The Boulder Agreement

[bstew]

Last year, a strategy called the noodle agreement was thought of in which both alliances agreed to dump their litter on the field to boost both alliances score and qualification ranking. This year a similar agreement, with BOULDERS could be made with similar results.

The agreement would consist of both alliances agreeing to introduce their BOULDERS either into their courtyard or an opposing alliance’s robot. If both alliances agree to do this, weakening and subsequently making CAPTURE of the TOWER fairly easy. Because both alliances would introduce the same number of BOULDERS, this would theoretically not affect who would win the match.

In a previous post about a similar defense agreement, rule T7 and T8 have been cited as not allowing this type of strategy. However, this agreement is an agreement that will result in all teams playing above, rather than below, their ability.

Is this a viable strategy?

[Christopher149]

See thread.

[barn34]

For just one year, I wish everyone would focus purely on the game challenge at hand instead of trying to find shady ways to skirt around it and unfairly inflate or skew scoring and ranking results. Unfortunately, it appears that this will remain a wish...at least for another year.

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by barn34

For just one year, I wish everyone would focus purely on the game challenge at hand instead of trying to find shady ways to skirt around it and unfairly inflate or skew scoring and ranking results. Unfortunately, it appears that this will remain a wish...at least for another year.

First would need to stop putting ranking points obtainable in match for this to happen. Any year where it was purely W/L/T never had this issue from what I remember. If there is a way to do better by working with the other alliance though, it will be thought of and happen *IF legal.

*Might be ilegal anyways so it might not even be a thing this game.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by barn34

For just one year, I wish everyone would focus purely on the game challenge at hand instead of trying to find shady ways to skirt around it and unfairly inflate or skew scoring and ranking results. Unfortunately, it appears that this will remain a wish...at least for another year.

Explain to me the difference between the strategy suggested here and coopertition in 2012.

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Explain to me the difference between the strategy suggested here and coopertition in 2012.

In 2012 you could not get the ranking point without working together. This year your ranking point is independent of your opponent.

Additionally, creating more scoring opportunities for your opponent is probably considered playing below your ability as you are contributing points to the other alliance with no direct* benefit for your own alliance.

*Obviously in an agreement, both teams benefit but it is not a direct benefit of creating scoring opportunities for your opponent, it is a direct benefit of your opponent creating a scoring opportunity for you.

[MrJohnston]

I'd be nervous about entering a "boulder agreement."

If my alliance is struggling to score and the other seems to do quite well, the last thing I am going to want is to agree to start rolling boulders out immediately. Holding them is a legitimate strategy.

If you are hoping to make it easier to "capture" a castle, the solution is simple: Keep scoring the balls in play. They can only hold 6 at a time, so score another once and force them to roll it out. There are 18 balls in play, so there will always be one available somewhere unless both castles are hoarding and all six robots are refusing to shoot. I don't see this happening.

I strongly suspect that, in lower level games (think most week 1-2 district qualifying matches), we won't see more than three or four scores in either castle - much less the eight required for the capture.... In much higher level games, the scores are going to be fast a furious and nobody will have much choice as to whether or not to roll them out...

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by bstew

However, this agreement is an agreement that will result in all teams playing above, rather than below, their ability.

I hate this idea that only scoring is the actual game and defense is somehow some black art that's only allowed on a technicality. Sabotaging your own defense is sandbagging just as much as agreeing not to score would be.

[SenorZ]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

See thread.

Both threads started by drivers... coincidence?

[thatnameistaken]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

Both threads started by drivers... coincidence?

I am a driver and hope these agreements die as quickly as the noodle agreement.

But back to the question at hand: it depends. From a strategic perspective, it doesn't make any sense to hand the other alliance any qualification points. If you're confident your alliance can capture the tower without this agreement, it makes very little, if any, sense to agree. On the other hand, if you don't think you could get the capture, then in some scenarios it would make sense. (Note, however, that this is from a purely logical perspective; I personally would never agree, as I feel this ruins the game.)

