My case against <G14>

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin

My case against the rule regards the points that you can score with a EMPTY CELL (2). As the rule states now, What I would like to make note of is the OR between EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL. If you 2x in your previous match and the refs take a SUPER CELL, no big, your can score your EMPTY CELLS as regular ol' MOON ROCKS for 2 points a pop. But, if the refs take your SUPER CELLS (you meant EMPTY CELL, right?) you are at a loss for not only the SUPER CELLS, but also the opportunity to score the EMPTY CELLS...

I think you misspoke there, note my correction! But honestly I don't think it's a big issue. An EMPTY CELL is only two points, same as a moon rock, and you have, what, 30 of those? And I don't believe the refs decide what to take-my interpretation is that wherever your PAYLOAD SPECIALIST sits for the next match, he loses one ball.

Originally Posted by BRAVESaj25bd8

I really do not see how it would be insulting to help the other team score points. If you're losing that badly, everyone knows it and the other team should understand that it is purely strategic and "big picture" thinking.

I really meant patronizing more then "insulting", but I agree that in the context of this game, I agree that the losing alliance would probably realize the purpose of the winning alliance's actions and not begrudge them for it. But do we really need a rule so convoluted that it is a necessary strategy to score on yourself? And how does it really help the psyche of the losing alliance, or the perceived evenness of the game, if teams are scoring on themselves just to avoid falling outside this rule? Does the GDC think the spectators or losing teams will not notice this or something?
(Note: This isn't directly in response to your post, but I keep coming up with new reasons this rule is bad all the time... )

Teams taking advantage of this rule was really more of a minor concern of mine, and I believe as you do that none will try it. But there shouldn't even be the opportunity, and even if it doesn't happen, team members (and spectators "in the know") will speculate whenever some team has a problem, and we don't need that.
As for your point on the ranking score as "strength of schedule", I honestly hadn't thought of that. I guess it could work that way, but using opponent wins would probably be better, and the manual even says:

Originally Posted by Section 9

it is in your interest that both your ALLIANCE and the ALLIANCES you “defeat” obtain a high score.

...thus my idea that the main intent of the rule is to discourage defense. I really don't have a problem with that-I was more comparing the rule to this one.

Originally Posted by BRAVESaj25bd8

Sorry if this message seems to be rude or inconsiderate on my part, I just want you to see that perhaps it is not such a big deal and in fact might add an interesting element to the games.

No problem at all The whole purpose of boards like this is for debate, after all! And by the way, I have edited my first post (and will be doing so again right now, argh!), so you might want to look at that...