Quote Originally Posted by Chasingstars View Post
Because it is not always about beating who is in the lead. It can be beating down who has the perceived advantage. If the shotcaller believes and were to think that the 3rd or 2nd place team has a premade stack that could make a comeback, the map's objectives matter far less to those people. That the team that relentlessly "pinches" whoever has the perceived advantage, even if that other team has fewer points. That upon seeing Astrologians or Dark Knights with a battle high of 3 to 5, it is to potentially "throw" the match to spite another team and prevent them from winning. This warps the mentality of the game, where throwing is perceived as a moral victory over another team, and therefore make the experience far more miserable for those that want to have a normal match. And in turn shifts the meta in a way that is not conducive to long term health of the game and the retention of the player base.
I honestly am not understanding what you're trying to communicate, my apologies as I'm not trying to be obtuse, however it's a bit convoluted I can't quite follow your logic.

So, in my view the end game is to win. Whether the tactics that you use are to go directly for who is in the lead, or to get there by hitting the 2nd place team- why is that relevant?

Then you're discussing throwing a match. Let's be clear- throwing a matching is giving up, in various ways, so that another team can win. How is advocating for that? If for example , teams A and B want to block team (c) from winning, at a specific point when "C" is demoralized or far enough behind, either A or B is free to go for the win.
Unless I misunderstand, you seeme to be in a situation of team A being very strong, team B being v very strong, and team C saying 'what the hell, I know I won't win, but I'll make sure that I'll pick whom I want to win". If so, if team C really does have the weakest team- why should they win? What you see as "being miserable", in that same situation, I would see as making the best of a bad situation, it is a "normal" match.

"And in turn shifts the meta in a way that is not conducive to long term health of the game and the retention of the player base." There will always be some "meta" that players perceive. We had ranged jobs as the meta not that long ago- particularly SMNs and to some extent WHMs. We had the PLD cover issue. We had MNKs (in particular) kicking people off of ledges and racking up BH which drove new people in particular crazy (and nothing was done). If you define a specific "meta" as problematic then players will always switch to another. That is just the nature of many players. I would prefer than Square considers FL and CC separately with regards to jobs in PvP, in addition there is the issue of BH which should be re-examined.