Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Montois
By dropping the "bad match" you're just penalizing the alliances that did better than you did. Adjusting your strategy for eliminations is important. If your alliance is pushing too hard and making mistakes and scores 45 in match 1 and 195 in match 2, the alliance that creates a more consistent strategy and scores 130 and 128 shouldn't be penalized.
Why shouldn't the alliance that is the most consistent advance? Strategy is what wins and loses events.
|
Its a tough nuance of the game that has come back to bite several alliances this year. In both of our events we took an early bow out in the elimination rounds to some truly stronger alliances on the field. Our moving on the semi finals was determined by a few circumstances that we could and could not control between making one mistake in a match and our gamepad going unresponsive for 30 seconds. I know there are many, many teams in similar positions where little items that pushed elimination matchups to a third match in previous seasons didn't get the opportunity to make it up.
I wholeheartedly agree that the alliance with the best strategy should & will win an event and it all comes down to execution. The problem is this year's game leaves no room for error and even if you try your hardest in your next matches to execute perfectly its nearly impossible to overcome a bad match when the scores are averaged unless Murphy's Law conveniently strikes the other alliances on the field.