Originally Posted by
darkwarrior42
Ok, in an actual competitive match with two "professional" teams... if one team does well enough for long enough to secure an advantage that is all but impossible to overcome... good for them. They earned it. That's not a flaw in the game, that's just rewarding good play.*
The problem with systems that support "fighting until the end" is that they fall into one of two categories:
1) They're only different in a cosmetic sense. In other words, they're just as bad in that at some point, the difference cannot be made up, they just change that point a little... but since what's important isn't the numbers on the board, but the amount of effort required to get there, that doesn't actually change anything.*
--This is true in systems where the rate at which you earn points does not change throughout the game. In your example, changing the system to grant increased points per objective for holding more objectives doesn't really change the fundamental issue. If team A takes all 3 points early on, then gets pushed out, they could secure so large an advantage that team B might have to do the same thing.*
To re-state it again: this system does not actually change the problem of one team being able to secure an insurmountable advantage, it simply changes how the teams go about acquiring said advantage. If that's all you want, cool, but that's hardly the same as saying any team should be able to win, no matter how far behind they are. Therefore, I'm going to ignore this option, because it's purely cosmetic.
2) The alternative is quite popular in game shows, and the biggest reason I lose patience with game shows. This system increases point gains as the game goes on... "in this round, all point values are doubled!" Game shows love to do this because it does mean that it's "still anyone's game". No matter how far behind you may have fallen in the earlier parts of the game, you can earn so many more points later on that you can easily come back and win.... which, of course, completely invalidates the first half of the game. It's great for keeping people watching after the commercial break even when one contestant is well in the lead, but it's crap from a game design perspective. If my team controls 2/3 points for the first half of the game, then 1/3 points for the second half, that's a tie, not a victory for the other side.*
I guess I just don't see why we should be trying to punish teams for doing well by making it easier for the other team to catch up (as would be the case in point #2).... and if the team that's behind does poorly because of morale issues or because they give up, sucks to be them.