TIE in GAC and higher GP wins

Sarbitar
263 posts Member
I replied to other thread, but pvp and rivalry is only used to find shardmates it seems.

So anyone make any sense of that? Higher gp wins in case of a tie?

Could anyone try to explain the reasoning behind this? The guy with the HIGHER GP performed worse overall, by getting the same number of banners, so he should win, because he would feal twice as bad, if he would loose. Now he feals bad, because he performed worse, and lower gp guy feels bad, because he lost. So, by CG logic, they both feel good, because ... well, nobody is better. So it's a tie. And everyone's happy. Really? :smile:

Like if the guy with two legs had the same 100m run race result as the guy with one leg - the two legged wins right?

Replies

  • Vinniarth
    1859 posts Member
    Well, this is one of the few decisions which do not punish player for bigger roster...
  • The bigger roster is the bigger spender so he wins. That is the logic. That he might be the worse player doesn’t play a role in any of this.
  • Vinniarth
    1859 posts Member
    Sarbitar wrote: »
    Spending doesn't have anything to do with this. The matchmaking doesn't take that into account.

    Well, I think a bit, there are dependencies between spendings and rosters...
  • Sarbitar wrote: »
    I replied to other thread, but pvp and rivalry is only used to find shardmates it seems.

    So anyone make any sense of that? Higher gp wins in case of a tie?

    Could anyone try to explain the reasoning behind this? The guy with the HIGHER GP performed worse overall, by getting the same number of banners, so he should win, because he would feal twice as bad, if he would loose. Now he feals bad, because he performed worse, and lower gp guy feels bad, because he lost. So, by CG logic, they both feel good, because ... well, nobody is better. So it's a tie. And everyone's happy. Really? :smile:

    Like if the guy with two legs had the same 100m run race result as the guy with one leg - the two legged wins right?
    This issue has been posted about before (though not usually talking about roosters).

    The people mentioning spending are just sour grapes merchants. It does indeed have nothing to do with it.

    Remember though, that people are matched on the GP of their top X toons. So your claim that the lower total GP has “done better” is flawed, because the GP of the toons they actually used in the battles is pretty much identical to their opponent. The fact that the other ~100 toons in their roster are lower GP than the opponent just isn’t relevant.

    It’s a decision the devs made - when two players tie they have decided to reward the player who has developed the whole of his roster more. Accept and move on.
  • Nikoms565
    14242 posts Member
    Sarbitar wrote: »
    Spending doesn't have anything to do with this. Bigger rooster doesn't mean bigger spender.
    Actually, I find the larger roosters do usually cost more.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Sarbitar wrote: »
    The guy with the HIGHER GP performed worse overall,....

    Nope! Higher or lower total GP is not what wins or loses rounds.
  • Rath_Tarr
    4944 posts Member
    Sarbitar wrote: »
    So anyone make any sense of that? Higher gp wins in case of a tie?

    Could anyone try to explain the reasoning behind this?
    It's a holdover from the beginning of GA when matchmaking was always by total GP. Both players in a match would have close to the same total GP and the devs apparently decided to use that as an arbitrary tie-breaker.

  • Kisakee
    1648 posts Member
    The one with the bigger roster obviously has done more to get there so why shouldn't s/he win? You may have played worse than your opponent but that doesn't mean you should lose.
    "Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
    - Grand Admiral Thrawn
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    Kisakee wrote: »
    You may have played worse than your opponent but that doesn't mean you should lose.

    Maybe it's just me but seems like that's the most logical reason someone should lose.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • CG told you they want you to develop your roster, as much as you can in-fact! What they never told you to do was not buy their stun-gun packs slowing your top 80 development. From their perspective it is strictly your fault that you are not sitting with the best modded R7 top 80 collection of the best regarded teams. They never stopped you from doing that and offered you all the packs in the world.
  • Kisakee
    1648 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Kisakee wrote: »
    You may have played worse than your opponent but that doesn't mean you should lose.

    Maybe it's just me but seems like that's the most logical reason someone should lose.

    If you lose by battle i'm with you but a draw is a draw.
    "Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
    - Grand Admiral Thrawn
  • Like all of GAC, the result is in accordance with stated rules.

    They decided the points for placing defenders, winning fights, having full health protection, etc...

    This is just another of the rules that you should know about and take into account.

    So, just like building a roster with no fat in the top 80 can help you win at GAC, building further gp outside your top 80 can help you win when the points are even.

    I think the reasoning from the developers around this rule was they did not want to penalise anyone who has invested more (time or money) into developing their roster further. They don't want to give people a reason to not get more stuff.
  • SithVicious
    1283 posts Member
    Sarbitar wrote: »
    I replied to other thread, but pvp and rivalry is only used to find shardmates it seems.

    The guy with the HIGHER GP performed worse overall, by getting the same number of banners...

    False logic, his performance was equal, not worse.
    Would you feel the same if the GP difference was just one point?
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  • NicWester
    8928 posts Member
    The bigger roster is the bigger spender so he wins. That is the logic. That he might be the worse player doesn’t play a role in any of this.

    My roster is big because I spend my gear instead of hording it. I’m not a free player because I can afford a little every now and again when I want to support the game, but I definitely haven’t spent anywhere near minnow amounts over the past 4 years.

    I put a zeta on Gar Saxon last night.

    Long story short—you can have a big roster without spending money. You just have to use gear instead of holding it all in reserve.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Slaveen
    481 posts Member
    You should know that CG always protects those who invest in the game the most....

    Oh wait, everyone except for Rey owners.
  • DadKev
    314 posts Member
    edited July 2020
    Cockadoodle Doo. Roosters. Woot woot. WAI.
Sign In or Register to comment.