Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Yeah, some long term lasting deals are indeed very bad for the game, but so far this round you could argue that this time its an exception to the normal.
As long as the battle field is somewhat even, long term block wars can be very healthy for a round, which this round so far kinda proves as both the small fencer tags and the top4 tags by no means is having a terrible or boring round this far.
|
Agreed, I should've put it differently: long term deals have the
potential to be very bad, because they are a constant in a fluid environment. They are not
necessarily very bad, because sometimes the circumstances happen to stay the same. Since we're really bad at predicting what'll happen a week or two weeks from now, we shouldn't plan as if we're good at it.
The advantage of short term agreements is that they work just as well as long term agreements in situations in which long term agreements do well, while
also working well in situations in which long term agreements are harmful to the game. Short term deals don't have to stay short term, after all. A 3-day NAP can very easily be extended to a week if the circumstances warrant it, and longer if they continue to do so. That way, you get only non-harmful long term agreements, since you don't have to predict the future for weeks in advance.
Swainey is also right: what is good or bad for the game is not necessarily the same as what is good or bad for
winning the game. It's unfortunate the incentives are not better aligned, but so it goes.