I just feel like if the ultimate goal is to make it to Kyber Level you obviously want to win the match but you would want to lean heavier on offense since that rewards more for you in banners but if you also won banners for holding territory then you could weigh posting stronger units on defense
There you go. You just made winning secondary. Flawed!
False. So very false.
Winning is your primary goal since winning awards more championship points than you could ever earn from a full clear loss. It's actually a rational system.
That's the way it should be, but it isn't. Check this out:
Player A: Averaged 1,700 banners every round, lost 4 times: 31,600 banners
Player B: Averaged 1,228 banners every round, went undefeated by using brilliant defense to beat his opponent up and force mistakes: 31,536 banners
Player A has higher ranking losing FOUR TIMES. Even the 1,400 "victory banners" weren't enough. It's like what the hell am I doing trying to beat people over my head in some cases? Calculators are cheap and for the 1,000th time, this set up is irrational. But by all means, let's have another round of "you should be good enough to clear your opponent" as if that is an adequate response of any kind.
Easy Fix, using a Division 3 model where an undefeated player only got 10 banners on offense but won every round because opponent didn't win a single battle:
Make it to where if you lose, you lose 14k points. That essentially sends all losers into their own brackets by amount of losses and record will always reign supreme.
I just feel like if the ultimate goal is to make it to Kyber Level you obviously want to win the match but you would want to lean heavier on offense since that rewards more for you in banners but if you also won banners for holding territory then you could weigh posting stronger units on defense
There you go. You just made winning secondary. Flawed!
False. So very false.
Winning is your primary goal since winning awards more championship points than you could ever earn from a full clear loss. It's actually a rational system.
That's the way it should be, but it isn't. Check this out:
Player A: Averaged 1,700 banners every round, lost 4 times: 31,600 banners
Player B: Averaged 1,228 banners every round, went undefeated by using brilliant defense to beat his opponent up and force mistakes: 31,536 banners
Player A has higher ranking losing FOUR TIMES. Even the 1,400 "victory banners" weren't enough. It's like what the hell am I doing trying to beat people over my head in some cases? Calculators are cheap and for the 1,000th time, this set up is irrational. But by all means, let's have another round of "you should be good enough to clear your opponent" as if that is an adequate response of any kind.
Not only being able to pick appropiate counters but also doing so while recovering banners to a full 60 (or even undersizing) and getting feats down in the meantime is rightfully better weighted than putting up a brickwall.
Anyone can just place everything on defense, it requires 0 thinking. Playing for banner efficiency requires more skill though.
Easy Fix, using a Division 3 model where an undefeated player only got 10 banners on offense but won every round because opponent didn't win a single battle:
Make it to where if you lose, you lose 14k points. That essentially sends all losers into their own brackets by amount of losses and record will always reign supreme.
There, problem solved.
This has become a pointless, cyclic argument.
You’re one of a minority who thinks there’s a problem to be solved.
You’re one of a minority who think someone winning all 12 matches with low banner count deserves to rank above anyone and everyone who had even 1 defeat in their 12 matches.
You are definitely in a minority who wants to promote a system that rewards stale, boring matches where half the board is left uncleared because neither player has the firepower to deal with it.
The majority - and crucially the game developers - think that collecting offence banners should be the ranking measure. You don’t agree - we get that - but it’s probably time to dance to their tune.
Also, if your strategy sees you winning all 12 matches in division 3 but still 6000 banners short of Kyber (player B you mentioned above), it’s probably time to think about changing strategy.
I just feel like if the ultimate goal is to make it to Kyber Level you obviously want to win the match but you would want to lean heavier on offense since that rewards more for you in banners but if you also won banners for holding territory then you could weigh posting stronger units on defense
There you go. You just made winning secondary. Flawed!
False. So very false.
Winning is your primary goal since winning awards more championship points than you could ever earn from a full clear loss. It's actually a rational system.
That's the way it should be, but it isn't. Check this out:
Player A: Averaged 1,700 banners every round, lost 4 times: 31,600 banners
Player B: Averaged 1,228 banners every round, went undefeated by using brilliant defense to beat his opponent up and force mistakes: 31,536 banners
Player A has higher ranking losing FOUR TIMES. Even the 1,400 "victory banners" weren't enough. It's like what the hell am I doing trying to beat people over my head in some cases? Calculators are cheap and for the 1,000th time, this set up is irrational. But by all means, let's have another round of "you should be good enough to clear your opponent" as if that is an adequate response of any kind.
