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.
轻松(PIC = play it cool)协议(PIC deal)，是很多论坛长期讨论、不退烧的话题，
这篇文章整理各论坛的讨论，重新架构框架，提出观点。
典型来说，有三种角色的观点较为重要。
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.
第一种角色 : 道德家(The Moralist)
道德家反对轻松协议，认为不公平以及违反体育道德。
道德家的理想世界，认为所有玩家应该坚守一条道德底线，不应该约轻松协议。
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.
第二种角色 : 血盟誓约者(The Blood Oath Takers)
血盟誓约者支持轻松协议，认为轻松协议只是一种游戏手段。
他们支持青星协议的投入程度不一，可能很死忠、也可能只是蜻蜓点水，
关键是一旦约定轻松协议，就有义务去遵守，不行反悔。
血盟誓约者的理想世界，认为轻松协议必须存在(如同目前的HT体制)，
所有玩家都应该坚守道德底线，不应毁约。
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)
不道德者不考虑道德，只考虑轻松协议对比赛和赛季带来之影响。
不道德者的理想世界，认为轻松协议必须存在(如同目前的HT体制)，但是只要违约比遵守
协议更友好处，应该毫不犹豫地违约。所以有轻松协议，就有违约的潜在风险。
* 本文作者认为他是不道德者
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.
通常来说，道德主义者、不道德者互相不同意对方的立论，但是承认对方的立场
始终如一，没有改变过的。
血盟誓约者站在中间的立场，一方面说服不道德者认同道德议题，
一方面说服道德者接受新的道德观念。
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)身为一个不道德者，他反对道德者的论点，轻松协议让协议双方纯获
利益，付出代价的是其他竞争者，这是不对的观念。
轻松协议不应该是圣人行为，理所当然认为要遵守约定，结果却发现对手放鸽子，
不要觉得很奇怪，轻松协议本应就是风险性的操作。
这些人也是吃人够够，想赚团队精神，又想赢，所以约轻松。对手也不笨，
只是虚与蛇委。
最终，轻松协议还是付出代价，团队精神的上升的代价是比赛胜率的降低。
如果有接受/打破轻松协定的自由，HT这款游戏会才更有趣。
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)我必须承认，我不反对道德主义者提倡的违反运动道德的论点。
我只是相信HT的本质是一款社交游戏，一些社交元素的重要性，应该超越比赛指令以及
球员训练。(本文作者)我知道有一些人用很多资源，尝试击败他们在论坛或是互动
过程看不爽的人。(本文作者)我并不羡慕这些拥有特权的人或是特权行为，
因为HT老板已经明确定义，HT是一款社交游戏。
同样的道理，(本文作者)我也不羡慕和很多玩家保持关系，从中操作杠杆平衡的经理，
这只是另外一种社交元素。
这不是对抗道德者的通论论点，这只是(本文作者)我拒绝接受道德主义者提出的
违反运动道德的论点。
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)我反对血盟誓约者约战轻松应该言出必行，如同现实社会的论点。
遵守协议如果是游戏的一部分，逻辑上，(本文作者)我很难认同不遵守轻松协议不是游
戏的一部分。
更精准地说，这只是现实社会中良心不安以及缺乏荣誉感，投射在游戏的表现。
同理，约战轻松的全部流程过程，从提议、到比赛的结果，都应该视为游戏的元素。
把轻松协议拆成两部分 : 游戏元素和道德，大大降低轻松协议的乐趣和品质。
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?
血盟誓约者的立场很简单，好比在比赛指令页面建置一个“邀请轻松协议”
的按钮，一队送出邀请，另一队接收，媒合后直接锁定，轻松协议就不能反悔了。
但是，大家思考看看，这样的现象会让HT更有趣 ? 或是更无趣 ? 还是没有改变 ?
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.
与其说轻松协议只是一个对话的过程，(本文作者)我认为轻松协议应该重新定义成
“互相约轻松是比赛策略的第一手”(Mutual PIC Gambit)。
轻松协议不应该是生意的交易、也不应该是手勾手的承诺，应该如同下棋开局具多变的
策略性。
如此，比赛的流程开局一队约战轻松，另一队视本身的利益接受或拒绝。
这样的开局策略，不管是短线或是长现，双方都要考量更多变量、风险。
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.
最后，我认为目前打破轻松协定的案例还不够多。
轻松协定应该是更有趣的游戏元素，但是现在还不是。
我希望未来出现更多的轻松协议，也希望更多的玩家不去遵守轻松协议。
[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.