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

[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.

[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.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by bduddy

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

I would agree with this based on how the rules are written, but I feel the rules are written incorrectly based on the intent in the blue box, which indicates FIRST disagrees with telling other teams to sandbag. Based on how it is written, I can go around telling every team to sandbag and be perfectly legal. But, if any team listens to me, they get a yellow/red card. (I don't think this will ever be called so I'm not sure it really matters).

[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.

[Kartoffee]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

It isn't that you are trying to not win, just that you will be able to gain RP. I think that it is perfectly okay and legal, and wouldn't confuse spectators because they don't see the strategies behind choosing defenses.