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

If both alliances picked defenses that were easily breach able by the other alliance each alliance could earn a free Ranking Point thus raising their standing. This could also aid in faster cycle times making weakening the tower faster and aiding in capturing the tower for the second Ranking Point. If the other alliances you were with were on board you could manage to rank better than teams that aren't able to breach the defenses should that be your entire robots design and your teams strategy.

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

That my friend... is genius. How will the GDC get beyond that?

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

Oh for the love of Monty Python...

Actually this violates T7 and T8. They deal with intentionally playing below one's ability, which I presume includes the selection of defenses that are known to be difficult for a particular set of opponents.

Here we go

I believe that the only method would be randomization. However playoffs are still difficult

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

Intentionally playing below one's abilities? How is that judged?

Also the defenses aren't completely simple, they are all uniquely challenging

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

I think this implies no one is allowed to throw a match for ranking benefits or for seeding benefits, not the way you're thinking.

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

Last year the noodle agreement went so far as a 'blacklist' and a 'contract' here on CD. It's pretty blatant.

Actually teams who do above average have incentives by the RP structure to vehemently disagree and block the agreement in order to cinch the win (and 2 RP's). If the team in station 2 (ref T28) goes with the agreement regardless then either other team on that alliance can simply bring it up to the head ref that T7/T8 are violated.

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

I'm not sure that it does. You can still be playing at your ability if given defenses that you excel at. Asking your opponents to place obstacles that you designed for doesn't really affect whether or not anyone is "playing at their ability".

You could make a case that if that team does put out defenses you request that they are then playing below their ability. Because defense selection is a part of the game, selecting hard ones might be "playing at your ability".

For example falling in rank so that you aren't an alliance captain. That rule is there to ensure that you aren't bringing other teams on your alliance down with you. Specifically some of the larger more well known teams that might get targeted to make it easier for other teams to be the first alliance captain.

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

Considering the defenses are part of preventing the opponent from winning, winning gives 2 RP's, then RP's and seeding are benefited by a defense 'agreement'.

This is especially true for teams who chose to specialize in the defenses to begin with. Such an agreement effectively nullifies their specialty, giving an opponent a distinct advantage if the opponents are skewed more towards scoring boulders.

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

Not selecting the defenses that your scouts tell you are hardest for the opposing alliance is playing below your ability.

Violates T7/T8 for sure.

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

You will notice that the defenses are grouped such that both defenses in a group are of similar difficulty to traverse. Some of the groups are harder than others, but one defense from every group will be on the floor for every match. Which of the two choices happens to be on the floor is no big deal.

In keeping with the medieval theme, during those times politicking and treaty making was arguably a more valuable skill than outright warfare. If the game encouraged deal making, it would just be in keeping with the theme. But, I don't see that the benefits of deal making are all that tangible.

I could be proven completely wrong on the field, though, if two particular defenses prove to be particularly tough. Note that if ONE of the defenses is the hardest, alliances can just skip that one.

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

Asking another alliance to choose weak defenses seems like a direct violation of this rule.

Voluntarily choosing weak defenses seem to violate the spirit of this rule if not the letter.

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

What if you don't have scouts? What if you virtually "don't know"?

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

I think you can pretty safely assume that the hardest obstacle for an alliance is the opposite of what they ask you to select.

*Disregarding reverse psychology to reach a different nash equilibrium

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

People really need to stop calling some defenses "weaker" than other defenses. The defenses each represent their own unique challenge which would need its own system to overcome. If people were agreeing on selecting defenses that would be able to be traversed by the other alliance they would need to acknowledge the design of other teams robots, speak with them, and agree to ALLOW OTHER TEAMS TO PLAY TO THEIR FULL POTENTIAL. I believe that the Purple alliance is back, and it is more entertaining to the crowd then ever before!

