|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
On side ball use agreement.
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
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
The issue is, why would teams want to help each other? In 2015, when the noodle agreement was a possibility, it would help both teams because ranking was based on average points. This year though, an agreement like that would unfairly help whichever team is better at fuel.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
It would help the better alliance more. But it would help both alliances and they would both score higher. The better one isn't winning because of it, they're just winning with a higher score. And it can help all teams on both alliances because it match score is the second sort for qual ranking.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
As I understand it, he's simply saying to not put the Return Bin(s) in place, which will send all the Fuel that would normally land in them to the Overflow Bin(s). Then the Overflow Loading Station would be used to send the Fuel into a waiting robot, rather than the Return Loading Station(s). Take a look at 3.11.5. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Nothing would make me more proud of myself than the next team update nuking the idea. Well, except for a situation in which teams actually did this a lot. It would be a really close second to have my own rules : )
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
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.
In this scenario you benefit from not moving your bin and letting the scored fuel go into your retrevial zone. And since your loading lane is on the other side of the field as your driver station it would be pretty hard to communicate that the other alliance has broken the deal. Giving your even more incentive to cheat. Just like the noodle agreement in 2015, and the boulder agreement last year (2016) I( would hate for this to become a reality and really, really, really hope this doesn't happen. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
I should note that any possible violations of C02 and C03 aren't covered by the above comment.
That being said, C02 and C03 are very tricky rules to enforce, particularly if a strategy helps both alliances play above their normal ability. So I would expect a no-call on this, generally speaking. Just as a note: If your alliance makes such a deal, my advice is keep it. Don't back out. Send 1 HP that you can trust over there, and get those bins off right away. If either alliance breaks the deal, that alliance will rack up points, but rumors spread faster than light* and it's that alliance that looks bad. If you can't trust 'em in quals, can you trust 'em in elims? *Not actually physically proven. I am not a physicist, nor do I play one on TV. I do not advocate breaking laws of nature. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
That probably depends on who you Grandmother is/was.
![]() PS: Just to be clear - Both of mine would insist that I adhered to any deals that I made. Last edited by gblake : 25-01-2017 at 20:45. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
I am a physicist, but that's not important right now. What is important is that bad reputation may not outrun light, but it will outrun you.
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
Even if you can find another alliance that would like to carry out such a plan with you, it would be stupid to count on it happening. If you do move up past quals, i doubt alliances will be as open to the idea.
|
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
While I am skeptical as to whether this will be feasible, I would caution against making statements about how this is not how Steamworks should be played
Quote:
Quote:
There were agreements in 2015 where opposing alliances agreed to do coopertition together or even withheld from throwing litter until a coopertition stack had been finished. These agreements mutually benefited both alliances and I would consider playing to the best of their abilities. However, the GDC did prevent the noodle agreement from happening which was just another (possibly game breaking) form of coopertition or agreement. The GDC made their intent clear there, but has not made any ruling regarding gear or ball agreements. Until the GDC makes their intent clear, we should withhold from making judgements of what it is. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On side ball use agreement.
I won't make any claims about how the GDC would feel about this or if it fits the "intent" of the game. I'll just say that if you approached me, as a coach or driver, with this idea, I'd say no. If I think we can beat you, I want to do it straight up. If I think we can't, I don't expect that this will help. Either way, if you think this is a good idea, I'm assuming you know something I don't and are trying to exploit it, either to beat us or earn bonus ranking points you couldn't otherwise get. Meanwhile, I can't guarantee it will work out for my alliance.
The issue, as others have pointed out, is that this is a prisoner's dilemma problem. Abandoning the agreement has benefits for either alliance, unlike, say, agreeing not to throw noodles until after the co-op stack is complete. Call me cynical, but I wouldn't take the deal. There's nothing in it for me. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|