GA points counts

vincentlondon

In GA sometimes i get this scenario :

I beat 7 squads :
- 5 in 1 attempt
- 2 in 2 attempts

And my opponent has this scenario :
- 6 victories in 1 attempt
- 1 in 7 attempts

At the end opponent wins because in one of the fight he gets +30 points bonus of 1st attempt. So he has more points and wins the game.

But he had to fight 13 times to win and me i had to fight only 9 times.
Why is the number of total fights not taken into account ?

TVF

Because the system rewards first attempt wins more.

KausDebonair

Let’s say the Rockies vs the Red Sox are in the World Series. Now let’s say the Rockies won the NLDS & NLCS by sweeping their opponents, and the Red Sox only won by 1 game for each the ALDS & ALCS. Then the Red Sox beat the Rockies 4 games to 3 in a seven game World Series.

Are the Red Socks not still the champions even though they lost more games in the playoffs?

KausDebonair

*Red Sox. Lol

KausDebonair

Upon reading my comment again, I’m not sure that the metaphor applies to your complaint. But regardless, 1st attempt victories are worth more because subsequent attempts mean the enemy squad is weakened.

Waqui

vincentlondon wrote: »

Why is the number of total fights not taken into account ?

All that matters is the amount of banners. If you want to win, you need to score more banners - either by winning more battles in first attempt or winning them with more surviving / full health / full protection units or more unused slots.

Talifer

I get the first time win mechanic, what I don't get is why the fleet zone is worth less than the squad zone.

Scenario: 2 players in a battle both have the same win/loss ratio of 6/1 (assuming a GP match up that results in a 6 squad zone and a 1 fleet zone, also assuming the banners are identical for each fight so it would be a tie if zone bonuses were not involved). If player A took 5 squads and 1 fleet out and player B just took 6 squads out, player B wins even though both players took a zone.

Does this mean having a GP with a higher fleet ratio is a disadvantage?

RandomSithLord

Talifer wrote: »

I get the first time win mechanic, what I don't get is why the fleet zone is worth less than the squad zone.

Scenario: 2 players in a battle both have the same win/loss ratio of 6/1 (assuming a GP match up that results in a 6 squad zone and a 1 fleet zone, also assuming the banners are identical for each fight so it would be a tie if zone bonuses were not involved). If player A took 5 squads and 1 fleet out and player B just took 6 squads out, player B wins even though both players took a zone.

Does this mean having a GP with a higher fleet ratio is a disadvantage?

You can't realistically give the same value to ships and troops. It's not just about the territories.
For fleet defense you need 8 ships (4 can have 3 pilots, if I'm right) and a commander, that's 21 toons tops, but more likely fewer than that. 6 squads equal 30 troops. Seems unfair to give them the same dent in the outcome of the round.

leef

Waqui

Talifer wrote: »

I get the first time win mechanic, what I don't get is why the fleet zone is worth less than the squad zone.

It only takes one win, one strong fleet, to conquer the fleet zone, whereas it takes several wins, several strong teams, to conquer a character zone, which awards more banners. Seems fair enough.

Does this mean having a GP with a higher fleet ratio is a disadvantage?

It depends on how that high fleet ratio is composed.
Having a strong fleet is an advantage. I have often benefitted from having the stronger fleet in GA. However, having fluff ships affect match-making just like having fluff characters does.

Talifer

I'm not suggesting that the 1 fleet battle should equal 6 squad battles, I'm equating 5 squads and 1 fleet vs 6 squads, so player A still needed 5 strong squads.

I'm perfectly happy with a player winning because they won more battles in total, I think it would make more sense not to have a conquer bonus at all in this GA format (or possibly a minimal one that makes up for the difference in maximum banners obtainable from a squad/fleet battle, can't remember if there is a different), or just have a single zone with 7 slots, 1 of which is a fleet slot.

Waqui

Talifer wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the 1 fleet battle should equal 6 squad battles, I'm equating 5 squads and 1 fleet vs 6 squads, so player A still needed 5 strong squads.

You're comparing conquering a fleet zone (one team) to conquering a zone with multiple teams. It makes perfect sense to me, that zones with more teams (defense slots) reward more banners when conquered.

A different example:
Player A wins 5 squad battles and zero fleet battles (no zones conquered).
Player B wins 1 fleet battle and 3 character battles (1 zone conquered).
All flawless wins.
Player A won more battles, but player B (with the stronger fleet and weaker characters) wins.

Rath_Tarr

Talifer wrote: »

Does this mean having a GP with a higher fleet ratio is a disadvantage?

Yes, being fleet heavy is a disadvantage. You only need one strong fleet to assure mutual fleet zone conquest, ships are valued at far higher GP than characters and fleet battles are worth considerably less flags/GP used than squad battles.

Talifer wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the 1 fleet battle should equal 6 squad battles, I'm equating 5 squads and 1 fleet vs 6 squads, so player A still needed 5 strong squads.

A top fleet is valued at 3.5-4x the GP of a top squad for matchmaking but only worth 11% more flags for setting defense and at most 3% more flags for an offensive win.

Talifer

Waqui wrote: »

A different example:
Player A wins 5 squad battles and zero fleet battles (no zones conquered).
Player B wins 1 fleet battle and 3 character battles (1 zone conquered).
All flawless wins.
Player A won more battles, but player B (with the stronger fleet and weaker characters) wins.

I agree this would also be wrong, which is why I suggested that maybe there shouldn't be a conquer bonus at all in this format so that it is purely down to most battles won, in your example 5 vs 4 so player A wins.

Kyno

All in all it is a game, it has rules and you are scored according to those rules. If you want the rules changed so the scoring is done differently, that's fine, but it's really still just a personal preference than anything about being fair or anything like that. They dont want it to be about battles won, they want it to be about points won in the structure, which allows for more strategic game play and less ties.

I can win at scrabble by using less letters and even less words, by simply "playing the game" and using letters and locations more strategically than my opponent.

Waqui

Talifer wrote: »

Waqui wrote: »

A different example:
Player A wins 5 squad battles and zero fleet battles (no zones conquered).
Player B wins 1 fleet battle and 3 character battles (1 zone conquered).
All flawless wins.
Player A won more battles, but player B (with the stronger fleet and weaker characters) wins.

I agree this would also be wrong, which is why I suggested that maybe there shouldn't be a conquer bonus at all in this format so that it is purely down to most battles won, in your example 5 vs 4 so player A wins.

No thanx. I like the strategic aspect, which conquer bonus brings to the game mode.