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

Not that our team will do it but I'll go ahead and present noodle agreement number 2 in this game. Similar to the defenses but what if both alliances agreed to both try and capture by giving each other easily accessible balls in opposing secret passages? That way both alliances don't have to go back and forth to score balls. Whether or not this violates T8 idk but it is a possible scenario.

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

The goal of the game is to win, not to "entertain the crowd" or "allow everyone to play to their full potential". Read T8 again.

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

Playing to your full potential is an optimization problem.

You want to maximize (YOUR SCORE) - (OPPONENT SCORE).
If the result is positive, you win. If the result is negative, you lose.

If you are not both trying to maximize YOUR SCORE and minimize OPPONENT SCORE, you are violating T7/T8.


In quals, you can argue that the goal is more aimed at maximizing your seed and minimizing opponent's seed so the bonus ranking points add wrinkles to this, but allowing the opposing alliance to select their own defenses is not minimizing opponent's seed.

6v0 in 2010 doesn't violate T7/T8 if brought up by somebody on the 0 alliance.

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

The same as any other rule. The referees consider all available facts and come to the most reasonable conclusion.

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

An alternate interpretation:

Recognizing that working with the other alliance to select mutually beneficial defenses could benefit one's ranking and then NOT choosing to do so is intentionally playing below one's ability.

I view it as a potential source of coopertition. The argument to apply T7 or T8 to this type of agreement is like saying an agreement to attempt a coop balance in 2012 was playing beneath ones ability. Yes by performing the balance you removed the opportunity to gain a "match win advantage" from scoring more balls or balancing on a point scoring bridge, but it was worthwhile because ranking points are the ranking criteria.

It's a very similar mechanic to the 6 v 0 matches in 2010. Opposing alliances could agree to work together to benefit everyone's ranking. This was partially mitigated by the change to the 5 point ranking bonus for match wins (added after week 1 play).

This year there will still be matches where one alliance may think "If I agree to this I will likely lose, but maybe get the breach. If I don't agree I will likely win by placing XXX defenses against the opponent, but am less likely to breach. Therefore I will not agree." But in general, it could benefit the ranking of both alliances to collaborate on their defense selections.

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

According to the manual (the sections in question)
What I read from that is just encouraging teams to NOT do something. if you are asking for their help in picking the elements and not telling them to not scale the tower or not to cross your outer works and damage defenses, you should be fine. These rules are in place to prevent larger or more experienced teams from shoving other teams down and making them feel like thats what they need to do in order to stay on the other teams "good side"

The rules dont say anything about making the game more enjoyable to participate in for the other alliance, if you are expecting to be able to make up the points from them also doing the same strategy then you might need to consider them not participating in the defense agreement.

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

Let's pretend it's a simple binary choice with known outcomes in each case. Reality is probabilistic, but similar enough:

Choice 1: Make agreement with opposing alliance to choose easier defenses. Results in achieving a "capture" and get an extra ranking point.

Choice 2: Don't make the defenses agreement with opponents. Results in no capture and no extra ranking point.

If you have that choice available and don't take it, then you're not really doing your best to rank highly. If all six teams agree to something like that, I don't see how anybody can fault them for it. If one or more teams has their reasons for not wanting to make such an agreement, I don't see any problem in that case, either.

This is basically what KrazyKarl is saying above, and I agree with him.

It would be a strange departure for FIRST to tell teams they can't talk to opposing alliances to agree on certain things before a match. That was required in 2012, and in other years it has been useful. Example, in 2010 you could agree with opponents to play all offense and no defense, because high scoring matches (with loser scoring >0 goals) were better for everybody's rankings than low scoring matches, win or lose.

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

So the real question is who a ref would side with - the team on the alliance who benefited from an 'agreement', or the team on the same alliance that was hurt by the 'agreement'.

6v0 in 2010 was a mechanic, but it was a regrettable one as evidenced by that ranking algorithm not returning.

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

Would probably be best to get a Q&A on this one on whether it is a violation if both alliances believe it is in their best interests to do either the defense or capture agreement.

