To mutually PIC or not to mutually PIC? That is the question!
作者 kicker78
An opinion piece about mutual PIC agreements. An overview on how many forum
conversations on the topic go, with some ideas for re-framing future
conversations.
The topic of Mutual PIC [MPIC] deals will arise in the forums from time to
time and quite often a long conversation[1] will follow. Typically there are
3 main views on these sorts of arrangements.
輕鬆(PIC = play it cool)協議(PIC deal)，是很多論壇長期討論、不退燒的話題，
這篇文章整理各論壇的討論，重新架構框架，提出觀點。
典型來說，有三種角色的觀點較為重要。
1. The Moralist:
The moralist opposes the idea of an MPIC as unsporting and/or unethical. In a
moralist's ideal world all players would adhere to a certain moral minimum
which would stop anyone from offering an MPIC.
第一種角色 : 道德家(The Moralist)
道德家反對輕鬆協議，認為不公平以及違反體育道德。
道德家的理想世界，認為所有玩家應該堅守一條道德底線，不應該約輕鬆協議。
2. The Blood Oath Takers:
The blood oath taker may either loosely or heartily endorse the use of the
MPIC as a tool of the game. What distinguishes this viewpoint is the idea
that after an MPIC is agreed to, there should be a moral and/or ethical
obligation of the parties to follow through and remain true to their word. In
a blood oath taker's ideal world the MPIC would exist as it does today, but
everyone would adhere to a certain moral minimum which would stop anyone from
breaking an MPIC.
第二種角色 : 血盟誓約者(The Blood Oath Takers)
血盟誓約者支持輕鬆協議，認為輕鬆協議只是一種遊戲手段。
他們支持青星協議的投入程度不一，可能很死忠、也可能只是蜻蜓點水，
關鍵是一旦約定輕鬆協議，就有義務去遵守，不行反悔。
血盟誓約者的理想世界，認為輕鬆協議必須存在(如同目前的HT體制)，
所有玩家都應該堅守道德底線，不應毀約。
3. The Amoralist:
An amoralist overlooks all of the moral/ethical questions of the MPIC and
decides to focus on the how the MPIC, with all of its possible outcomes, can
have an impact on games and seasons. In an amoralist's ideal world the MPIC
would exist as it does today, but everyone would implicitly accept the risk
that the deal may be broken by either or both parties whenever it serves that
team's best interests. (Full disclosure: I consider myself an MPIC amoralist).
第三者角色 : 不道德者(The Amoralist)
不道德者不考慮道德，只考慮輕鬆協議對比賽和賽季帶來之影響。
不道德者的理想世界，認為輕鬆協議必須存在(如同目前的HT體制)，但是只要違約比遵守
協議更友好處，應該毫不猶豫地違約。所以有輕鬆協議，就有違約的潛在風險。
* 本文作者認為他是不道德者
Generally, the moralist and amoralists will disagree with each other's
positions but will concede that the opposing viewpoints are logically
consistent. The blood oath takers are left defending their middle position on
both sides, having to convince the amoralists that there is an element of
ethics/morals involved in an MPIC and having to convince the moralists that
their ethical/moral line in the sand is drawn in entirely the wrong spot.
通常來說，道德主義者、不道德者互相不同意對方的立論，但是承認對方的立場
始終如一，沒有改變過的。
血盟誓約者站在中間的立場，一方面說服不道德者認同道德議題，
一方面說服道德者接受新的道德觀念。
As an amoralist, I reject the moralist position that an MPIC is a pure
collusion between two managers meant to benefit them both at the expense of
the other managers they are competing with. An MPIC should be viewed as a
risky proposition. The manager who agrees to an MPIC has put themselves at
risk if they honour their side of the deal but end up facing an opponent who
does not. They have attempted to boost their TS without having to alter their
odds of winning the match, but have instead, lowered their odds of winning
the match (and all that comes with that) in exchange for a TS boost. To me,
it is this risk that turns the MPIC into a valid part of HT gameplay. When
there is freedom to accept and break an MPIC there is some interesting game
theory at work. What action benefits my team the most today and in the long
run? Might it be a co-operative action or might it be a selfish action?
(本文作者)身為一個不道德者，他反對道德者的論點，輕鬆協議讓協議雙方純獲
利益，付出代價的是其他競爭者，這是不對的觀念。
輕鬆協議不應該是聖人行為，理所當然認為要遵守約定，結果卻發現對手放鴿子，
不要覺得很奇怪，輕鬆協議本應就是風險性的操作。
這些人也是吃人夠夠，想賺團隊精神，又想贏，所以約輕鬆。對手也不笨，
只是虛與蛇委。
最終，輕鬆協議還是付出代價，團隊精神的上升的代價是比賽勝率的降低。
如果有接受/打破輕鬆協定的自由，HT這款遊戲會才更有趣。
I must admit that I do not have any sound counter to the moralist argument
that an MPIC is simply unsporting. I believe that HT is a social game and
that some elements of gameplay extend beyond the match orders and training
sections of the club page. I know for certain that managers (some, not all)
will put more resources into defeating managers who they don't like based on
past forum posts and interactions. I don't begrudge them their privilege to
do so in what the owners themselves have described as a social game. It is
then, no surprise, that I also don't begrudge owners who want to add another
social element (building a relationship[2] with another manager) and leverage
that in their gameplay. This isn't an argument against the moralist view. It
is just the view that I hold which prevents me from accepting the moralist
argument that it is simply bad sportsmanship or unethical to partake in an
MPIC.
