[ExTexan]

I guess I am in the minority but I only see one behavior that I consider against the principles of the scoring rules. That behavior is colluding with the opposing alliance before the match to establish a strategy. I believe the GDC answered a Q&A and said that was against the spirit of the rules.

I think the seeding score rules are perfectly clear and was surprised to see more alliances not trying to take advantage of earning the most seeding points available by scoring for the opposing alliance. Granted, the Field Management System had to be relied upon to give the correct scoring but I saw a lot of opportunities that teams could have increased their seeding points but chose not to in favor of winning big. It seemed it was very difficult to break the "win-loss" culture of sporting events but those weren't the qualifying match scoring rules this year!

I do not think that the game objectives were the same during the game as they were at the beginning of the game. That was the whole basis of the Nash equilibrium. If it becomes obvious that 2 of your alliance partners are completely stopped and the other alliance is scoring at will, isn't it the right thing to do for your team and your alliance to score the most seeding points for the alliance that you can?

I would never criticize, and in fact expect, alliances to change their strategies at any point they decided it would benefit the whole alliance. Isn't that the point of an alliance working together....to achieve the maximum benefit for the alliance?

It was a great game for strategy and I'm sure many will continue to believe that winning is most important but I just didn't find that in the rules for playing the qualification rounds.