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

[cglrcng]

I will state the problem much clearer I guess.

"Figure 3-6: LITTER within the ARENA at the end of a MATCH" (Notice ARENA).

"C. as UNPROCESSED LITTER on either the Red or Blue side of the FIELD."

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

Look again at Figure 3-6 please. That exception of "F" does not even deal with the Human player Stations in the A~F examples, or any litter that transitions out of the Litter Bin, or in posession of the 4~6 Human Players that may be handling them when the game ends....Then What? Do they show it to the Refs, walk it back to the bin, eat it, drop it, hide it, there is no way they can possibly pocket it...Though there will be at least 1 that tries without a doubt. (Tying it in a knot and wearing it for a hat is a Violation:FOUL, according to G16-H & B. "H. tying", & Blue Box..."B. humans or ROBOTS tying or weaving LITTER into a knot").

(It needs just a bit more clarification and explaining is all, to be able to show and help train & teach human player students). You are assuming that the "F exception" applies. I will just say that the word "ARENA" as stated in the Figure 3-6 title, and "LITTER F remains in the Bin" & "is not on the FIELD" conflict a bit to assume anything at all. (That only refers to Litter remaining in the Bin). Once removed by Human Player Hands, it can not possibly "remain in the Bin."

Litter in the hands of human players is not even discussed...Period. (Except how it may be entered onto the field or not using the Litter Chute...But, not how said Litter "would be scored if taken from the Bin", and never entered onto the FIELD, and there is only 1 way to introduce LITTER....By Human hands, thrown over the Alliance wall during Teleop (all but the last 20 seconds of a Match), or through the Litter Chute in each Human Station during the entire period of Teleop).

There will be matches where Human Players still posess LITTER at the ending buzzer without a doubt in my mind, some still in the act of entering it onto the field without a doubt.

Now go to THE ARENA and THE FIELD Sections please, and look at BOTH OF THE Figures associated with each Section please.

THE ARENA encompasses all of the Red & Blue carpeted area and the Step, both inside & outside of the Field (where the Human stations are located...outside the field), but inside the Arena, which includes ALL GAME ELEMENTS.

I only question if the rules don't deal, or are not specific enough with an aspect to fully understand. I assume nothing if I can avoid it.

[RunawayEngineer]

I am so glad that they are making changes.
I hope that the collusion problem isn't the only thing that they are going to fix - since it isn't the biggest problem with the current Litter rules.
The ability to directly give points to your opponent has serious implications in the Playoff matches without any collusion required. There are several scenarios where an alliance would have an incentive to give points to their opponent:

An Alliance is confident that they will advance without using Litter points, so they give their opponent 40 points to help them advance to the next level over alliances that are actually stronger.

An Alliance knows that they can't advance, so they start donating points to their favorite teams.

That's without talking to another Alliance at all - the consequences get even worse if they start making agreements.

Alliance A and Alliance B could mutually increase their chances of progression by giving 40 points to each other.

Alliance #1 could promise Alliance #8 that they will give them 40 points (increasing their average for the Quarterfinals by 20) if in return, Alliance #8 returns the favor by contributing 40 points to Alliance #1 in the Semifinals.

I seriously hope that they take away giving points directly to the opponent - it only made sense in the Win/Loss system, but it can be abused in the Average Score system.

[StillDefective]

I personally am upset that TNA is being put to death. It was a viable strategy, and a good simulation of game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. I still don't understand why people are having such a fit over it. If a team doesn't want to do it, they don't, so what.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by StillDefective

I personally am upset that TNA is being put to death. It was a viable strategy, and a good simulation of game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. I still don't understand why people are having such a fit over it. If a team doesn't want to do it, they don't, so what.

It artificially inflates scores. In a qualification system that is based on your score, rather than W/L, it makes it so teams can collude to prevent other teams from getting the points they need to ascend to top 8, and in a nastier way than refusing to perform coopertition.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Quite honestly, if GDC doesn't want unprocessed litter to be subtractive from own score rather than additive to opponent score, simplest solution is:

Nerf unprocessed litter value to 1pt. So if it's in your landfill or their side, 1pt for you. If it's in their landfill or your side, 1pt for them. Collusion nets you no advantage to simply playing the game honest.

They could also value both at 2pts, or 3pts, or whatever they feel like. As long as they're equal TNA gives no advantage.

[Harman341]

I think frank's statements make it fairly obvious that the gdc is against TNA. I think it would be best to just honor this wish and agree as a community to stop TNA. The GDC already has a hard job no need to make it harder.

I think the best solution is to have unprocessed liter deduct points.

[StillDefective]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

It artificially inflates scores. In a qualification system that is based on your score, rather than W/L, it makes it so teams can collude to prevent other teams from getting the points they need to ascend to top 8, and in a nastier way than refusing to perform coopertition.

But this is basically just a way of coopertation that isn't specifically stated in the rules. It COULD be used so teams could collude like that, but it would be brought to light quickly if teams were doing that.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by StillDefective

I personally am upset that TNA is being put to death. It was a viable strategy, and a good simulation of game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. I still don't understand why people are having such a fit over it. If a team doesn't want to do it, they don't, so what.