Your logic is flawed. So very flawed.
A win always awards more championship points than a loss. Winning is your primary goal. Winning is not secondary like you wrongfully claim.
Player B of you example should consider a different strategy if they want to rank higher on the leaderboard since players are ranked by championship score - not number of wins.
I just feel like if the ultimate goal is to make it to Kyber Level you obviously want to win the match but you would want to lean heavier on offense since that rewards more for you in banners but if you also won banners for holding territory then you could weigh posting stronger units on defense
There you go. You just made winning secondary. Flawed!
False. So very false.
Winning is your primary goal since winning awards more championship points than you could ever earn from a full clear loss. It's actually a rational system.
That's the way it should be, but it isn't. Check this out:
Player A: Averaged 1,700 banners every round, lost 4 times: 31,600 banners
Player B: Averaged 1,228 banners every round, went undefeated by using brilliant defense to beat his opponent up and force mistakes: 31,536 banners
Player A has higher ranking losing FOUR TIMES. Even the 1,400 "victory banners" weren't enough. It's like what the hell am I doing trying to beat people over my head in some cases? Calculators are cheap and for the 1,000th time, this set up is irrational. But by all means, let's have another round of "you should be good enough to clear your opponent" as if that is an adequate response of any kind.
Not only being able to pick appropiate counters but also doing so while recovering banners to a full 60 (or even undersizing) and getting feats down in the meantime is rightfully better weighted than putting up a brickwall.
Anyone can just place everything on defense, it requires 0 thinking. Playing for banner efficiency requires more skill though.
This right here.
I will lose my first match in forever because my opponent is more skillful at maximizing banners in a full one shot clear, and they deserve to win.
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
It’s equivalent in size to yours.
Virtually every match I take part in is full clear v full clear. I don’t know if you and GJippo are in lower divisions or not, but in division 1 people playing a defensive game are few and far between.
On the rare occasions I do win without full clearing, I absolutely do not think I should get more points. I didn’t clear all their teams, so I didn’t deserve more points.
I posted a broad hypothetical question that covers the entirety of the game not an I lost-or-won this week and we should change the game
I am in division 2 for the first time this go around and will be 4-1 overall through the total rounds so far. I am also ok with others disagreeing on the concept I just felt it would broaden the options for do I want to go all out on offense or sacrifice to build up on defense
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
No. The AI did the real work on defense, I just set things up. In your analogy, what you propose would be more like the manager demanding all of the waiter's tips because it was the manager who set the restaurant's rules.
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
It’s equivalent in size to yours.
Virtually every match I take part in is full clear v full clear. I don’t know if you and GJippo are in lower divisions or not, but in division 1 people playing a defensive game are few and far between.
On the rare occasions I do win without full clearing, I absolutely do not think I should get more points. I didn’t clear all their teams, so I didn’t deserve more points.
I'm really thinking the "defensive win" people are in lower divisions. So far there are just a bunch of hypothetical scenarios that I can't see happening in a real GAC. If you set too much defense so that you couldn't full clear, but you still won anyway, then it is quite likely that you still would have won with a more balanced defense. The difference is you would have gotten more banners and feats.
Imagine this scenario--it comes down to one last team for each player. Player A knows or figures they have nothing left to beat the last team, and doesn't bother wasting effort. 0 attempts, 0 defends. Player B decides to try their best. They take 9 tries, but actually beat the last team and win the territory. Therefore, they WON the match. However, under the proposed "defensive win" model, player A now gets a bunch of banners for the 8 defends. It makes no sense. B beat all the teams and territories, not A, so why should A win for not trying?
Again, your reward for defends is that the other player loses out on enough banners that it can determine the match, giving you the bonus win banners. This thread really is just turning into a complaint that the ranking of thousands of individuals and matches in a division should be determined by number of wins. But that system would result in a ridiculous amount of ties, making rank meaningless.
If you are winning every single round and somehow missing kyber, you need to rethink your strategy, plain and simple.
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
No. The AI did the real work on defense, I just set things up. In your analogy, what you propose would be more like the manager demanding all of the waiter's tips because it was the manager who set the restaurant's rules.
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
Doesn't include the current match yet but here you go...