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

How is this helpful if everyone gets a ranking point then no rankings have changed. If I can breach anything you throw at me, and you can't why would I want to make this agreement?

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

Because every team at an event can collude to do this with every alliance EXCEPT the best team's alliances to comparatively deflate their ranking.

Obviously this is FIRST so there will be enough teams that morally disagree with this strategy so it will not have 100% compliance, but when you're trying to seed first, every little bit counts.

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

But wouldn't doing everything in your power to maximize your own score and RP be playing up to your maximum ability. While choosing defenses is a way to play the game, cooperation can also be since you are not just competing against 3 other robots in the match but also against the rest of the competition.

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

Problem is, T28 says that the team in position 2 has the final say in defense type and placement. So even the alliance may be split on the decision.

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

Sorry every team at an event we decide what team to gang up on. That team is decided by every alliance going "this team is objectively better and we need to deflate the score" again we all agree that a team is objectively better. After that you all agree to pick easy defenses (which by the way sorry to you students for making you do 6 weeks of building and designing for every instance we are just going to agree on a new set of instances that are easier). That isn't going to happen.
Even if you deflate the scores enough to get a tie isn't the next determining factor auto, so then do we need an auto agreement too? How will this even effect the final alliance, you all got to the end with ranking points now that you can't rely on the crutch you used to make it to the end you now still have to outplay the other side.
All you have done is create extra work.

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

I don't think this would end up harming the most competitive teams. Actually, I think they would be the ones who would be most likely to propose this to other teams and be diplomatic enough to convince other teams to do it.

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

The end result is the same, you have cheesed your way to the end and you still have no way of beating a team thats better then you.

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

You probably wouldn't make this agreement in that situation. Unless you aren't sure if your alliance will be able to breach. If that's the case, working with the other alliance might be a better interest to secure that extra ranking point.

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

For people that may have difficulty understanding the impact of more points, I am going to make this clear.

a team plays 8 matches and manages to win all 8 matches without gaining any RP this nets them 16 RP

A similar team manages to win 4 of its 8 matches and 4 matches scores a Breach and Capture and in the other 4 matches only manages to obtain the breach. this nets 20 points

this shows that the RP's are important to the game.

The defense agreement is importan because if teams are able to traverse defenses it will allow for 1 RP to be almost guarunteed and raise your ranking higher above teams that are unable to take part in this alliance.

as teams begin to accumulate more RP it throws off the balance of other teams that are unable to compete with the increase in RP

eventually as more and more RP are added on teams not able to be on board with the agreement would be unable to rank in a position for Alliance Captain. As the matches go on any wins added on top of the agreement would make it impossible for alliances not working together to manage to rank more highly and thus qualify for further events. wins only get you to 16 points after 8 matches, losses with both a breach and a capture are equivelent making it so that any losses would ruin your chances of being the captain of the number one alliance.

aside from all of this, its also strategically good for FIRST and for the scouters in the stands and for image. being able to see teamwork, as well as finding that teams are able to show off their robot and all of their work, allows visitors and other teams to really appreciate the effort and awesomeness that is these independant robots. its also much more fun watching your team do well and seeing everything fall into place. This may be a minor point for most teams, however I disliked last years game because it wasnt showy enough, it lacked interesting elements for the crowd and for visitors who had no idea what was going on. Here is to a good year!

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

I'm starting to get really tired of ranking systems that are not WLT. All they do is encourage the development of silly meta-games that the audience usually doesn't understand, and confuse people about what coopertition and GP mean.

There will be games this year where our alliance's optimal strategy will be to choose weaker defenses for the other alliance, or maybe even to score for the other alliance. I hate that. Not because I have ethical qualms about it, but because I don't want to explain to someone who hasn't read the entire rulebook why we are picking an extremely strange strategy.

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

I think the manual is clear with the intent of the rule. See the blue box under T8: "FIRST considers the action of a Team influencing another Team to throw a MATCH, to deliberately miss Ranking Points, etc. incompatible with FIRST values and not a strategy any team should employ"

The blue box doesn't say playing below ones abilities is against FIRST values, but the action of influencing another team to do so.

