I think what bothers me about this “announcement” is that there is still no overturn of the points or rules involved. Thus while encouraging teams to act one way, it unfortunately doesn’t incentivize them to do so.
When GDC “ruled against” the 6v0, they actually made a points change that would effectively discourage alliances from working together.
But this is just a statement, no rules change… so where do you draw the line?
I think its clear that knocking a team off the coop bridge would be in violation of this intent, as would coercing a whole bunch of other teams (not even on your alliance) at an event to go against another team… but what about the grey area that this leaves?
We had an “incident” at FLR that left me wondering. We were on an alliance working with two teams that didn’t have a huge scoring potential. Thus we needed to take on the role of primary scorer. We approached the other alliance to do the coop bridge, and had offered to send one of our alliance partners to go do the bridge with one of their teams. The team sort of leading that alliance really wanted to do the coop bridge with us, not one of our partners, but reluctantly agreed. 5 minutes before our match, one of their students came over and told us they weren’t going to bother doing the coop bridge if it wasn’t going to be with our team. We said we would not do that, but could ensure our partner got there early enough if they were worried. They got mad and declined. Thus no coop bridge.
Back story that we put together is that they were smart enough to know we were going to be the primary scorer, and they also had enough data to know it was highly unlikely they could outscore us, so they wanted to effectively “take us out” to give their alliance a shot at winning. And we weren’t willing to stop winning to get the coop bridge. So where did that leave us? Both of us suffered in ranking… We won, but got 2 rank points instead of 4, they lost and got 0 instead of 2. While I understand their position, looking at the math, I don’t think it was worth the risk on their end. I think they were getting greedy.
So where does the GDC’s statement put us for the situation we encountered? Does the GDC think that the team I mentioned should have just done the coop bridge anyway in the name of GP? Does the GDC think we should have given up scoring to go do the coop bridge and potentially lose the match?
Because the coop bridge effectively “takes out” one of your alliance partners for 45 seconds of the match, it is highly unlikely teams will want to give up their best scorer to do it, its also very strategic for teams to try and ask for the opponents best scorer to come do it. So who is right? Who should give in?
If we just go with the spirit of GP & Coopertition, my feeling is that the other alliance should have agreed to do it with any member of our alliance. It would get them 2 rank points either way. And while I understand their strategy, I do think it created a rift between us rather than a bond (our coach nearly blacklisted that team from our picklist - mostly for the late notice).
Concept and strategy behind it all… perhaps one of these years the GDC will be able to understand that teams are going to want to “game” the rank system, however it is written to maximize their potential. Intent or not, you get what you incentivize, not what you encourage.