Doesn’t iteration cause this strategy to be balanced out?
The games described in the post were online—they’re normally played against different opponents each time. The game that’s about to start is only planned to happen once.
After it becomes clear that two players have an unbreakable alliance, it’s in the best interest of the rest of the players to destroy those two first in all future games.
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, that argument could be applied to most forms of cheating.
This passage from the TV Tropes page on the Scrub is relevant
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, only in a sense that could be applied to most forms of cheating.
It’s really only applicable to forms of cheating which can be countered by non-cheaters ganging up on the cheaters. If the cheat causes an automatic win in every game, the scrub argument against its banning doesn’t apply.
But I agree, I was assuming iteration. Obviously, the scrubbiness of the rule against unbreakable alliances (and thus the cheatiness of the tactic), would depend on metagame circumstances.
The games described in the post were online—they’re normally played against different opponents each time. The game that’s about to start is only planned to happen once.
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, that argument could be applied to most forms of cheating.
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, only in a sense that could be applied to most forms of cheating.
It’s really only applicable to forms of cheating which can be countered by non-cheaters ganging up on the cheaters. If the cheat causes an automatic win in every game, the scrub argument against its banning doesn’t apply.
But I agree, I was assuming iteration. Obviously, the scrubbiness of the rule against unbreakable alliances (and thus the cheatiness of the tactic), would depend on metagame circumstances.