Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11
I don't think blocking all goals to try to keep the score low is a viable or gp/moral/good decision. Unlike a 6v0, this hurts both alliances seeding scores. But a 6v0, like 1114 did, their alliance seeding score is improved.
|
Why is it not viable? In essence you are playing in favor of the good of the many. Instead of 6 teams benefiting, now every team who is not 1114 or 469 is benefiting. You cannot tell me that every other contending team in that division would have had a better chance of getting to Einstein had 1114 not had the top spot and picked 469. It is absolutely a viable strategy. Moral? Of course not. My point is that I don't feel 6v0 is morally right either. Yeah it benefits 6 teams, but what about the teams who never had a match with 469? They didn't even have the opportunity to go out and try to match the score because that is how scheduling works. It is not fair to those teams. What about the teams who wanted to play the game? I quote team update 16..."The objective of the system is to reward high-scoring, close, competitive matches. Furthermore, we intended to make a disincentive for teams to win with a high margin." So teams who decided that they wanted to follow that mantra pretty much got the bad end of the stick by the teams who decided to outright ignore it. Do I blame those teams? Not necessarily. Would I ever use the strategy? No.