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

[KrazyCarl92]

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.

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.

[Nemo]

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.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

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.

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.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

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.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

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.

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.