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.

[James Juncker]

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

[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?

[James Juncker]

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

[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 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.

[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".

[James Juncker]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MisterG]

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

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.

[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"?