It is a subtle, but significant difference in my opinion. If playing below one's abilities was against FIRST values, then I'd argue teams that switch drive teams throughout an event, test out a new feature that probably won't work in a match or showcase specific abilities for alliance selection are in violation of T8 since they are not giving 100% to win that specific match.

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

Ignoring how contrived a bit of this is (the visitors wouldn't understand why you're not trying to win your current match...), the agreement, if large-scale, is TERRIBLE for scouting. If the agreement is widespread, no one would have a clue for what a robot is actually capable or incapable of.

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

This is a false premise.

First off, T7 and T8 don't prohibit teams from playing beneath their own ability. They prohibit teams from asking their opponents (T7) or partners (T8) to play beneath their ability. Both rules contain the following clause:
The intent of these rules is stated in the box beneath the rules. The intent is not to prohibit any alliance from engaging in a desired strategy for their match/alliance, but rather to prevent them from encouraging teams to throw matches to impact the standings. The scenario described in the OP pretty clearly fits as a match strategy (with willing participants).

Next, as you alluded to, there's a lot more to the ranking formula than the simplified equation you presented. There are numerous other factors that come into play in a tournament. To isolate the match score for each and every match as the optimization is not optimizing your chances of winning an entire tournament (or whatever your goals may be). You already mentioned that there are additional ranking points in play. When considering those rankings points, it's obviously preferable to obtain 3 or 4 rankings points as compared to 2 rankings points, even if it also increases your opponent's rankings points. Generally speaking, it's better to have a 4-2 margin of rankings points than it is to have a 2-0 margin (as increasing your own rankings points will have far greater impact on the standings that decreasing only 3 other members of the field). Even a 3-3 split of the rankings points is preferable to a 2-0 sweep of the rankings points.

But the single match vs. entire competition issue doesn't stop with the rankings points. There are plenty of scenarios where it makes sense to sacrifice your performance in an individual match in favor of increasing your performance in your overall goals. For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume the overall goal is to win the event. For example, it may make sense to keep your robot off the field for a match in order to make repairs. While it doesn't fit your optimization problem for that individual match, it may help you optimize your chances of winning the event. A less extreme example would be opting for a role or strategy you wish to test/practice, as you know it will help you in the long-run, even if it's sub-optimal for that individual match.

A lot of this discussion reminds me of this thread from 2011. I stated many similar examples in my discussion there about why framing a competition as a series of individual matches that must all be won is a falsehood.

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

You're right.

I amend that to:
If you are not both trying to maximize YOUR SCORE and minimize OPPONENT SCORE based on influence from a member of an alliance other than your own, you are violating T7/T8.


You're also right that it's a LOT more complicated than the formula I posted. The simplification was to explain the general issue, not to explain EVERY nuance.

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

Still incorrect. The rule prohibits you from trying to influence other matches, not from you being influenced by outside sources. The team who presented the option to you may be in violation with T7 or T8, but you are not.

In other words, there's still no rule that directly makes sandbagging illegal. T7 and T8 only prevent teams from advocating other teams to sandbag. The only thing stopping a team from sandbagging is their own code of personal conduct and the possible social repercussions.

I feel like the nuances here are equally important. When the ranking formula offers the possibility for an 100% increase in rankings points compared to winning alone, factoring in how to get those points is equally important. The proposition staged by the OP could help get those points.

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

I personally think this strategy is good in the sense that it adds a whole extra layer to the game. You already need to work with your alliance partners before the match to discuss the strategy. Along with the normal discussions, you will also need to decide if there is a benefit in employing the defense agreement with the other alliance. Both alliances than come together to make the decision of whether or not to employ this strategy. If both think there is, the agreement occurs.

Scouting would be harder, but the payoff would be much greater. Also, scouting this year is more or less pass fail, with fail meaning the team either does not attempt to cross an obstacle, or proves it can't.

