On side ball use agreement.

[bobbysq]

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing

Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.

Agree to Disagree Agreement?

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

To each his own, but I find it more fun to play games where I can just focus on winning than to play games where I have to focus on maximizing some other metric.

Yeah, this is what irks me. I know that these sort of things make FRC uniquely complex and deep for a high school program, but that sort of desired strategic intensity can be achieved without gimmicky backdoor deals between alliances to play the game a certain way. We know this. The 2013 and 2014 games provided ample room to think deeply about strategy and draw up game plans in a way that approached traditional sports, which is clearly part of what many of us enjoy about the competitive aspect of FRC. "_____ Agreement"-type plans just replace the natural strategy of well-designed games with consternation over how best to subvert the 3v3 nature of the competition to move up the rankings. It's not unethical, it's just confusing for less-informed or non-CD spectators and frankly (in my opinion) less enjoyable to watch and play. The alliances that win events and championships should be the ones that together are the best gear placers, shooters, climbers, and defenders, not the best at doing something else. That is the hallmark of an effective game.

TL;DR Strategic depth is not incongruous with games that encourage simply playing with your alliance and against the other one. We don't need other nonsense to get our fill of lateral thinking.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP.

I think it is wrong to conflate FRC games with the one-shot Prisoner's dilemma. In fact, I think it's more reasonable to model them more as infinitely repeated games, as a team's reputation stays with it forever. Depending on how much each team cares about their reputation, this can lead to situations where cooperation is the nash equilibrium of the prisoner's dilemma.

Here's a good Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_t..._(game_theory)

[Roger]

Just to roll this back around to the original question, after a couple of years as a field resetter standing behind the driver station, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that human players would ignore the overflowing bins, forget to replace bins, drop fuel all over the place, ... in other words, you think it, it's been done or not done. Not in any agreements, not in malice -- just "because".

Well, not really. Because the HP wasn't trained in their job.

[rich2202]

IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

FYI: The fuel use agreement should also include a Gear agreement - Alliance transfers gears from their Loading Lane to the Alliance Station.

C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

I cringe every time that I see a thread like this. Any agreement such as this always falls under the classic prisoner's dilemma where it incentivizes betraying the deal, which is inherently violates GP. ...

I agree, they're fun to think about at first, but then you realize this is capitalizing on a loophole or breaks GP.

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing

Let's create a "no more agreements" agreement.

The war to end all wars?

Originally Posted by rich2202

IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

Impossible to regulate.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Skyehawk

Impossible to regulate.

To be totally fair, so are C02 and C03. Rules don't have to be enforceable to have a purpose. They can be instructional - show clearly that the "right" way to do things is not to do the behavior outlined in them.

That said, I don't think rules are necessary to prevent this behavior. It's clearly not in your interest to do this. It would be more arguable if you weren't already crossing the field to get gears, but your robot will already be at that side of the field regularly during a match. So you're going to want those balls!

The alliance that scores more frequently will want this possibly, but the underdog alliance would like more "free" chances to load fuel into cycling robots, so it's hurting a strategy that can be used by them to come back and win the match.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by rich2202

C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.

Agreed, throwing is unacceptable. Totally unprofessional and also very tunnel visioned when you think about all the teams with effective scouting who will be watching you. Teams are looking for other teams to work with. Not teams who will work against them. And as someone also mentioned in this thread, a reputation follows the team.

Always play to the best of your ability.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by rich2202

IMHO, C02 and C03 should be a simple rule that there shall be no discussions/agreements between alliances, except regarding coopertition points (if available in that game).

FYI: The fuel use agreement should also include a Gear agreement - Alliance transfers gears from their Loading Lane to the Alliance Station.

C03 presents an interesting problem. Let's say you are a Surrogate Team, and you figure out yourself that you are better off throwing the match so that one of your alliance members doesn't get Raking Points. I think it is bad GP not to play to your ability.

This is one of many reasons the surrogate match was moved to the third match of the qualification schedule and not the last match. Seeding implications are less obvious at that point, and teams will be less likely to "test something new for eliminations" in that match.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by RoboChair

Just Say No To Game Objective Agreements!

Seems appropriate.

This particular agreement states "ignore any discussion about match strategy around fuel which would gain your alliance a competitive edge in winning the match". IMO, it inherently violates C03/C04.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by arichman1257

What if the two alliance in a match agreed to just move their bin that scored fuel goes into and let it fall into their opponent's bin? Then both sides wouldn't have to cross the field of they wanted to get fuel from human players

If I agreed with this, what would stop my alliance from parking a brave little toaster in front of the only feeder in front of their drivers station? There is no 'safe zone there, and I am not working with another robot to 'stop the flow of the game'.



.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

If I agreed with this, what would stop my alliance from parking a brave little toaster in front of the only feeder in front of their drivers station? There is no 'safe zone there, and I am not working with another robot to 'stop the flow of the game'.



.

Brilliance. And if BOTH alliances do that, we get a match like the match that settled the National Champion in 1997: 1.5 minutes of standoff followed by sudden offense.

[Eric Scheuing]

Originally Posted by EricH

Brilliance. And if BOTH alliances do that, we get a match like the match that settled the National Champion in 1997: 1.5 minutes of standoff followed by sudden offense.

Going to derail for a second here, but I just watched a video of the match. Why was waiting for the very end deemed the most effective strategy?

[abigailthefox]

Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.

As far as agreements go, I think that this one is pretty benign and beneficial, more in the spirit of coopertition that in trying to undercut the rules to get ahead. 1. Any team can participate in this, regardless of ability, and the benefits are likely to be proportional to both alliances. If one alliance is much stronger, they will likely benefit more in raw score, but in terms of a percentage increase from an average, non agreement score, both alliances will probably see a roughly equal benefit.
2. Both teams benefit. This one is pretty clear, there's no match-throwing, or rankings conniving, or a more capable alliance trying to dupe a less capable alliance into doing something not beneficial to them.
3. It does depend on both sides, but that's no different from coopertition in past years. If one side pulls out of this agreement without warning, the other side will likely be hurt if they were counting on participation from both sides during the match. However, I don't see this as much different than two alliances agreeing to focus on getting the coopertition points, and then one side realizing they can't/won't, and the other side then having wasted time they could have spent scoring points for themselves on trying to complete their end of the (now-failed) coopertition.

Ultimately, drive teams will probably make a match-by-match decision if this agreement is still viable/worthwhile by the time competition season comes along, but I don't think it's obviously either wrong or right to choose one way or the other.

[NShep98]

Originally Posted by abigailthefox

Just an observation: a clear majority of the posters on this thread were mentors/college students/alumni/not current student team members. I saw a few students posting, but they were overwhelmingly a minority.

I'll chime in on this.

I think agreements like this effectively go against the intent of how it should be played. At this point, we've seen that if FIRST wants coopertition in a game, there is a very explicit coopertition objective. Just like other game mechanics (high/low scoring, end games, etc.) some years it is there, some years it is not.

With this specific agreement, there is risk of one side breaking the agreement, where with now 3 different places team members can be stationed, it is difficult to communicate this effectively. Additionally, unlike games with specific coopertition objectives, there is nothing to guarantee teams will benefit anywhere near equally from participating in this agreement. Even if there were, this would inherently be putting teams who chose not to do this agreement at a disadvantage, as 2nd order ranking is determined by the cumulative sum of match points.

I honestly wish agreements like this would stop popping up. We saw what happened in 2015 with the noodle agreement. Spend more time building a robot that plays effectively and undoubtedly better than your opponents, and less time tying to exploit inter-alliance game mechanics to inflate match scores.