To mutually PIC or not to mutually PIC? That is the question!

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.

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.

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.

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).


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.


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?

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.


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.

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?


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.

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.


[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.

Editor's note: if you like the article feel free to click "Like" and/or leave a comment. You can discuss the article on the forum: (16941019.1).

You are invited to vote on this poll from our Facebook page: (https://fans.vote/vote/AClLvnDE688/how-much-morality-is-in-an-mutual-play-it-cool-deal)

Previous article: Step by step to win Hattrick Masters (19393)

Link directly to this article (HT-ML, for the forum): [ArticleID=19415]