|
There are many disturbing aspects to this new "interpretation" of the game scoring elements. We've been looking at the possibility of negative scores since the initial rules announcement. Looks like this is in fact the case. We just didn't see that you could set your opponent with a huge negative score.
This negative scoring strategy has two major impacts. First, as Joe pointed out, the spectator is going to be mighty confused.
Second, there is much more possibility for "dirty tricks."
As Dave pointed out, you have a robot who is setting you with a negative score. So you "vigorously interact" with him and tip him over. Will this be called as deliberately tipping him? Will deliberate tipping be more loosely controlled than we originally expected?
Further, even if you get DQ'd because of deliberate tipping, you have a better QP score (0 instead of say -200). Even with the threat of a DQ, which should be designed to prevent "foul play" you are better off with a DQ than a victory!
Dirty trick #2. I'm doing well in the standings. My buddy, who has a big lifter is doing so-so. I ask him to set all of his opponents with a huge negative score so that I rise in the standings. My buddy's reward...I pick him for eliminations, even though he is the last ranked player.
If people were upset by the Cooperative Strategy, then this should drive everyone mad.
Although we will not participate in Dirty Trick #2 (which is well outside our bounds of fair play), I cannot see us -not- engaging in Dirty Trick #1 under the specific circumstances that Dave pointed out. In fact, it seems to be condoned.
Andrew, Team 356
|