I have a few problems with this post.
Quote:
|
Yes, an alliance could score on themselves, but that is certainly not professional and far more insulting then gracious. This is what I mean by "badly thought through".
|
I really do not see how it would be insulting to help the other team score points. If you're losing that badly, everyone knows it and the other team should understand that it is purely strategic and "big picture" thinking.
Quote:
|
"Shenanigans" are far too easy. Yes, most teams here will behave graciously professional and avoid such temptations, but it is just too easy. Score a lot to disadvantage a team you don't like, or even the a team who will be partnering unliked team in their next match. Or, if you're going to lose, keep your score low to disadvantage everyone on the other team.
|
While this might be "easy" to do, as you said, it would not at all be graciously professional. I do not foresee teams purposely losing matches so that a team they dislike has a slight disadvantage in the next match.
Quote:
|
I'm not a big fan of the "ranking score" system (where higher opponents' score=good for you) in the first place, but at least that encourages offense (good for spectators) and allows smaller teams to do more.
|
I believe the system is the way it is because it shows somewhat the caliber of the opponents played. Obviously if team A's opponents score 50 points per match but team B's opponents score 10 points per match, team A has had a tougher schedule. If two teams have the same number of qualifying points, why shouldn't the team who played tougher opponents get a higher rank? The system seems good to me (until the 4th tiebreaker of electronic coin flip
).
Overall, I disagree with your philosophy regarding the rule. I do not think it will keep teams from scoring a ton of points. The matches will not be less exciting simply because teams are afraid of the 2x or 3x score. Also, it will be very hard to lose all super cells. All 3 teams in an alliance would have had to have won by 3x in their previous match for there to be no possible configuration of human players which could get a super cell in play.
Example:Team A, B, and C are aligned for match 100. Team A won 97-17 in its last match, team B won 30-8 in its last match, and team C won 50-20 in its last match. Teams A and B both lose 2 of their non-moon rock playing pieces. Team C only loses 1. Therefore, team C could position its human player at either of the fueling stations and the alliance would have one super cell still possible. This is assuming they could not somehow get a super cell which the other alliance introduces into the crater and score it before the game ends. Sorry if this message seems to be rude or inconsiderate on my part, I just want you to see that perhaps it is not such a big deal and in fact might add an interesting element to the games.