Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

I view these agreements as arrangements that have you playing beneath your abilities.

* If I agree to put up the defenses my opponents prefer, I am thwarting my scouting efforts - which would cause me to put up the most difficult defenses for their robots. I want to *win* the match. Part of that involves making it harder to create a breach.

* If I agree to send boulders out immediately, I am potentially feeding my opponent points, helping them to win. Why would I do that?

* If I am concerned right now (at the very beginning of build season) that I might need some "help" to breach defenses, perhaps I should be focusing on designing a better robot - one that doesn't need artificial help.

* If I am concerned my opponents are going to keep six boulders in the castle, preventing me from shooting, perhaps I should consider designing a robot that can chase down the loose boulders that will already be out their - its not like they're going to hoard all 18 boulders.... I might even consider simply scoring a seventh and eight boulder to force the issue. Don't I want to do that anyhow?

Focus on building a better robot now and making these silly agreements worthless.

While I'm not overly fond of the boulder agreement I see why people would want to use it, I feel that if you decide to work together to raise both alliances ranking it shows that you ARE able to compete in the game as well as being able to cooperate with others (coopertition anyone?). When going into a match my team in previous years has looked at a few things, 1 Are we at all likely to win
2 what do we still need to display to scouters
3 does our robot have the ability to synergize with other robots on the field

When we do this we first are able to determine to go for the most points which is often less effective than a team that would pick us, or to display the features to teams on or off of the field that our robot can do.

All of that was only important because now our team will be able to ask how close will the match be, and from that determine if we should ask to go for easy ranking points over going for a win. In matches that would have a large gap in average OPR across alliances the teams that might have come out with one RP from just a breach might be able to get the capture and display they ideal capabilities. If some teams were able to display their best case scenario might be able to catch the eye for a 2nd round maybe even a 1st round pick.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

I'm a moderate of sorts when it comes to these agreements: I don't think they're illegal or unethical, but I do think they're rather silly.

What's the point? This game is still predominantly win/loss; at the early levels of competition any alliance that can get the additional RPs will be winning most of their matches as well, and there's no benefit to helping the other team win. If I were a driver this year, I wouldn't participate in this agreement, and I certainly wouldn't tell the opposing alliance which defenses are hardest for me.

That said, I don't buy the notion that these agreements violate T7/T8. Those rules explicitly apply only to the actions of individual teams, not alliances. And defining "ability" to include "ability to use scouting to determine which defenses are most difficult for the opposite alliance" is excessively broad. If teams were under an obligation to pick the defenses they thought most challenging for for the other alliance, the rules would have to say so.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

I didn't suggest that I thought they were illegal... Only that I want to win the match and a part of doing so would be putting up the defenses that our scouting suggests are hardest for them to damage - allowing them to earn fewer points... I certainly don't want them getting a cheap ranking point, either.

I figure that if I am concerned about that ranking point, I should be designing a robot to get that ranking point. It's only day 4 of build season.... It's time to build a good robot.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

My apologies. Some individuals have suggested that this sort of strategy would be illegal under T7/T8, which revolve around the phrase "playing under your ability," so when I saw similar language in your post I thought you were referring to those rules as well.

I agree with what you're saying. If you want to rank high (and doesn't everyone?) focus on making good robot instead of clever-seeming ways to game the system.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

Interesting argument. I think the fundamental difference in our opinions arises from our different views of success. From a purely competitive standpoint, I see not problem ranked higher than a robot that is objectively better. I feel that the ranking system, is designed not to objectively rank robots, but to rank the overall team. Even if a team has the best robot in the world, but can't scout, drive, or strategize well, they will generally do worse. I view this as a legal strategy that can legally bolster a team's ranking.


I also don't se the ultimate point of FRC as winning competitions, but that won't stop me from trying my best to do so. I don't think using (currently) legal strategies to boost my rankings is any reason to not build an objectively better robot. In FRC not only making the best robot, but the best strategy is important. I view any legal strategies allowed by the game manual as part of the challenge the GDC has set before us.


Again, it is not only the robot that gets you ahead. It is a combination of strategy, scouting, driving and other factors. You can have the best robot, but not the most competetive team.

Again, the difference in our opinions relies on what you think as skirting around the rules. I believe that this strategy is completely fair to everyone and completely in the rules. Personally, I think the manual will be clarified to explicitly state whether it is legal, but it is still a legal strategy. Whether this is a viable strategy is still up to debate and I am not sure if it even makes sense to do it myself.

Thanks for clarifying your argument. It has been very enlightening discussing this with you.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

Regardless of 'feelings' of 'intent' or 'design' of the ranking algorithm, if a team wants to maximize the expected value of their rank then they will want to maximize the value of their RP's and minimize the expected value of every other teams' RP.

As a team who can conquer any defense, if my scouts tell me that all 3 opponent KOP bots get stuck on rough terrain and are >16" tall, you better believe I'm selecting rough terrain as a defense. If I'm in player station one and the team in Player Station 2 invokes [T28] for an 'agreement', then they are minimizing their alliances' probability of ranking higher than the opponents in the longer term. I wouldn't send a student driver to talk to the ref at this point, I'd send a business student who's on the debate team to talk to the ref - simple logic will play out.