[Kartoffee]

Originally Posted by bstew

Last year, a strategy called the noodle agreement was thought of in which both alliances agreed to dump their litter on the field to boost both alliances score and qualification ranking. This year a similar agreement, with BOULDERS could be made with similar results.

The agreement would consist of both alliances agreeing to introduce their BOULDERS either into their courtyard or an opposing alliance’s robot. If both alliances agree to do this, weakening and subsequently making CAPTURE of the TOWER fairly easy. Because both alliances would introduce the same number of BOULDERS, this would theoretically not affect who would win the match.

In a previous post about a similar defense agreement, rule T7 and T8 have been cited as not allowing this type of strategy. However, this agreement is an agreement that will result in all teams playing above, rather than below, their ability.

Is this a viable strategy?

Both the defense agreement you mention and this boulder agreement are both valid strategies, and they don't violate any rules, because you aren't encouraging the other team to do badly, but encouraging them to help you. Assuming that you believe that this agreement will help your team, it doesn't make you perform under your potential. The point of these rules is to prevent teams that don't want to be captains to drop in ranking, causing alliance partners to suffer as well. These strategies, both the boulder alliance and the defense agreement, are only intended to benefit both alliances, thus not playing below potential. In that sense, both strategies are identical. My issue with this is that if your alliance was losing, you would simply slow the flow of boulders back into the field. You don't want to lose two easy ranking points, so a win is still important. The defense agreement is viable because it happens before the game, so can't be changed mid-game.

[EricH]

One thing that I would put as a caution to any team or alliance thinking about engaging in either the Boulder Agreement or the Defense Agreement is this:


Do NOT backstab your fellow agreeing teams. If you don't want to participate, say so. If you do participate, do your best to carry out your part--and if there's a problem, signal the Spy (if there is one) that you've had a problem so that both alliances know that it's not your fault that the plan fell apart.

Backstabbers have a special place for many teams: the picking blacklist.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

In 2012 you could not get the ranking point without working together. This year your ranking point is independent of your opponent.

Additionally, creating more scoring opportunities for your opponent is probably considered playing below your ability as you are contributing points to the other alliance with no direct* benefit for your own alliance.

*Obviously in an agreement, both teams benefit but it is not a direct benefit of creating scoring opportunities for your opponent, it is a direct benefit of your opponent creating a scoring opportunity for you.

It's not independent of your opponent, but I take your point (it's not entirely dependent). Another difference is that the agreement is unequitable: one alliance will almost surely benefit more than the other (especially if one gets the RP and the other doesn't, a very real possibility). Nevertheless, I'm okay with it. While the action of entering balls alone is playing below your ability, the higher level agreement is not (net positive). It's really not universally beneficial though; there are teams that will rely on short cycle times from balls going HP=>secret passage=>into robot=>low bar=>goal.

[bstew]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

Additionally, creating more scoring opportunities for your opponent is probably considered playing below your ability as you are contributing points to the other alliance with no direct* benefit for your own alliance.

Originally Posted by bduddy

Sabotaging your own defense is sandbagging just as much as agreeing not to score would be.

It seems that the legality of this and the other defense agreement hinges on what is considered playing below your ability.

Is playing to the best of your ability defined by completing the tasks your robot was designed to do? Doing what you feel the intent of the rules is? Winning matches? Getting qualification points? Winning the event?

Playing to the best of your ability can be defined in many different ways. How should it be defined?

[New Lightning]

Since it hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet I would just like to post this out here anyway. This so called agreement, again very similar to the one made last year, is a classic case of the prisoners dilemma. And anyone who has studied any kind of game theory or economic theory knows that a prisoners dilemma is situated so that both parties get a better deal if the decide to backstab their partner. To me even putting teams in this position runs contrary to what I believe is an inherent part of Gracious Professionalism and that is trust and honesty. Setting teams up to be able to lie to their opponent and then benefit from it just doesn't seem right to me.