Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
I am no partisan of BF, after all I was a P3n last round, and I dont want to refight last round. However, in my first post my point was that you really dont know whose political moves are going to be what jams things up.
BF and ND prevented a block forming against ult last round. However, to my untutored eye at the beginning of the round it really wasnt looking like BF was a potential winner at all. It initially looked like p3n/Ult/CT (CT the longest odds of those) were the realistic competitors. Indeed, even with a favourable situation it took BF a long time to overtake the battered and bloodied p3n. This is why I was saying there is a problem with suggesting that only the top should be burdened with an injunction of not making deals because in my view it was two mid table, not top allies, that set the political system in stone last round. (Admittedly with considerable help from CT and P3n failing to co-operate until it was too late).
EDIT: With the benefit of hindsight it would be quite easy to say that a number of plausible pre-round alliances would have kept politics unjammed. If P3n had been napped with either of ND or BF and thus prevented the situation where those two attacked p3n while ult grounded to defend so effectively. Even a pre-round CT/P3n alliance may well have kept things simmering, even though from a beginning of the round view such a combination would have been viewed as terrible heretical blocking politics. But you never know which combination might unjam things or whether that route might have just jammed it in a different way.
|
Well perhaps it can be hard to have a foresight on what political moves can jam up the round, R59 for example had 6 alliances relatively close to each other in the top6. If CT/BowS/Inferno had not be so reluctant to block, perhaps that round wouldnt have been jammed up.
Just stay away from allying your competitors for top3/4 if your going for the top yourself, and you can avoid becomming the scapegoat of another round.