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

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

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.

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.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

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.

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.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Nemo

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.

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.

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[James Juncker]

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!

[Caleb Sykes]

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.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by MisterG

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

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.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by James Juncker

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!

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.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

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.

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.

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This is a false premise.

First off, T7 and T8 prohibit teams from playing beneath their own ability. They prohibit teams from asking their opponents (T7) or partners (T8) to play beneath their ability.

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.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

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.

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.

Originally Posted by EricDrost

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.

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.

[SpaceBiz]

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.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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.

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

[alopex_rex]

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.

[Tottanka]

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