[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Abwehr
...but at the same time, it is this "cooperative scoring" that keeps matches interesting; otherwise, I guarantee that most matches will be close to shutouts.
[/b]

True, this year's scoring tended to keep teams involved to the end of the match.

However I think that we could achieve an even higher level of interest with a game where your qualifying points were based on the point spread. A score of 60 to 53 would only be worth 7 qualifying points. Teams who wanted high qualifying points would really have to earn them. Rather than letting your opponents up on the ramp to get extra points, teams would be pushing opponent robots off for an extra 25 points each.

Also with a somewhat different field setup, stacking could have become a big part of the game. QP's based on point spread would have a been a further incentive to make really high stacks (and knock them down).

If we want our game to be popular with audiences, we need a genuine competition.

Originally posted by Matt Brinza
The most likely candidate match for collusion would probably have to be 81 in Curie, based on score. 304 QPs were awarded to 16 and 87, the highest QP total throughout the entire competition, I believe.
...
No collusion was involved, simply a good deal of luck through alliance pairings and match outcome.

Matt's post suggests another very good reason for changing the scoring to eliminate any way to benefit from "opponent agreements". We wouldn't be wondering if every high score was the result of "collusion".

When we see a post claiming the highest score in the country, wouldn't it be nice to know, with no doubts or wondering, that the team didn't get it through an "opponent agreement".

Basically we are talking about establishing a firm footing for the game, so everyone knows where they stand in the rankings and why.