Stack with no cones.

if there was a mobile goal with no cones on, say, the blue team 5 point zone , and no mobile goals in the red team’s 5 point zone, would the blue team get a highest stack bonus?

If there is no stack there is no highest stack.

You must have a “stack” of cones on the goal for it to count towards the bonus. Although the movable goal is a scoring item it does not count as a stack. In the Game Manuel it says :

Let’s look at the following scenario. There is a mobile goal in a scoring zone, with no cones. In the other scoring zone, there is no mobile goal. Which has the most cones stacked? Both have zero. Case closed.

I think I respectfully disagree.

Let’s say that someone asks you and your friend who has more money in their bank account. You, being a responsible human, have just started a bank account, but you haven’t deposited any money into it just yet. Your friend, however, still leeches off his parents and doesn’t even have a bank account. So if the stranger asked the two of you: Who has more money in their bank account? I’d argue that you, the person who actually has a bank account, would win.

The main example that’s been in my mind is to classify mobile goals with how many cones are on them as a number line starting at 0. The more cones on the mobile goal, the further to the right it is on the number line. This means that the mobile goal which is classified the furthest to the right would win the 5 point bonus.

If red has an empty mobile goal in the 5 point zone, it would be classified at the lowest side of the spectrum, all the way to the left. Meanwhile, if blue doesn’t have a mobile goal in the 5 point zone, it wouldn’t even be on the spectrum. Thus red would win the 5 point bonus for being furthest to the right on the spectrum.

I could totally see your argument though and it’s what I thought for a long time. I asked yesterday and they still haven’t responded, which leads me to believe they might change the manual to correct any ambiguity. Either that or the answer is so obviously that no stack means no highest stack that they didn’t bother responding, whichever one.
Feelsbab vex.PNG

In the case of a bank account, asking who has more money in their bank account would just be a question with a false premise.

In this case, “stack with no cones” is an oxymoron. A Stack does not exist without cones. Therefore, the mobile goal is really just a scoring object worth points for being in the zone - there is no stack.

I worded the bank account as I did because one could also ask, “Who has more cones on their mobile goal in the 5 point zone?” Something that would easily answer who gets the 5 point bonus. I don’t think it’s that much of a false premise.

As for the “stack with no cones”, I think it could be argued that a stack of zero cones can exist on any mobile or stationary goal. The pure fact that it has the potential to harness that stack would also indicate towards there being 0 cones stacked on the mobile goal.

I think the main problem is how the manual is worded.

So you might have a scored goal and your opponent doesn’t, but you both still have no scored stack in that zone. A stack of 0 means you have no stack, the same as your opponent that has no goal.

The definition of “Highest 5 Point Zone Stack” is

The definition of stack inherently requires at least one cone to be stacked on a goal. As such a mobile goal with nothing on it does not meet the requirement of stack, as it has no cones that can be counted as stacked, nor the requirement of most cones, since it has no cones.

Sorry I didn’t explain enough. “Who has the most money in their bank accounts?” is a false premise because one person does not have a bank account.

It cannot be argued that a stack of zero exists, because of the defitinition of “Stacked.” A cone is required. And you can’t reword the definition of the highest stack bonus like that. It does not mention a mobile goal, only a Stack. A Stack is not present whether there is a mobile goal in the zone or not.

Apparently this never made it to the Q&A like I thought it had, but the question has been argued before:

Regardless, per the definition of Stacked, there is no Stack (null or zero - your choice) without at least 1 Cone on a Goal. An empty Mobile Goal and no Mobile Goal at all would be counted the same.

Dude have you even read the definition? I really tried to not reword it to take away any inherent significance as to whom would win.

“The Stack on a Scored Goal in 5 point zone with the most cones”

The scored goal is the mobile goal. If you really want we can phrase it, “Who has the most cones on their scored goal in the 5 point zone?”

As for the false premise, it’s the exact same situation with the mobile goals, one team does not have a mobile goal in their 5 point zone (a requirement for receiving the 5 point bonus), same way one person does not have a bank account.

Do you at least agree that a set of 0, {0}, is more than an empty set, { }. Because if you do then we can move the conversation to whether or not a stack of 0 cones can exist.

Again, I think either way could be argued but I’m asking you to be open-minded towards it.

EDIT: Found this in regards to the difference between a set of 0 and an empty set, which is the main confusion in regards to a stack of 0 vs a nonexistent stack. Again, the existence of a stack of 0 cones is debatable, but this is why I think the wording on the manual is ambiguous.

sigh If there are no cones there is no stack. You cannot have a highest stack bonus without a stack. Case closed. It doesn’t really matter what logic you try to bring in with bank accounts or anything else, as it is up to the GDC, not a random article.

You added the word mobile goal to the defintion.

Your interpretation relies one two things: Firstly, a Stack exists in every mobile goal, and counts as a stack, even with no cones. Secondly, a stack with no cones is larger than a nonexistent stack. Both instances seem like zero to me.

Both points your theory relies on seem unlikely to me, primarily the first. I have an open mind, I understand the grounds for what you are saying… They just do not seem to be grounded in the defintions of the game manual.

I, too, thought it had been asked in the Q&A (and ruled that null == 0), but I guess I was mistaken.

Technically, “Stack” isn’t defined; the only definition that is close is “Stacked”. A reasonable definition of a “Stack” could be a set of things that are “Stacked” upon a single mobile or stationary goal. In which case, “Stacked” requires a cone, so a null stack != a “Stack”.

I would probably argue that 0>null were a 0 stack to be considered a “Stack”, but a 0 stack is not a “Stack”, and is thus equivalent to null.

Alright this is gonna be my last response because I still have summer hw to do.

Alright if we’re getting all philosophical here, would one cone count as a stack of cones? Would you consider my phone to be a stack of one phone? By your logic, yes, one cone would be considered a stack of cones. And I guess what I’m arguing would have to agree that one cone is a stack of cones. But intuitively we would think that 2 cones would be required in order to have a stack, since the definition of a stack is, “a pile of object***S***, typically one that is neatly arranged”. But would it really be fair to have it not count as a highest stack for a mobile goal with one cone on it?

The way the manual is worded raises so many questions due to its lack of definition for “stack” in this scenario. Many people are arguing that one cone is needed for a stack, and I’m arguing that it’s possible to have 0 cones in a stack. By Google’s definition of stack we’re both bending the definitions quite a bit.

The game manual seems pretty clear to me. The Highest 20 Point Zone Stack is defined as “The Stack on a Scored Goal in 20 Point Zone with the most Cones.” Since when does 1 Scored Goal with 0 Cones have more cones than 0 Scored Goals with 0 Cones? 0 Cones = 0 Cones, no?

I’m just looking at the game’s defintion of “Stacked.” To paraphrase, a cone must be fully nested. If something is Stacked, it logically follows that you have a Stack. If nothing is Stacked, you don’t have a Stack. Pretty simple.

There is nothing ambiguous in the manual, nor anything ambiguous about the numerous responses you have received.

What is ambiguous however, is the purpose of this thread. You asked a question , received tons of the same answer, and refuse to believe any of them. What are you gaining from arguing down everyone who answers and trying to convince them to believe you? If you don’t want to trust any of the answers on this thread, ask the question on the official Q&A.

At least that will force you to read the definition of Higest Stack.

He did, there’s been no response yet, now we’re here.