Apparently I'm not the first with this question, I want to draw the attention of the developers to victories with an equal score .. Why should I lose to an opponent who surpasses me both in terms of warehouse and GP, why such an injustice ??? It should be exactly the opposite !! Take care of this issue and solve it! I have been playing for over 4 years and consider myself a veteran, I am extremely displeased with this attitude
You are matched on your matchmaking GP, not your total GP. The fact you have less GP in the 90-100 toons you didn’t use on offence / defence than your opponent does in no way makes you the better player.
Apparently I'm not the first with this question, I want to draw the attention of the developers to victories with an equal score .. Why should I lose to an opponent who surpasses me both in terms of warehouse and GP, why such an injustice ??? It should be exactly the opposite !! Take care of this issue and solve it! I have been playing for over 4 years and consider myself a veteran, I am extremely displeased with this attitude
Because they've more thoroughly developed their roster.
Think of it this way. If there's a tie at the end of the match the game will do a virtual Deploy All. Whoever has the most deployed wins.
Apparently I'm not the first with this question, I want to draw the attention of the developers to victories with an equal score .. Why should I lose to an opponent who surpasses me both in terms of warehouse and GP, why such an injustice ??? It should be exactly the opposite !! Take care of this issue and solve it! I have been playing for over 4 years and consider myself a veteran, I am extremely displeased with this attitude
Because they've more thoroughly developed their roster.
Think of it this way. If there's a tie at the end of the match the game will do a virtual Deploy All. Whoever has the most deployed wins.
That last metaphor was the most sensible argument for this I have ever read.
Honestly though, and I think most veteran players would agree:
Both perspectives about this are completely understandable. The game inherently encourages leaning your rosters while at the same time encouraging GP growth.
Letting lower GP win could be seen as rewarding for not gearing, so the current approach do seem more in line with most deliberate incentives created by CG....
and it is unlikely to be changed either way, this situation have occurred regularly since it was put in the game
Apparently I'm not the first with this question, I want to draw the attention of the developers to victories with an equal score .. Why should I lose to an opponent who surpasses me both in terms of warehouse and GP, why such an injustice ??? It should be exactly the opposite !! Take care of this issue and solve it! I have been playing for over 4 years and consider myself a veteran, I am extremely displeased with this attitude
Because they've more thoroughly developed their roster.
Think of it this way. If there's a tie at the end of the match the game will do a virtual Deploy All. Whoever has the most deployed wins.
I disagree. I have never had a tie personally but if you blunder into a tie with a “better, developed roaster” then you lost. Pyric Victories are set aside for a reason.
Apparently I'm not the first with this question, I want to draw the attention of the developers to victories with an equal score .. Why should I lose to an opponent who surpasses me both in terms of warehouse and GP, why such an injustice ??? It should be exactly the opposite !! Take care of this issue and solve it! I have been playing for over 4 years and consider myself a veteran, I am extremely displeased with this attitude
Because they've more thoroughly developed their roster.
Think of it this way. If there's a tie at the end of the match the game will do a virtual Deploy All. Whoever has the most deployed wins.
I disagree. I have never had a tie personally but if you blunder into a tie with a “better, developed roaster” then you lost. Pyric Victories are set aside for a reason.
Your better delveopment here means lots of characters at level 85, gear 7 or 8 compared to lots of characters at level 1, no gear assigned. It's a means of rewarding people who are gearing characters despite their limited--or in this case, absolutely zero--effect. They want to move away from quote-unquote "galaxy of hording" but there are few incentives for players to do that. This is one of those few incentives.
Apparently I'm not the first with this question, I want to draw the attention of the developers to victories with an equal score .. Why should I lose to an opponent who surpasses me both in terms of warehouse and GP, why such an injustice ??? It should be exactly the opposite !! Take care of this issue and solve it! I have been playing for over 4 years and consider myself a veteran, I am extremely displeased with this attitude
Because they've more thoroughly developed their roster.
Think of it this way. If there's a tie at the end of the match the game will do a virtual Deploy All. Whoever has the most deployed wins.
I disagree. I have never had a tie personally but if you blunder into a tie with a “better, developed roaster” then you lost. Pyric Victories are set aside for a reason.
My roaster is better than many.
My roster, not so much. Remember when I messed up and you beat me?!
the game should reward those. who are at disadvantage. yet overcome the bad matchmaking and defeat a higher gp opponent (or ties). but that's how it is
This is based on a false premise.
GP is not a measure of who has or does not have an advantage.
So far in the current GAC I’ve met 3 opponents with 3 GLs to my 2 GLs. They had less total GP than me.
also one thing to look at top 80 characters of each player. but those who have higher GP have a better roaster to choose from in both defense and offense, you both have GLs,drevan etc. but enemy has g12 Mon motha or NS team which can give an edge. yet as lower GP player you tie. In the end you get punished.