It is baffling that the coopertition claims in this thread simultaneously ignore how how an 'agreement' may to the detriment of a team's own alliance with respect to maximizing their alliance's ranking.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

I've gotta say this is equally as ridiculous the TNA last year. We all know the rules will be revised to prevent it, if the "no playing below one's ability" rule doesn't already stop it, and that it is just a dumb idea overall.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

I personally support the defense agreement. I also STRONGLY believe that not consulting with all of your alliance members before the agreement is made would go against the rules in a black and white way. This is collusion.

If these agreements are allowed at competition, it is up to the team in driver's station 2 to consult with the other two teams on their alliance and make a decision that is beneficial for the alliance. Failing to do so would not be playing to the best of your ability.

When making the agreement with the other alliance, I would encourage all teams to ensure that the three teams on the other alliance were involved in the decision to go forward with the agreement. Hopefully this will prevent the event you described above from ever happening.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

Since both teams can achieve some of the RP's simultaneously, there are trade-offs between maximizing your own RP's and minimizing opponent RP's. And maximizing your own RP's is generally going to be more valuable than minimizing the RP's of your opponents, who represent 1/20 or less of the other robots at the competition.

This example is a distraction. I don't see anybody suggesting that it makes sense for any team to push an agreement that a) doesn't benefit the alliance and b) the alliance partners don't all agree to.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

There are three different agreements that have been discussed:

1.) The "Breaching" Agreement (The defense agreement sounds like an agreement not to play defense, which is not what this is)
The Breaching Agreement is simply an agreement between alliances to play the optimal defenses for the opposing alliance so that both alliances have a better shot of getting the 1 RP for a breach

2.) The Boulder Agreement #1
This is an agreement of both alliances to simply score 8 balls in their own tower so that both alliances have the ability to capture it.
This has problems in that only one robot can be in their own courtyard at a time, so one robot would have to score all 8 boulders, the boulders would have to be scored in the low goal, and I'm not sure whether those boulders would score points or reduce the strength of the tower.

3.) The Boulder Agreement #2
An agreement to not play defense on robots in your own secret passage, such that when you score a goal, the ball is returned to play right next to you in your opponent's secret passage instead of across the field.

All three are problematic and I'm not sure whether I agree that a) they're ethical b) they're within the rules, and c) they'd be effective.

They also lead to scenarios where a team might break the agreement for the purpose of winning the match and make some people very upset.

I'm not sure how the GDC could close these loopholes or even if they should.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

Here's another type of possible defense agreement:

Let's say all six robots in an upcoming match are capable of scoring boulders and getting onto the batter. The sum of scoring capabilities on each alliance is such that it seems possible, but by no means certain, that they will be able to score the eight boulders needed to weaken the tower.

The two alliances discuss beforehand and agree that each alliance will employ a strategy in which all three robots score boulders instead of a strategy of two scorers plus a defender. This maximizes both sides' chances of scoring an extra RP for a capture.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

I don't get it. You guys realize that you have an incentive to deny your opponents ranking points, right?

Why would two alliances agree to score in their own goals instead of the opponent goals? That's both against their own interests and harder to do since only one robot can be in your own courtyard at a time. There is still a strong incentive to win the match, after all.

Why would two alliances agree to not have anyone play defense? I'm not saying we won't see no defense matches - I'm saying there's not really anything to be gained from talking the other alliance into it. If you want to maximize your chances of getting 8 balls in, you just have all three robots try to score. Even if there is defense from the other side, you may have the upper hand in scoring potential (3 scorers versus 2) and potential for that ranking point. The agreement would make it more likely that the opponents get the ranking point as they have more scorers.

If there was no incentive to win the match, these agreements might happen, but teams have plenty of incentive to play to win. More than they did in 2010, by a mile, and colluding actively with the other alliance was a rare occurrence then. (6v0 matches were not, but it was not usually involving discussions across alliances - they were usually so called "hostile 6v0" matches, I could explain more if you want)

I'm just really not worried about this. Maybe I should be, I dunno? The world didn't end when we agreed not to throw pool noodles at each other until a certain point in the match last year.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

But the thing is, you want to maximize your own RP whilst minimizing your opponents. This ultimately reduces your competition, and helps you more than helping your opponent for to get a potentially lower (or in the case you actually rely on this agreement to get points, higher) ranking for your team will.

Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.
 

Illegal or not, both the defense and the boulder agreement are extremely unethical. Any team which designed their bot to get around the problems presented by the challenge (crossing defenses, or quickly transporting balls) is being effectively neutralized as all teams are able to complete this goal, regardless of how much effort was put into it. So while it's true that you're being nice and friendly by helping boost others, you're lowering the relative usefulness of some teams who decided to overcome the difficult challenges (which people asking for these agreements seem to want to just give up on). Please, consider all the consequences of making these agreements.