So based on your numbers if I gave you even just 10 banners per defensive battle won (457) 4570 banners out of 310k total banners you have would be a 1.47% increase which is marginal but it would make you care slightly more about when your defensive units preform well rather than setting to earn your initial base of banners and not caring whether they defended well or not as long as you won the match
I can’t calculate the number of territories left protected cause these is no info on that but if you awarded 50 banners per protected territory that would be a max of 200 banners if you defended all 4 spaces but realistically would be 50 or 100 banners if you hold a side which again isn’t a game breaker but would be enough to give you a slightly greater endorphin rush when your defense holds
for the division 1 players where it is always clear all and be cleared there will be no change although that argument is exactly the point wouldn’t it be cool if you got a reward for actually holding on defense in a game where you rarely do
It has been interesting to talk these ideas out with everyone reality is none of us get to make these decisions even if we were all in agreement so I guess the status quo will hold going forward
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
No. The AI did the real work on defense, I just set things up. In your analogy, what you propose would be more like the manager demanding all of the waiter's tips because it was the manager who set the restaurant's rules.
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
Doesn't include the current match yet but here you go...
So based on your numbers if I gave you even just 10 banners per defensive battle won (457) 4570 banners out of 310k total banners you have would be a 1.47% increase which is marginal but it would make you care slightly more about when your defensive units preform well rather than setting to earn your initial base of banners and not caring whether they defended well or not as long as you won the match
I can’t calculate the number of territories left protected cause these is no info on that but if you awarded 50 banners per protected territory that would be a max of 200 banners if you defended all 4 spaces but realistically would be 50 or 100 banners if you hold a side which again isn’t a game breaker but would be enough to give you a slightly greater endorphin rush when your defense holds
for the division 1 players where it is always clear all and be cleared there will be no change although that argument is exactly the point wouldn’t it be cool if you got a reward for actually holding on defense in a game where you rarely do
It has been interesting to talk these ideas out with everyone reality is none of us get to make these decisions even if we were all in agreement so I guess the status quo will hold going forward
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
No. The AI did the real work on defense, I just set things up. In your analogy, what you propose would be more like the manager demanding all of the waiter's tips because it was the manager who set the restaurant's rules.
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
Doesn't include the current match yet but here you go...
So based on your numbers if I gave you even just 10 banners per defensive battle won (457) 4570 banners out of 310k total banners you have would be a 1.47% increase which is marginal but it would make you care slightly more about when your defensive units preform well rather than setting to earn your initial base of banners and not caring whether they defended well or not as long as you won the match
I can’t calculate the number of territories left protected cause these is no info on that but if you awarded 50 banners per protected territory that would be a max of 200 banners if you defended all 4 spaces but realistically would be 50 or 100 banners if you hold a side which again isn’t a game breaker but would be enough to give you a slightly greater endorphin rush when your defense holds
for the division 1 players where it is always clear all and be cleared there will be no change although that argument is exactly the point wouldn’t it be cool if you got a reward for actually holding on defense in a game where you rarely do
It has been interesting to talk these ideas out with everyone reality is none of us get to make these decisions even if we were all in agreement so I guess the status quo will hold going forward
Yep.
If I tried to give you $50 when you get paid from your job each month would you take it?
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
No. The AI did the real work on defense, I just set things up. In your analogy, what you propose would be more like the manager demanding all of the waiter's tips because it was the manager who set the restaurant's rules.
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
Doesn't include the current match yet but here you go...
So based on your numbers if I gave you even just 10 banners per defensive battle won (457) 4570 banners out of 310k total banners you have would be a 1.47% increase which is marginal but it would make you care slightly more about when your defensive units preform well rather than setting to earn your initial base of banners and not caring whether they defended well or not as long as you won the match
I can’t calculate the number of territories left protected cause these is no info on that but if you awarded 50 banners per protected territory that would be a max of 200 banners if you defended all 4 spaces but realistically would be 50 or 100 banners if you hold a side which again isn’t a game breaker but would be enough to give you a slightly greater endorphin rush when your defense holds
for the division 1 players where it is always clear all and be cleared there will be no change although that argument is exactly the point wouldn’t it be cool if you got a reward for actually holding on defense in a game where you rarely do
It has been interesting to talk these ideas out with everyone reality is none of us get to make these decisions even if we were all in agreement so I guess the status quo will hold going forward
Yep.
If I tried to give you $50 when you get paid from your job each month would you take it?