Then you should work to improve the 81-90th best characters on your roster.
I can't ungear characters, okay? I can't delete the Eeth Koth or Jedi Knight Guardian that I worked on when Yoda was the new hotness and those were two of the only free jedi to get him with. I can't ungear the Ugnaught I experimented with when Tank was a new raid that people were still trying to solve, or the Jedi Consular I worked on when ships were new and his was viable in an Endurance fleet--or, for that matter, Mace Windu.
I can't erase the outmoded characters that used to be borderline useful in arena or Rancor before the metas moved on and the raid became simmable. I can't ungear the characters I had to farm and gear because Galactic War used to be hard and tournaments existed. I can't move gear that was applied back in the day when we had two raids and after a certain point you just put gear on characters because there were no other characters to put gear on and nothing to matchmake against.
I also can't use ANY of these characters in Grand Arena Challenge. I found a use for Ackbar, C3-P0, and Princess Leia if I've run out of good teams in 3v3, so thanks for that. But otherwise I can't do anything about any of this, so why should I be punished when you CAN do something about your lower gp and just choose not to?
also one thing to look at top 80 characters of each player. but those who have higher GP have a better roaster to choose from in both defense and offense, you both have GLs,drevan etc. but enemy has g12 Mon motha or NS team which can give an edge. yet as lower GP player you tie. In the end you get punished.
Then you should work to improve the 81-90th best characters on your roster.
that's the whole point btw, those who have higher GP have a good 81,82nd team etc.
Read the edits I put in after the fact. Sorry about that, sometimes a though occurs to you after you've hit post and it's gauche to reply to yourself when you can just edit it in, instead.
You are matched on your matchmaking GP, not your total GP. The fact you have less GP in the 90-100 toons you didn’t use on offence / defence than your opponent does in no way makes you the better player.
I think the argument is made that player with less GP is the "better player" because they managed to tie while having less to work with. They were potentially more creative with their teams/strategies because they didn't have the same power as the other person.
You are matched on your matchmaking GP, not your total GP. The fact you have less GP in the 90-100 toons you didn’t use on offence / defence than your opponent does in no way makes you the better player.
I think the argument is made that player with less GP is the "better player" because they managed to tie while having less to work with. They were potentially more creative with their teams/strategies because they didn't have the same power as the other person.
I know what the argument is, but it’s based on a false premise.
I am matched on my top 80 GP against other people’s top 80 GP, and it is now months til I’ve seen anyone in my GAC bracket that had more total GP than me.
If I do anything other than 1 shot every team of their’s, I am almost certainly going to lose. Having “more to work with” is totally meaningless in my matches. Using any more than 66 toons means defeat, regardless of whether or not they are better geared than my opponent.
You are matched on your matchmaking GP, not your total GP. The fact you have less GP in the 90-100 toons you didn’t use on offence / defence than your opponent does in no way makes you the better player.
I think the argument is made that player with less GP is the "better player" because they managed to tie while having less to work with. They were potentially more creative with their teams/strategies because they didn't have the same power as the other person.
I know what the argument is, but it’s based on a false premise.
I am matched on my top 80 GP against other people’s top 80 GP, and it is now months til I’ve seen anyone in my GAC bracket that had more total GP than me.
If I do anything other than 1 shot every team of their’s, I am almost certainly going to lose. Having “more to work with” is totally meaningless in my matches. Using any more than 66 toons means defeat, regardless of whether or not they are better geared than my opponent.
Very much this. I faced a player with lower total GP than myself this round and I lost. He one shotted all my squads very efficiently for a high banner count while I struggled. I could clear him but lost since I needed more fights to finish him. My higher gp did nothing for me in that fight, he won because he was the better attacker.
As someone who consistently faces around 1M more total GP from my opponents than my own roster (almost 5M and matched with almost 6M often), I completely understand why higher GP does and should win the tie in a GAC match. Incentivizing further reduction in the placement of gear on characters would be a poor business decision. Those who have played longer and made more roster progression should win in the event of a tie. They’ve done more.
That said, 1M GP difference (that’s a potential of ten 100K squads) can and does make for very difficult matchups. IMO there should be some new divisions so that such GP discrepancies (about 20% of my roster) do not exist. That’s for a different thread though.
Apparently I'm not the first with this question, I want to draw the attention of the developers to victories with an equal score .. Why should I lose to an opponent who surpasses me both in terms of warehouse and GP, why such an injustice ??? It should be exactly the opposite !! Take care of this issue and solve it! I have been playing for over 4 years and consider myself a veteran, I am extremely displeased with this attitude
Because they've more thoroughly developed their roster.
Think of it this way. If there's a tie at the end of the match the game will do a virtual Deploy All. Whoever has the most deployed wins.
You are matched on your matchmaking GP, not your total GP. The fact you have less GP in the 90-100 toons you didn’t use on offence / defence than your opponent does in no way makes you the better player.