I have no problem with TNA in quals. It would indeed be a very interesting experiment akin to the prisoner's dillemma. However, in the playoff rounds it can (and almost certainly would have) been used to "embargo" high-powered first seeds. That is my qualm with TNA. This "gaming" of the playoff rounds is also probably why the GDC made it so that coopertition points cannot be scored in the playoff rounds.

If the playoff rounds were not round-robin, I honestly can't see any appreciable difference between TNA and the coopertition bonuses. The only difference between them that I see is that FIRST is telling us to do the coopertition bonus, and did not explicitly tell us to do TNA.

[rick.oliver]

Here is what I posted in the TNA thread:

I am also pleased that Frank confirmed the GDC intentions and that they had identified the potential prior to releasing the game. Interesting that they chose not to implement a "fix" until after release.

Here is what I would prefer to see happen:

G33 LITTER may be introduced onto the FIELD only during TELEOP and only in the following ways:
A. through the LITTER CHUTE, or
B. over the ALLIANCE WALL during the last twenty (20) seconds of the MATCH.
VIOLATION: FOUL per LITTER.

Scoring Change:

LITTER Scored in/on a RECYCLING CONTAINER 6 per LITTER

UNPROCESSED LITTER Bonus 0 per LITTER

COOPERTITION LITTER Scored in a LANDFILL ZONE or STEP * 1 per LITTER

[CamTheMan]

I think it would be interesting if they changed the rules so that litter that is not in the arena qualifies as unprocessed. That way, each alliance essentially starts the match with an additional 40 points. This would incentivize teams to try and score litter in the landfill zone and in recycling containers in order to deprive the other alliance of points. The effect of TNA would be nullified because essentially every alliance would be participating by the nature of the new rules.

[Nate Laverdure]

Sent to frcteams and copied here.

Frank,
Sincere thanks for your (and your team's) continued commitment to the FRC teams, and especially your attitude towards open and fair discussion.

1. In most other FRC communications, strategic team actions that might be labeled "collusion" are instead referred to as "coopertition" or "normal gameplay." Why is the noodle agreement distinguishable as "collusion?"

2. You explain that the GDC strove this year to disincentivize undesirable team actions through thoughtful game design instead of a more complex system of rules. In your example, incentives for high stacking (a potentially unsafe behavior) were removed by simply omitting them from the points structure. Although you state that the problem of the noodle agreement was addressed with "a similar approach," this is not established or supported by the provided evidence. In fact, it seems from your description that the GDC anticipated the potential problem but then chose to not take action. Can I be anything but bewildered here?

[Madison]

Originally Posted by CamTheMan

I think it would be interesting if they changed the rules so that litter that is not in the arena qualifies as unprocessed. That way, each alliance essentially starts the match with an additional 40 points. This would incentivize teams to try and score litter in the landfill zone and in recycling containers in order to deprive the other alliance of points. The effect of TNA would be nullified because essentially every alliance would be participating by the nature of the new rules.

This was explicitly addressed in Frank's note. If litter that isn't in play is considered unprocessed, both alliance's can agree to not enter litter into play. It's exactly the same as 'The Noodle Agreement' but easier.

[StillDefective]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Sent to frcteams and copied here.
In fact, it seems from your description that the GDC anticipated the potential problem but then chose to not take action. Can I be anything but bewildered here?

These games are developed years in advance and tweaked up until kickoff. I can be almost positive that the GDC thought of this, but chose not to take action because it would be a strategy, along with the coopertition platform, and like I said before, an exercise in the Prisoner's Dilemma, seeing how the teams chose to play the game. I suspect, that after the GDC saw how much people complained about TNA, they just figured it would be easier to do something about it then have people hate the game. They want the game to be fun for everyone, and this was a big concern for a lot of people. I really enjoyed the idea of TNA because it would show how teams work together for each others benefit, or work for their own.

[pmangels17]

There is a better way of doing this without any changes to point values, or confusing coloring schemes. Simply award points for the NET unprocessed litter on the field. Here is how it would work.

Suppose there are 6 pieces of unprocessed litter on the blue side of the field, which would under the current rules give the red alliance 24 points.
Similarly, there are 5 pieces on unprocessed litter on the red side, giving the blue alliance 20 points.

Instead of scoring the red alliance 24 points and the blue alliance 20, take the net number of unprocessed litter, which in this case is 1, because there is 1 more litter on the blue side than the red side, and award the red alliance points according to the net number of unprocessed litter, in this case 4 points.

This way, there would be unprocessed litter on the field, but it would not matter how much is on the field, just the difference between the two sides.

A consequence/benefit to this rule change would be that every time you move a piece of litter to the landfill zone, you score a point for processing it, and change the net unprocessed litter by 1 in your favor, effectively making scoring a piece of litter in the landfill zone worth 5 points if there is unprocessed litter on the other side of the field.

[Domtech]

Originally Posted by pmangels17

There is a better way of doing this without any changes to point values, or confusing coloring schemes. Simply award points for the NET unprocessed litter on the field...

This is the exact same idea that I suggested to my team yesterday. It completely solves the noodle agreement problem while also bringing back an element of real competition in a match.