Hi,
So I was out of the loop since ship date and have just now read up and understood the implication of the seeding system (6v0 was a "Woah!"
moment for me).
So basically, the old system (pre update #16) had a built in incentive for 6v0.
(both alliances colluding to kick all balls into one side, thus providing higher seeding points to both alliances).
Team update #16 address this partially by removing the symmetry that existed between the winning and losing alliance's score in the 6v0 scenario.
this address the issue when looked at from a single match standpoint.
However I think there is still a problem with this system:
Basically an alliance may decide to go for 6v0 if they feel losing is inevitable.
The losing alliance will still get 5 seeding points less than the winning alliance, but it would be more than they would have gotten by doing their best and losing.
Example Match:
Red alliance score: 2
Blue alliance score: 1
Red alliance seeding points: 7
Blue alliance seeding points: 2
Now Ignore that 6v0 removes alot of defense and just say you shift all scores to one side:
Red alliance score: 3
Blue Alliance Score:0
Red alliance seeding points: 8
Blue alliance seeding points: 3
(though obviously it would be much higher since there is no defense and only "coopertition")
The losing alliance obviously has no hope of improving it's position in the rankings with regard to the winning alliance's teams, but it could hope for improvement compared to other teams who are not participating in the said match.
Perhaps the title of this thread is worded too strongly (
), but I still see this as a major flaw in the whole "coopertition" idea (or perhaps just the implementation chosen year after year).
Hopefully we will never see gameplay as described above.
-Leav