update, but will follow shortly.

Frank National Instruments has alerted us that they have received reports of the power terminals on some roboRIO’s not being completely screwed in. Teams are encouraged to check the power connector’s connection to the roboRIO. The Kickoff Kit Checklist for the Separate Items has been updated with a new “Where to get more” for the Recycling Containers and Pool Noodles.

And some other updates:

Section 2 - The ARENA


Section 2.1.3 - SCORING PLATFORMS

Each SCORING PLATFORM is adjacent to a BACKSTOP and positioned such that the bottom edge of the Platform Ramp is 3 ft. 3 in. from the center of the Landmark. Please see Figure 2-5 for more details.

Section 2.1.5 - Zone Markings

T̶a̶p̶e̶d̶ ̶B̶o̶x̶e̶s̶ STAGING ZONES: Each ALLIANCE has three (3) STAGING ZONES...

Section 2.1.6 - The Landmark

Each AUTO ZONE contains one (1) Landmark, which is centered across 1̶5̶ 13 ft. 7 in. from the ALLIANCE WALL.

Section 2.3.2 - RECYCLING CONTAINERS

The lids are secured to the g̶a̶r̶b̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶s̶ RECYCLING CONTAINERS using cable ties, and each lid has a 4.75 in. diameter hole in the center.

Section 2.3.3 - LITTER

Each LITTER is a solid core, green Pool Noodle, manufactured by Tundra (Part Number: SR20C). They are between 4 ft. 7 in. long and 4 ft. 10 11 in. in length and have an outside diameter of approximately 2.6 in. Given that the manufacturing process for Pool Noodles is not tightly controlled and the Pool Noodles used and distributed for the 2015 season were made in different production runs, teams should expect some variation in rigidity, length, diameter, and surface characteristics.

Section 3 - The Game


Section 3.2.1 - Safety

G6-1 DRIVE TEAMS may not use any object to prop the CHUTE DOOR open.

VIOLATION: RED CARD


Section 4 - The ROBOT


Section 4.2 - General ROBOT Design

R3
Size constraints specified in part B may be met with additional aids such as bungee cords, minor disassembly, etc., provided transition from/to the TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION does not risk violation of other rules, particularly G̶5̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶G̶6̶ G10 and G11.

Section 5 - The Tournament
Playoff Tournament MATCH nomemclature in Sections 5.4.4 and 5.6.3 was corrected to be consistent with nomenclature used in Figures 5-2 and 5-5.

Section 6 - The Glossary
BACKSTOP – an aluminum structure positioned between each SCORING PLATFORM and the GUARDRAILS, primarily used to determine the LEVEL of a scored RECYCLING CONTAINER.

[MrTechCenter]

I thought that a rule change would happen. Well there goes that.

[cgmv123]

PDF up now: http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...pdates0106.pdf

[pbhead]

Very interesting. Very very interesting.


It sounds like they will not be removing the Noodle Agreement, but Nerfing it somehow.

And lets be honest, TNA as it stands is indeed a tad OP... near zero effort and a simpler robot for 40 points.

Very curious on what changes.

[BenB]

A simple solution to this would be to tape the ends of the pool noodles with red and blue tape, identifying which alliance station the noodle originated in. Noodles would then only count for points at the end of the match (as processed or unprocessed litter) if they were on the opposing alliances side of the field.

[nxtmonkeys]

Originally Posted by BenB

A simple solution to this would be to tape the ends of the pool noodles with red and blue tape, identifying which alliance station the noodle originated in. Noodles would then only count for points at the end of the match (as processed or unprocessed litter) if they were on the opposing alliances side of the field.

if your noodles are on their side, you get points. if your noodles are on your side, you lose points. if their noodles are on your side, they get points. if their noodles are on their side, they lose points.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by BenB

A simple solution to this would be to tape the ends of the pool noodles with red and blue tape, identifying which alliance station the noodle originated in. Noodles would then only count for points at the end of the match (as processed or unprocessed litter) if they were on the opposing alliances side of the field.

Simpler yet is the +2/-2 scoring system, or -4 scoring system. 30-minute change to the FMS code completely removes the point of TNA with no colored noodles to keep track of or anything.

Also, I know CD is a highly focused and motivated community and as such, memes and strategies developed here won't necessarily be as popular in the larger FRC community, but I think think Frank's wrong about how prevalent TNA would be at a regional. As soon as a few veteran teams started explaining TNA to other teams, and teams started seeing 40 point jumps in scores, you'd pretty quickly reach a majority of matches with TNA happening. And that's leaving out the semi-final playoff shennanigans possible with TNA.

[Anthony Galea]

Originally Posted by nxtmonkeys

if your noodles are on their side, you get points. if your noodles are on your side, you lose points. if their noodles are on your side, they get points. if their noodles are on their side, they lose points.

This honestly seems like a great solution. Also adds some more risk to throwing the noodles.

[Kris Verdeyen]

It seems like the best solution to de-incentiveize TNA is to make noodles scored in a can worth more relative to noodles scored on the floor. Right now, a successful agreement nets 40 points, and the best you can do playing straight is 54, if you manage to get noodles in 7 scored cans, and the other 3 on the opponent's side. (Like I have to tell you to correct me if I'm wrong). If the noodles on the floor are worth 1 or 2, the cans become more attractive.

