Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lim
Or in 2012, when many of us didn't give priority to actually winning matches, but were "bribed" with the QP awarded for balancing on the co-op bridge instead.
Shouldn't we all have only tried to balance our alliance bridges instead? That logically was the only way to demonstrate a 100% commitment to trying to win the match...
In hindsight, were all those teams who gave up on winning the match, and co-op balanced instead just as culpable? All they did was end up artificially boosting everyones' QP, at the cost of not trying your hardest to actually WIN the match anymore...
|
That depends on how you define "win." I define win as winning the tournament, not any given match.
The co-op bridge was an interesting social experiment that, not unlike the situation in Arizona, encouraged collaboration between opposing alliances. The difference here is that this was encouraged by one board member/sponsor, as opposed to the GDC.