Originally posted by NewjakIt's not about whether I was at a disadvantage compared to my opponent, but that I was at a disadvantage with the amount of work/debating/ingenuity I was able to contribute compared to what I should have been giving.
You would have still gotten 2 points and Akuki would have received one for being handicapped.But you didn't have a partner and neither did Akuki therefore there was no handicap for you to be entitled to get 3 points. That is the point of the three point rule is that you won overcoming the odds of a 2 vs 1 match. Now I can see you arguing about keeping your points, which it looks like will happen as no one has spoken against it, but there is no wiggle room for argument on this, you were not against the odds, you were not at a disadvantage compared to your opponent.
You get 2 points.
The extra point is there to convenience those who have to deal with fielding any of 18 characters on their own and manage it.
The fact that I was still inconvenienced and yet recieved the same amount of points that I would have had I not been so, is ridiculous.
Winning with a partner = 2 points.
Winning by yourself = 2 points?
Whether my opponents showed up or not should have no bearing on my points. End of discussion.
By this logic, if you follow it through, winning in a team of 2 vs. a team of one should only equate to 1 point because you were even less inconvenienced.
There is no clause "unless your opponent also is disadvantaged".
It isn't intended to be compared to your opponent's disadvantages, but to how much extra you have to put in in order to manage, much less win.
Which is also why Akuki should be getting 1 point for all of this.
I really don't like the rule changing this late in the game, though 1 point is fairly trivial. Nontheless, I'm debating simply because I can and I think that the right course of action is obvious.