Wundsalz, looks like you've brought up another good point.
Seems like there should be a cap on how many points you could bid. Perhaps it could dependent on how many points the actual match is worth that you're playing in.
I see 3 viable options here:
1.) introduce bidding caps (2-3 points or the match value would probably be reasonable caps).
+ This would add an interesting meta-game to the cogs described in my previous post. Clans would have to estimate their odds against their opponents and bargain deals with the enemy teams if they want to play most efficiently
- the teams scores would not work as a pure indicator for the clans performance on the battle field.
- it's likely that only a fraction of the participants will get involved into the whole bidding thingy, as bidding decisions will probably be made the the teams captains.
2.) introduce a bidding cap of 1 point. If only one team bids they match value is raised by 1 point. if both or no team bids, they play with the default match value and the sides are determined by a coin toss.
+ This would allow both teams to clearly indicate that they really want to play for a side.
o Teams can't enforce sides by spending a lot of points
o the impact on the score integrity would be minimal
- no bidding meta-game.
3) cut the bidding system. Sides will be determined by a coin toss
+ fair - no advantages can be bought
+ team scores would indicate the clans performance in the cogs
- no bidding meta-game.
As I think there is no obvious best choice, it might be a good idea to start a poll allowing all participants of the upcoming season to state which system they'd prefer.
