GAC Tiebreaker

Camdent13
4 posts Member
edited November 2020
8jqo5ot1c89k.jpeg

Is it just me or is the GAC tiebreaker needing a review. I’m going to lose because I have the lower GP. I think the lower GP player should be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player.

Replies

  • Since the matchmaking is based on very similar top 80, there is hardly such a thing as lower total GP player having a more difficult time clearing, at least most of the time.
    At that point the one winning is the one that overall invested more in their roster (higher GP), which is fine.

    (Saying that as someone who has only been on the lower GP end of ties.)
  • Waqui
    8506 posts Member
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.
  • Waqui
    8506 posts Member
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.
  • Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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
    8506 posts Member
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    Yes, the tie needs to be broken but why is giving the victory to the player with less total roster GP the right way to go?
  • Deja vu. Am I in The Matrix again? :D

    Tie breaking by GP was always arbitrary and dumb. A virtual coin flip would be fairer and lowest deployed GP would be better still but no sense holding your breath for either one.
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
  • Camdent13 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
    This is at least the 20th thread asking for this. I can see the logic from a distance, but when you drill down to it, the lower total GP winning a tiebreak argument doesn’t make any sense.

    You and your opponent have been matched on the appropriate portion of your roster. The total GP is irrelevant to why you were matched together.

    You and your opponent set 33 toons (I assume, can’t tell if you’re div 1/2 or not) each on defence. And by the looks of the map used 15 toons successfully on offence.

    So, the fact that you have less GP on the bottom half of your roster than your opponent does not in any way make you “the underdog”.
  • Waqui
    8506 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.

    How did that player underperform? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP. Total roster GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round. If you were the underdog in that match it wasn't because of differences in total roster GP.
  • Camdent13 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
    This is at least the 20th thread asking for this. I can see the logic from a distance, but when you drill down to it, the lower total GP winning a tiebreak argument doesn’t make any sense.

    You and your opponent have been matched on the appropriate portion of your roster. The total GP is irrelevant to why you were matched together.

    You and your opponent set 33 toons (I assume, can’t tell if you’re div 1/2 or not) each on defence. And by the looks of the map used 15 toons successfully on offence.

    So, the fact that you have less GP on the bottom half of your roster than your opponent does not in any way make you “the underdog”.

    Thank you that’s one of the better comments I’ve had on this. I guess ultimately what my question is, is there a better way to decide a tie breaker. Everyone’s saying overall gp is irrelevant in matchmaking but in the end is the only thing that decides a tie.
  • Camdent13 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
    This is at least the 20th thread asking for this. I can see the logic from a distance, but when you drill down to it, the lower total GP winning a tiebreak argument doesn’t make any sense.

    You and your opponent have been matched on the appropriate portion of your roster. The total GP is irrelevant to why you were matched together.

    You and your opponent set 33 toons (I assume, can’t tell if you’re div 1/2 or not) each on defence. And by the looks of the map used 15 toons successfully on offence.

    So, the fact that you have less GP on the bottom half of your roster than your opponent does not in any way make you “the underdog”.

    Thank you that’s one of the better comments I’ve had on this. I guess ultimately what my question is, is there a better way to decide a tie breaker. Everyone’s saying overall gp is irrelevant in matchmaking but in the end is the only thing that decides a tie.
    For me, the most logical approach would be total GP used in setting defence and on offence.

    Not sure if there would ever be a situation where 2 players tied on banners AND on the GP used, but I suppose something backing that up would need to be identified.
  • Waqui
    8506 posts Member
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
    This is at least the 20th thread asking for this. I can see the logic from a distance, but when you drill down to it, the lower total GP winning a tiebreak argument doesn’t make any sense.

    You and your opponent have been matched on the appropriate portion of your roster. The total GP is irrelevant to why you were matched together.

    You and your opponent set 33 toons (I assume, can’t tell if you’re div 1/2 or not) each on defence. And by the looks of the map used 15 toons successfully on offence.