Don't give up and start creating new penalties, Frank! Hold the line! Change the point values!

Alternately, you could just get rid of the litter altogether...

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

It seems like the best solution to de-incentiveize TNA is to make noodles scored in a can worth more relative to noodles scored on the floor. Right now, a successful agreement nets 40 points, and the best you can do playing straight is 54, if you manage to get noodles in 7 scored cans, and the other 3 on the opponent's side. (Like I have to tell you to correct me if I'm wrong). If the noodles on the floor are worth 1 or 2, the cans become more attractive.

Don't give up and start creating new penalties, Frank! Hold the line! Change the point values!

Alternately, you could just get rid of the litter altogether...

The question is, would you consider +2 point to the opposing alliance and -2 points to your alliance a penalty, or just a different way to add up scores? Is it a new tax, or is it just a new fee?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by BenB

A simple solution to this would be to tape the ends of the pool noodles with red and blue tape, identifying which alliance station the noodle originated in. Noodles would then only count for points at the end of the match (as processed or unprocessed litter) if they were on the opposing alliances side of the field.

Processed should count as any color. You should be able to score +10 by moving it to your own landfill zone.

[nicholsjj]

How about just getting rid of the 4 point non landfill score and upping the landfill score to 2 points that way teams have a better incentive to score in RCs or if they miss to get the noodles to the zone (it would be worth as much as a scored tote)

[billbo911]

A simple solution to the noodle agreement issue would be to only give points for placing it in a bin. No penalties, no bonus.
That would eliminate any incentive to artificially inflate the score.

[cglrcng]

I surely hate to keep these TNA threads going, as rule changes are being currently formulated for a further UPDATE. But.....

There currently are so many ways to get a larger max score using TNA (as part of the process), than it is without it (Up to 100 points shared or not shared between the 2 alliances using a half/half collusion litter game strategy), you agree to collude & each use half of each, waste half of each as UNPROCESSED LITTER (+50/+50=total 100 points or there about, w/ many variables avail. and presenting), if of course Recycling Containers are evenly split or unevenly split, and all 10 litter each are used & (removed from the originating litter Bin & are entered onto the field & are all scored).

There still is left currently in the wind among other "litter game strategy" considerations (though rule changes are coming, that much we do know).

OTHER QUESTIONS: What happens to those "litter pcs" sitting outside the origination Bin, and currently in transition between the drum and the field when the game ending buzzer sounds? (EG: In human players hands or human stations, or in transition, and "not yet entered onto the field," or "half entered/half not entered onto the field...in the litter shute?"). I could go on and won't....go further.....down the slippery slope.

The diagram (and accompanying explainations below it), at "Figure 3-6: LITTER within the ARENA at the end of a MATCH"...And the explaining litter rules info below the "Figure 3-6:" (Does not explain fully enough, except for the exception of LITTER IN THE Bin "F" is excepted)....And it tends to make me believe that by the explicit wording of that exception alone, that litter in transition between drum & field, is also not counted as UNPROCESSED LITTER, as it also has not yet entered the FIELD? (EG:"Finally,
LITTER F remains in the Bin and does not score as an UNPROCESSED LITTER Bonus as it is not on the FIELD.")

I think that "Figure 3-6 also needs to have added "G, H & J Examples"....(G being in transition from Bin to the human station, H being in the human station, & J being in transition from human station to The Field). (Or just G being a clarification of ALL LITTER in transition from the Bin (once removed & cannot be returned to the bin), to the field would suffice. Or, "G" (an allowance that)...All LITTER in Human Player Hands at the end of each match, and not yet released onto the FIELD, be allowed to be returned to the Bin.

Sry to be a further headache, but it isn't real clear due to the wording. And I just hope they take that omission of litter outside the originating bin, but before it enters onto the Field into account also, before the promised UPDATE & rule changes take affect.

"Finally, LITTER F remains in the Bin and does not score as an UNPROCESSED LITTER Bonus as it is not on the FIELD."

Writing rules is HARD! (Especially, if you are going for rule simplification for sure). I'm not attempting to Lawyer...It just isn't covered yet..."YET being the key word."

Good Luck Frank & Company (GDC).....And TY Again!

Last "Litter I'm spreading" until the update is released.

Kevin said...."The question is, would you consider +2 point to the opposing alliance and -2 points to your alliance a penalty, or just a different way to add up scores? Is it a new tax, or is it just a new fee?"

Answer: It would fully depend....."Is the IRS and the US Supreme Court Involved?" If so, It is a tax.....If not and only The Lawmakers are involved, it is a fee...until that is, there is a lawsuit filed...Then it becomes a tax after all the briefs are filed, all the arguments heard and a decision rendered!

[shhrz]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

"Finally, LITTER F remains in the Bin and does not score as an UNPROCESSED LITTER Bonus as it is not on the FIELD."

As far as I understand, it states quite simply that a piece litter not on the field is NOT unprocessed litter.

To take it a step further and answer your question: a litter piece "in transition to the field" is still NOT on the field, and therefore fits under the above description of NOT being a piece of unprocessed litter.