(本文作者)我必須承認，我不反對道德主義者提倡的違反運動道德的論點。
我只是相信HT的本質是一款社交遊戲，一些社交元素的重要性，應該超越比賽指令以及
球員訓練。(本文作者)我知道有一些人用很多資源，嘗試擊敗他們在論壇或是互動
過程看不爽的人。(本文作者)我並不羨慕這些擁有特權的人或是特權行為，
因為HT老闆已經明確定義，HT是一款社交遊戲。
同樣的道理，(本文作者)我也不羨慕和很多玩家保持關係，從中操作槓桿平衡的經理，
這只是另外一種社交元素。
這不是對抗道德者的通論論點，這只是(本文作者)我拒絕接受道德主義者提出的
違反運動道德的論點。
I reject the blood oath takers proposition that an MPIC in HT should be
governed by the same ethical principles as an actual deal in real life. I
find it very difficult to logically accept the idea that striking an MPIC
deal is a valid and acceptable element of gameplay, but that breaking that
very same MPIC is not an element of gameplay at all, but rather, is a social
miscue that displays a real world lack of scruples and honour. For the same
reasons outlined above, I see the entire MPIC interaction, from its offer to
its outcome, as a gameplay element. Separating the MPIC into two halves and
then considering the building part gameplay and the follow through part a
moral question robs the MPIC of its interesting qualities.
(本文作者)我反對血盟誓約者約戰輕鬆應該言出必行，如同現實社會的論點。
遵守協議如果是遊戲的一部分，邏輯上，(本文作者)我很難認同不遵守輕鬆協議不是遊
戲的一部分。
更精準地說，這只是現實社會中良心不安以及缺乏榮譽感，投射在遊戲的表現。
同理，約戰輕鬆的全部流程過程，從提議、到比賽的結果，都應該視為遊戲的元素。
把輕鬆協議拆成兩部分 : 遊戲元素和道德，大大降低輕鬆協議的樂趣和品質。
The blood oath takers position on the MPIC is something that could easily be
implemented in the match orders interface so it is an interesting thought
experiment to consider an HT where you could click an "Offer MPIC" button. If
your opponent then clicked on the "Accept MPIC" button your PIC choice would
be locked in for the game and you could not break the deal.[3] Would such a
situation make HT a better game, a worse game, or just the same game with
extra buttons?
血盟誓約者的立場很簡單，好比在比賽指令頁面建置一個「邀請輕鬆協議」
的按鈕，一隊送出邀請，另一隊接收，媒合後直接鎖定，輕鬆協議就不能反悔了。
但是，大家思考看看，這樣的現象會讓HT更有趣 ? 或是更無趣 ? 還是沒有改變 ?
I believe that instead of talking about MPIC 'deals' the entire conversation
should be re-framed to reference the offer of an MPIC as the "Mutual PIC
Gambit". This, to me, is more in line with how an MPIC should be viewed. At
its heart, an MPIC should have more in common with a chess opening than with
a business deal or a pinky swear. The opening is defined by the offering of
an MPIC. The gambit is then accepted or refused by the response (or lack
thereof). Within the gambit, there are many variations each with different
risks for both the short and long term.
與其說輕鬆協議只是一個對話的過程，(本文作者)我認為輕鬆協議應該重新定義成
「互相約輕鬆是比賽策略的第一手」(Mutual PIC Gambit)。
輕鬆協議不應該是生意的交易、也不應該是手勾手的承諾，應該如同下棋開局具多變的
策略性。
如此，比賽的流程開局一隊約戰輕鬆，另一隊視本身的利益接受或拒絕。
這樣的開局策略，不管是短線或是長現，雙方都要考量更多變數、風險。
Lastly, it is my belief that not enough MPIC deals are being broken, so the
MPIC has not yet become the interesting bit of gameplay that it could be.
Overall I could do with a few more MPIC gambits being played and a higher
percentage of them ending up being broken.
最後，我認為目前打破輕鬆協定的案例還不夠多。
輕鬆協定應該是更有趣的遊戲元素，但是現在還不是。
我希望未來出現更多的輕鬆協議，也希望更多的玩家不去遵守輕鬆協議。
[1] Argument.
[2] In the sense that any online interaction between two people creates a
form of a relationship similar to a direct human interaction.
[3] There would, of course, be secondary things to consider for
implementation but none that would make it too difficult to do.