[M. Mellott]

My main issue with Coopertition is that, similar to Stack Attack in '03, we were playing two different games: one for qualification matches, one for elimination matches. Some will say this makes strategizing more interesting, but some want to see the competition between the alliances, especially the spectators. Let's have just one set of rules...they're hard enough to follow as it is.

As for the inclusion of "strength-of-schedule" into the scoring system, this would be a good idea...if the schedules weren't completely random (or as random as an "algorithm" can make them). Sure, because of the scoring system, I'd love to play against a 469 or an 1114 every match because I know I'll get a lot of points (mostly from their efforts), but that doesn't happen. Sometimes, good teams draw the short straw and get less-than-desirable matches. In this game, it could happen with a bad alliance or with a bad opposing alliance.

Also, I really wasn't too fond of an award created for "earning" the most Coopertition points.