Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
You're right. 
This is a great example of 'Nash equilibrium', which is why I don't believe we'll see as much collusion (but we will see some) as is being posted here.
Each team will work to their own benefit ... which will mean that they will be very motivated to break their 'agreements' when the crucial time comes. |
The nash equilibrium refers to a strategy which, when all players are aware of it, is the optimum strategy while accounting for any changes other teams may make in their strategy. No player has any reason to change, since the strategy they have is optimal, and any change would lead in a decrease in benefits.
The nash equilibrium of this game is
not every team working to break agreements; An alliance has much more to gain if they score 0 than if they work hard, given that the other alliance is at least somewhat similar in scoring ability.
I made a long post that never appeared; expect this post to be edited ~6:30pm EST.