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

[James Juncker]

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.

[logank013]

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

[JesseK]

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

Originally Posted by Game Manual p. 91 of 111

T7A Team may not encourage an ALLIANCE, of which it is not a member, to play beneath its ability.
T8A Team, as the result of encouragement by a Team not on their ALLIANCE, may not play
beneath its ability.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Oh for the love of Monty Python...

Actually this violates T7 and T8 (or one of the adjacent rules, don't remember exact number). They deal with intentionally playing below one's ability, which I presume is in the selection of defenses that are known to be difficult for a particular set of opponents.

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

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by logank013

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

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.

[ToddF]

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.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by logank013

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

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

[James Juncker]

According to the manual (the sections in question)

T7 A Team may not encourage an ALLIANCE, of which it is not a member, to play beneath its ability.

NOTE: This rule is not intended to prevent an ALLIANCE from planning and/or executing its own

strategy in a specific MATCH in which all the ALLIANCE members are participants.

Violation: Behavior will be discussed with Team or individual. Violations of this rule are likely to

escalate rapidly to YELLOW or RED CARDS, and may lead to dismissal from the event (i.e. the

threshold for egregious or repeated violations is relatively low.)

Example #1: A MATCH is being played by Teams A, B, and C, in which

Team C is encouraged by Team D to not SCALE or CHALLENGE the

TOWER resulting in Teams A, B, and C not earning a Ranking Point for

that achievement. Team D’s motivation for this behavior is to prevent

Team A from rising in the Tournament rankings and negatively affecting

Team D’s ranking.

Example #2: A MATCH is being played by Teams A, B, and C, in

which Team A is assigned to participate as a SURROGATE. Team D

encourages Team A to not participate in the MATCH so that Team D

gains ranking position over Teams B and C.

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.

T8 A Team, as the result of encouragement by a Team not on their ALLIANCE, may not play

beneath its ability. NOTE: This rule is not intended to prevent an ALLIANCE from planning and/

or executing its own strategy in a specific MATCH in which all the ALLIANCE members are

participants..

Violation: Behavior will be discussed with Team or individual and may include dismissal from the

event. If egregious or repeated, YELLOW or RED CARD.

Example #1: A MATCH is being played by Teams A, B, and C. Team D

requests Team C to not SCALE or CHALLENGE the TOWER resulting

in Teams A, B, and C not earning a Ranking Point for that achievement.

Team C accepts this request from Team D. Team D’s motivation for this

behavior is to prevent Team A from rising in the Tournament rankings

negatively affecting Team D’s ranking.

Example #2: A MATCH is being played by Teams A, B, and C, in which

Team A is assigned to participate as a SURROGATE. Team A accepts

Team D’s request to not participate in the MATCH so that Team D

gains ranking position over Teams B and C.

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.

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.

[WRob]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by WRob

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.

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.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

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".

[EricDrost]

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.

[EDesbiens]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

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.

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

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by EDesbiens

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

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

[IronicDeadBird]

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?