Quote:
Originally Posted by leafy
I don't understand. Who do you think is getting the seeding points? Only the winning alliance gets the coopertition bonus. How about one alliance gets 12 and the other gets 11. Losing alliance gets 12 seeding points, winning alliance gets 34. No matter what the losing alliance does, if they lose, then it doesn't matter how much they lose by, except for a tie. In fact, they have an incentive to score, if they know they are going to lose, as little as possible in order to minimize the effects of increasing the opposing alliance's coopertition bonus.
No, read 9.3.4 and 9.3.5 again, noting the bolded phrases. Losing alliance does not get points based on the losing alliance's score:
The scenario you mention only occurs in the case of a tie. How many ties were there in a random regional? I found one in that regional I linked; ties are infrequent and shouldn't be expected.
No, it doesn't. See above. Coopertition bonus is only awarded to the winning alliance.
Again, please read the rules. The losing alliance does not get the Coopertition bonus.
You also failed to address my point that in a shutout, the number of potential maximum points is increased, possibly doubling or more.
|
Maybe I should explain this again from the beginning since you obviously don't even reread the posts that I'm responding to. First of all, you yourself said that:
Quote:
|
I don't see how the losing team has any benefit to scoring higher in a tie; only the winning alliance does. You could say it increases their chance of winning, but that's not what we're talking about.
|
In a tie there is no "winner" or "loser". In every single case that you quoted, I was using the case of a tie, so go back and read the rules. Besides, the first part that you quoted from me, while not correct is not actually how the rest of my post was worked out. In every case that I mention the "losing team" it means a team that may have lost by say 1 point in a different situation. My proof remains valid since I was under the assumption that
the entire match was fixed as much discussion beforehand had been about. Learn to read not only the rules but at least the thread that you're replying to. While I did make a few errors in what I said, my calculations were according to the rules. No matter what, given total score 2n, the most beneficial to each alliance with respect to maximizing seeding points and precluding a certain number of penalties, the best score is n-n.
Say for an example that the total in one case is 30 (no penalties). If the score is 17-13, then the winning team gets 43 points for seeding and the losing gets 17. Given the same total, if the score is 15-15, both teams get 45 (15+2*15=45) and 45>43. If it is a shutout, both teams get 30 exactly, which is 33% lower than 45. If you read the second half of 9.3.5, you'll see why the above is the case.
As for your last point. The doubled part is that if both teams are cooperating for a tie, the scoring capability is still theoretically doubled, thus addressing your point, but you have not addressed mine. The rules have nothing to do with this point. Coopertition bonus is as above. If it is a tie
both alliances get the coopertition bonus.
If you had actually worked out the math, you would have realized this. In the case of a forced shutout (defend against yourself), your scoring output is only increased by a theoretical value of 33%. Even otherwise, you still will probably bottleneck on the return. On a organized tie, you have a doubled rate of return since there is scoring in both. In either case, scoring ability is increased, but for a given total score, a tie will yield 50% more seeding points for both teams.