2 ms·
I agree, that scoring system is flawed as it provides no motivation to attack at all. For example, take a game where one team just defends heavily, and the othe
by dTal 8y ago
I agree, that scoring system is flawed as it provides no motivation to attack at all. For example, take a game where one team just defends heavily, and the other two teams decide to ignore them and have a proper game between themselves (and trade a few goals). The defensive team would be rewarding for being boring.
A better system might be if a team's final score were determined by subtracting their concessions from their goals. Or, if you want to tweak the style of play between offensive and defensive, applying some coefficient between goals and concessions (e.g. concessions subtract 2 while goals add 1). In a way, this is already the system, except the 'goal coefficient' is zero which is clearly unbalanced.
- tomglynch 8y agoIt wouldn't occur like you say - The two teams trading a few goals would quickly realise they were both losing and attack the defensive team together.
- skykooler 8y agoIf that is happening, both "active" teams are now incentivized to attack the defensive team (because they are winning). So by being "boring" you essentially force the other teams into an alliance against you.