The other thing about this stratagey is, like all coopertition in the past, it will not occur in playoffs.

I agree with everyone above who said that this strategy is a way of coopertition, and enacting it is in fact playing to the best of your ability.

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

T8 does exactly what you're talking about: it prohibits you from sandbagging based on influence by outside sources. You're reading it incorrectly.

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

I don't believe T7 or T8 are applicable to choosing defenses. Choosing defenses that are easy for your opponent isn't "playing beneath your ability," or even "playing" at all in the relevant sense. Also, both T7 and T8 stress that they apply to individual teams, not alliances, and the whole alliance has to agree on which defenses to use.

In practice I don't think the "defense agreement" would be beneficial for teams. If you make it easier for the other alliance to breach and capture, you're also making it easier for them to win, and you can't share winning, no matter what agreement you make.

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

How about if both alliances agree to score 8 boulders, each to its own tower. Much easier, 1 ranking point guaranteed for both sides.

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

Putting aside the question of whether this makes any sense as a strategy, I'm not sure shooting boulders in your own tower reduces its strength. Section 3.1.4 says
Since you don't get points for shooting boulders in your goal, it might not count as "scoring," and therefore not reduce its strength.

EDIT: Actually, upon looking over the rules I think what I say here may be incorrect. I'm now inclined to think that scoring in your own goal gives the opposing alliance points, and damages your tower as well.

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

I would agree with this based on how the rules are written, but I feel the rules are written incorrectly based on the intent in the blue box, which indicates FIRST disagrees with telling other teams to sandbag. Based on how it is written, I can go around telling every team to sandbag and be perfectly legal. But, if any team listens to me, they get a yellow/red card. (I don't think this will ever be called so I'm not sure it really matters).

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

You'd have to make full-court shots. You can't launch a BOULDER unless you are in the opponent's COURTYARD. Since the violation is a TECH FOUL, the TOWER STRENGTH would remain the same if you are scoring from anywhere else.

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

Presumably you wouldn't launch the boulders, just gently push them into the low goal.

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

My opinion is that, unless you are directly competing with those teams for the top seed for playoffs, you won't do this. In which case, you would also be depriving yourself of the possible breach points.

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

It isn't that you are trying to not win, just that you will be able to gain RP. I think that it is perfectly okay and legal, and wouldn't confuse spectators because they don't see the strategies behind choosing defenses.

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

I posted this in the Boulder Agreement thread, but it bears repeating here:

If you engage in either agreement, Do NOT backstab your fellow agreeing teams! If you don't want to agree, say so. If you agree, then do your part as long as you can do so, and if there's a problem inform the other alliance as quickly as possible so that both sides can adapt.


My opinion on both of these strategies is this: If the alliances both agree to attempt the use of these, I would count that as the "not intended to prevent" portion of the relevant rules--the alliance agrees--but it's on shaky ground due to the "outside of the alliance" part of the rules. Some test cases might be needed, and I'm glad I'm not a head ref.

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

The only semi-definition we have of launching is in the blue box following G39:
Are you going to rely on the ref's definition of forceful (vs. your "gently") to make this thing work?

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

Well, no, I don't actually think any of this is a good idea, legal or not.

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

The fact remains that even if you take advantage of either the "defense agreement" or "boulder agreement" strategies, your alliance has to be quite effective at scoring boulders or crossing defenses to reap the benefits. And honestly, I would question that at a regional I would often play against an opponent that is capable of scoring 8 balls in the low goal of their own tower. Only 1 robot can be in their own courtyard after all.

It wasn't like 6 v 0 matches in 2010 always saw 8 goals scored (not an apples to apples comparison, but just sayin...).

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

Could choosing defenses your opponents can cross be considered coopertition?

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

I like the idea of meeting up with the opposing alliance and try to reach an agreement on what defenses they'll use! I will definitely relay this to my team!

Have a Happy Build Season!

