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

[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

[James Juncker]

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!

[Rangel]

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.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by James Juncker

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!

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.

[EricDrost]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

How is this helpful if everyone gets a ranking point then no rankings have changed.

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.

[Dragonking]

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.

[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.