Quote:
Originally Posted by martin417
2009:
So you get ranking points based on your opponents scoring, making it a strategy to score on yourself, also, you were penalized for having too high a score.
|
The primary method was also still the W/L/T method that is used in this game (and all games from 2004-2009, 2011, and a modified version in 2012). Those
ranking points served as a tie-breaker in situations where teams had the same amount of
qualification points (which were based on W/L/T). If you're counting seeding factors that take into account the opponent's score, that dates back to 2000. It's also an entirely different ranking mechanism than Co-opertition points/bonuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin417
2010:
Thus, giving the losing alliance YOUR score, and you get your score minus penalties. The 5 bonus points for winning did't exist week one (we were a week one regional, and quickly figured out that winning meant nothing)
|
Once again, a completely separate mechanism from co-opertition points/bonuses. This is indeed the one case since 2003 where W/L/T was not the primary ranking method, but aside of the warped scenarios where teams employed a 6v0 strategy (clearly against the intent of the rules, both before and after week 1), it's not the same as a co-opertition bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin417
2011:
Giving YOU the losing alliance's score, if they didn't score anything, you got zip.
|
Those are
ranking points, not qualification points. Similar to 2009, that's just a tie-breaker used after the W/L/T seeding method. You still got 2 QP for a win, even if they scored 0 points. And there were actually coopertition points in 2011 (from sharing minibots), but they were used to determine the coopertition award.