Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor
I completely fail to see the advantage to not co-oping.
Scenario 1: You win the match and co-op. You: 4 pts, Them: 2 pts, two-point adavantage to you.
Scenario 2: You win the match but do not co-op. You: 2 pts, Them: 0 pts, two-point advantage to you.
...
The only time I could see refusing to co-op as a good strategy is if all teams on your alliance will NOT be captain (all ranked below 15 with no hope of getting to 15) AND there is a strong chance of highly ranked captains not on the opposing alliance choosing one or more of the teams on your alliance. Even then, some may view this practice as shady.
|
This.
I was thinking it would potentially be advantageous to you to avoid co-oping if you were a high seed and guaranteed to not go down in the rankings, and you wanted to keep one of your opponents out of a high seed so they would be more likely to accept your pick, if you take that team. But again, this is a bit of a sleight to your opponent.
I think what some of the earlier posters were trying to say if that you should
ensure the win for your alliance, thus giving you the 2-0 QP advantage, rather than sacrificing points and risking the win to co-op, and possibly ending with your loss and a 4-2 QP disadvantage. As it was stated, however, that's not exactly how it sounded.