    So, the fact that you have less GP on the bottom half of your roster than your opponent does not in any way make you “the underdog”.

    Thank you that’s one of the better comments I’ve had on this. I guess ultimately what my question is, is there a better way to decide a tie breaker. Everyone’s saying overall gp is irrelevant in matchmaking but in the end is the only thing that decides a tie.

    Using a coin flip as tiebreaker could be fine. However, the designers chose to reward the player who built the higher GP roster - probably to encourage investing resources (and possibly spending) - and that's fine as well.
  • Kyno
    31071 posts Moderator
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
    This is at least the 20th thread asking for this. I can see the logic from a distance, but when you drill down to it, the lower total GP winning a tiebreak argument doesn’t make any sense.

    You and your opponent have been matched on the appropriate portion of your roster. The total GP is irrelevant to why you were matched together.

    You and your opponent set 33 toons (I assume, can’t tell if you’re div 1/2 or not) each on defence. And by the looks of the map used 15 toons successfully on offence.

    So, the fact that you have less GP on the bottom half of your roster than your opponent does not in any way make you “the underdog”.

    Thank you that’s one of the better comments I’ve had on this. I guess ultimately what my question is, is there a better way to decide a tie breaker. Everyone’s saying overall gp is irrelevant in matchmaking but in the end is the only thing that decides a tie.
    For me, the most logical approach would be total GP used in setting defence and on offence.

    Not sure if there would ever be a situation where 2 players tied on banners AND on the GP used, but I suppose something backing that up would need to be identified.

    2 things about offensive GP:
    1 - this would punish a player for undermanned attacks

    2 - unless this was limited to successful offensive GP used, a player could just keep attacking with junk toons to push that number up.
  • But the lowest GP used would win the tie (sorry I didn’t make that clear).
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Camdent13 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.

    The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.

    If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?

    Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.

    But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?

    But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
    This is at least the 20th thread asking for this. I can see the logic from a distance, but when you drill down to it, the lower total GP winning a tiebreak argument doesn’t make any sense.

    You and your opponent have been matched on the appropriate portion of your roster. The total GP is irrelevant to why you were matched together.

    You and your opponent set 33 toons (I assume, can’t tell if you’re div 1/2 or not) each on defence. And by the looks of the map used 15 toons successfully on offence.

    So, the fact that you have less GP on the bottom half of your roster than your opponent does not in any way make you “the underdog”.

    Thank you that’s one of the better comments I’ve had on this. I guess ultimately what my question is, is there a better way to decide a tie breaker. Everyone’s saying overall gp is irrelevant in matchmaking but in the end is the only thing that decides a tie.

    Using a coin flip as tiebreaker could be fine. However, the designers chose to reward the player who built the higher GP roster - probably to encourage investing resources (and possibly spending) - and that's fine as well.
    This mechanism dates back to the original GA when matchmaking was by total GP and the total GP spread between opponents was small. More likely it was just a simple solution which they decided worked well enough.

    It was always arbitrary though, with one player in each bracket having 100% chance to win any tie, one player having 0% chance and the others being somewhere in-between.
  • Ultimately, ties are extremely rare (I've never been in a tie myself), so I think stressing about it or trying to find a more "equitable" solution is, for the most part, unnecessary. It's WAY down the list of important things that need/should be "corrected" in this game.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • In case of a tie, give the win to the person who started his last attack first.
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • Legend91 wrote: »
    In case of a tie, give the win to the person who started his last attack first.
    Congratulations, you have come up with an even more arbitrary and meaningless solution than the current one.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Legend91 wrote: »
    In case of a tie, give the win to the person who started his last attack first.
    Congratulations, you have come up with an even more arbitrary and meaningless solution than the current one.
    Correct. At least at the moment the advantage goes to someone who has done more in the game, not the person who lives further west than the other.
  • Sudden death playoff with the 5 lowest GP toons from each roster on auto. A true measure of...I don’t really know
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  • Whoever drinks more tea! A true measure of Englishness!!! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.