I think the argument is made that player with less GP is the "better player" because they managed to tie while having less to work with. They were potentially more creative with their teams/strategies because they didn't have the same power as the other person.
I know what the argument is, but it’s based on a false premise.
I am matched on my top 80 GP against other people’s top 80 GP, and it is now months til I’ve seen anyone in my GAC bracket that had more total GP than me.
If I do anything other than 1 shot every team of their’s, I am almost certainly going to lose. Having “more to work with” is totally meaningless in my matches. Using any more than 66 toons means defeat, regardless of whether or not they are better geared than my opponent.
This completely makes sense and is often the case for my matches. If you cannot 1 shot teams, then you are likely to lose. So having more squads doesn’t really do anything. However, having more characters to select your 66 to use is a significant advantage. The bigger the gap in GP the more advantage. Just my thoughts. Still believe higher GP should win the tie.
Replies
You are matched on your matchmaking GP, not your total GP. The fact you have less GP in the 90-100 toons you didn’t use on offence / defence than your opponent does in no way makes you the better player.
Because they've more thoroughly developed their roster.
Think of it this way. If there's a tie at the end of the match the game will do a virtual Deploy All. Whoever has the most deployed wins.
That last metaphor was the most sensible argument for this I have ever read.
Honestly though, and I think most veteran players would agree:
Both perspectives about this are completely understandable. The game inherently encourages leaning your rosters while at the same time encouraging GP growth.
and it is unlikely to be changed either way, this situation have occurred regularly since it was put in the game
I disagree. I have never had a tie personally but if you blunder into a tie with a “better, developed roaster” then you lost. Pyric Victories are set aside for a reason.
Your better delveopment here means lots of characters at level 85, gear 7 or 8 compared to lots of characters at level 1, no gear assigned. It's a means of rewarding people who are gearing characters despite their limited--or in this case, absolutely zero--effect. They want to move away from quote-unquote "galaxy of hording" but there are few incentives for players to do that. This is one of those few incentives.
My roster, not so much. Remember when I messed up and you beat me?!
GP is not a measure of who has or does not have an advantage.
So far in the current GAC I’ve met 3 opponents with 3 GLs to my 2 GLs. They had less total GP than me.
Then you should work to improve the 81-90th best characters on your roster.
I can't ungear characters, okay? I can't delete the Eeth Koth or Jedi Knight Guardian that I worked on when Yoda was the new hotness and those were two of the only free jedi to get him with. I can't ungear the Ugnaught I experimented with when Tank was a new raid that people were still trying to solve, or the Jedi Consular I worked on when ships were new and his was viable in an Endurance fleet--or, for that matter, Mace Windu.
I can't erase the outmoded characters that used to be borderline useful in arena or Rancor before the metas moved on and the raid became simmable. I can't ungear the characters I had to farm and gear because Galactic War used to be hard and tournaments existed. I can't move gear that was applied back in the day when we had two raids and after a certain point you just put gear on characters because there were no other characters to put gear on and nothing to matchmake against.
I also can't use ANY of these characters in Grand Arena Challenge. I found a use for Ackbar, C3-P0, and Princess Leia if I've run out of good teams in 3v3, so thanks for that. But otherwise I can't do anything about any of this, so why should I be punished when you CAN do something about your lower gp and just choose not to?
Read the edits I put in after the fact. Sorry about that, sometimes a though occurs to you after you've hit post and it's gauche to reply to yourself when you can just edit it in, instead.
I think the argument is made that player with less GP is the "better player" because they managed to tie while having less to work with. They were potentially more creative with their teams/strategies because they didn't have the same power as the other person.
I am matched on my top 80 GP against other people’s top 80 GP, and it is now months til I’ve seen anyone in my GAC bracket that had more total GP than me.
If I do anything other than 1 shot every team of their’s, I am almost certainly going to lose. Having “more to work with” is totally meaningless in my matches. Using any more than 66 toons means defeat, regardless of whether or not they are better geared than my opponent.
Very much this. I faced a player with lower total GP than myself this round and I lost. He one shotted all my squads very efficiently for a high banner count while I struggled. I could clear him but lost since I needed more fights to finish him. My higher gp did nothing for me in that fight, he won because he was the better attacker.
That said, 1M GP difference (that’s a potential of ten 100K squads) can and does make for very difficult matchups. IMO there should be some new divisions so that such GP discrepancies (about 20% of my roster) do not exist. That’s for a different thread though.
This idea makes sense to me, too.
This completely makes sense and is often the case for my matches. If you cannot 1 shot teams, then you are likely to lose. So having more squads doesn’t really do anything. However, having more characters to select your 66 to use is a significant advantage. The bigger the gap in GP the more advantage. Just my thoughts. Still believe higher GP should win the tie.