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

In general, I think the idea of "agreeing" with the other alliance on easier defenses, scoring intentionally in your own tower, or any other agreement I'm seeing posted on these threads in an effort to boost teams' rankings and scores artificially is UNETHICAL at best and CHEATING at worst, even if the rules don't specifically prohibit it.

Seriously, why even bother building a robot to play the game if you are going to collude on ways to advance in the tournament without actually playing the game? It's dishonest, and I hope that referees catch anyone attempting it. As a coach, I would prohibit my team from engaging in any such agreements. The point of FIRST and FRC is to overcome the challenges and play the game, not weasel around the rules and try to advance to the next level.

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

That's an interesting opinion. Why do you think advancing in the rankings is not a part of the game? FIRST created a game that is designed so that teams could help each other advance in the rankings. Was coopertating in 2012 or 2015 in order to boost both alliance's rankings collusion? The only difference I see here is that in 2012 and 2015 it was more explicitly stated in the rules.

Playing based on what you feel the intent of the rules is, according to the game manual, against the intent of the rules.

While you define these strategies as "trying to weasel around the rules," I view them as following the text based on exactly and only what it says. As there are no hidden requirements or restrictions, anyone who reads FIRST's manual for what it says could see that these strategies are not only legal, but also ethical because everyone has access to them unless they artificially restrict themselves. It seems that a team playing to the best of their ability would try to boost their rankings, not restrict themselves to their preconceived notions of the game's intent.

This is how I see these agreements, if you disagree, please let me know why.

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

I guess that I don't see advancing in the rankings necessarily as the objective. I see overcoming the challenges with engineering, quality of construction, and creative problem solving as the point of FRC. Working together with an alliance member to open a difficult obstacle is an example of creative problem solving. Finding ways to game the system and loopholes to pass through in order to get ahead is not. Suppose, and this may not be a likely scenario, but it is possible, that you advance by one of these agreements in the rankings past a team whose robot is objectively better than yours at scoring points without such machinations because they couldn't get someone to agree to something the same conditions. Is that a desirable outcome?

Maybe it's a philosophical difference about the point of FRC. I don't see the competition as the point, it's more like a fun bonus aspect. Perhaps that is partially because I am part of a team who is underprivileged... we have few resources, few students, and very little support from the school. We have to fight tooth and nail for a corner of space in which to meet. Generally speaking, we are not terribly competitive with our robots. It's easy to get blinded by the thrill of success and there is a strong social value placed on "winning", it's especially important in the US. But bottom line, I think you should advance in the rankings because your robot is objectively better at breaching obstacles, scoring goals, and challenging or scaling the tower than other robots. Those are the challenges set by the game design committee.

From a more objective point of view, I can see how T7 can be used to suggest that these agreements are within the rules. I still feel like they are underhanded in the overall scheme - but that's my opinion. Can you use an agreement with your alliance to get ahead of another team not in your alliance? Yes. But if you really wanted to get ahead, you should have built a better robot.

Further, I am a little disturbed by your concept of "ethical". The fact that everyone has access to the rules and is able to find ways around them does not make it "right" for someone to try to skirt the edges of the rules. Fair, maybe, but not ethically questionable. Win by completing the challenge or don't win. That's true in all aspects of life, even if it doesn't stop people from trying to get ahead any way they can.

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.

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

What is the latest on this? Did anyone ever post a Q&A about it?

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

I don't understand why people come up with this. It seems like a waste of time trying to play the rules instead of playing the game but alright. Either way if every teams score gets ranking points raised all we are do is inflate our numbers and just because you inflate the numbers doesn't actually mean you are good.

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

This game is not zero sum. If neither alliance is confident that they can breach the defenses and/or capture the tower with hard defenses, but is confident that they can breach easy defenses, not making this agreement is playing below your abilities. On the other hand, if an alliance is confident that they can earn these QP even on a harder alignment of defenses, do what little you can to weaken the field, and pick hard defenses.