[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Siri

I haven't formulated a value judgement on Rule 3 yet, but I disagree that it's always been a element of the game. Ok, maybe the element was, but the molecule wasn't. Triple balancing with one alliance of your selection (or gracious acceptance) has always been a element molecule of the game. Triple balancing with 8 (8, right?) random alliances was not. By my view, 1 by selection to 8 by random is not an expansion, it's an inherently different thing. In fact, they're inherently different strategic design issues.

That's not to say I disagree triple balancing with 8 randomly assigned alliances will likely be harder for everyone--even those geometrically/CoG capable of accomplishing it. Nor do I disagree that many teams there, long and wide, are quite capable of doing amazing things on offense during that time. I'm not sure I consider this change a "slight tweak", though.


As confirmation, does the lack of relevant comment mean that the refs will call triple balance defense the same way it was at Worlds?

Haha! Okay, I can dig your molecule-element analogy. What I meant by saying it's always been a part of the game is the triple balance itself, though admittedly, I didn't consider tripling with an elimination alliance and tripling with a random alliance to be two different facets of the game. I was saying that the act of triple balancing in itself has been in the game since day one. It's nothing new. It's not like they're cutting off a foot from each bridge. It's the same mindset as in an elimination match. If you're confident your alliance can triple, you're gonna go for the triple. If you're not, you find some other way to keep yourselves on the map. No one is forcing teams to triple balance. Teams have been finding ways to overcome the triple balance all season. The only difference I see this making is it will be all elimination-style matches.