If I told you you could earn more by doing your job differently, would you do it?
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
No. The AI did the real work on defense, I just set things up. In your analogy, what you propose would be more like the manager demanding all of the waiter's tips because it was the manager who set the restaurant's rules.
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
Doesn't include the current match yet but here you go...
So based on your numbers if I gave you even just 10 banners per defensive battle won (457) 4570 banners out of 310k total banners you have would be a 1.47% increase which is marginal but it would make you care slightly more about when your defensive units preform well rather than setting to earn your initial base of banners and not caring whether they defended well or not as long as you won the match
I can’t calculate the number of territories left protected cause these is no info on that but if you awarded 50 banners per protected territory that would be a max of 200 banners if you defended all 4 spaces but realistically would be 50 or 100 banners if you hold a side which again isn’t a game breaker but would be enough to give you a slightly greater endorphin rush when your defense holds
for the division 1 players where it is always clear all and be cleared there will be no change although that argument is exactly the point wouldn’t it be cool if you got a reward for actually holding on defense in a game where you rarely do
It has been interesting to talk these ideas out with everyone reality is none of us get to make these decisions even if we were all in agreement so I guess the status quo will hold going forward
Yep.
If I tried to give you $50 when you get paid from your job each month would you take it?
I would look at your suspiciously and want to know who you are, why you are giving me money and what exactly you expect in return.
But that is of no relevance to this discussion other than to clearly illustrate once again that you do not understand my viewpoint or motivation.
I just feel like if the ultimate goal is to make it to Kyber Level you obviously want to win the match but you would want to lean heavier on offense since that rewards more for you in banners but if you also won banners for holding territory then you could weigh posting stronger units on defense
There you go. You just made winning secondary. Flawed!
False. So very false.
Winning is your primary goal since winning awards more championship points than you could ever earn from a full clear loss. It's actually a rational system.
That's the way it should be, but it isn't. Check this out:
Player A: Averaged 1,700 banners every round, lost 4 times: 31,600 banners
Player B: Averaged 1,228 banners every round, went undefeated by using brilliant defense to beat his opponent up and force mistakes: 31,536 banners
Player A has higher ranking losing FOUR TIMES. Even the 1,400 "victory banners" weren't enough. It's like what the hell am I doing trying to beat people over my head in some cases? Calculators are cheap and for the 1,000th time, this set up is irrational. But by all means, let's have another round of "you should be good enough to clear your opponent" as if that is an adequate response of any kind.
Not only being able to pick appropiate counters but also doing so while recovering banners to a full 60 (or even undersizing) and getting feats down in the meantime is rightfully better weighted than putting up a brickwall.
Anyone can just place everything on defense, it requires 0 thinking. Playing for banner efficiency requires more skill though.
So you aren't accounting for strength of schedule again. You are essentially saying the spoils should go to player who not played the best and smartest no matter who they drew (competition) but rather through luck of draw where they get bloated GP opponents who arent good. Do you think every other competitive structure prioritizes winning because they are just trafficking in wrong think? I mean you just defended a scenario where somone who lost 4 times (thats a D grade) ranked higher than an undefeated. Thats scenario is absurd.
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
It’s equivalent in size to yours.
Virtually every match I take part in is full clear v full clear. I don’t know if you and GJippo are in lower divisions or not, but in division 1 people playing a defensive game are few and far between.
On the rare occasions I do win without full clearing, I absolutely do not think I should get more points. I didn’t clear all their teams, so I didn’t deserve more points.
I'm really thinking the "defensive win" people are in lower divisions. So far there are just a bunch of hypothetical scenarios that I can't see happening in a real GAC. If you set too much defense so that you couldn't full clear, but you still won anyway, then it is quite likely that you still would have won with a more balanced defense. The difference is you would have gotten more banners and feats.
Imagine this scenario--it comes down to one last team for each player. Player A knows or figures they have nothing left to beat the last team, and doesn't bother wasting effort. 0 attempts, 0 defends. Player B decides to try their best. They take 9 tries, but actually beat the last team and win the territory. Therefore, they WON the match. However, under the proposed "defensive win" model, player A now gets a bunch of banners for the 8 defends. It makes no sense. B beat all the teams and territories, not A, so why should A win for not trying?
Again, your reward for defends is that the other player loses out on enough banners that it can determine the match, giving you the bonus win banners. This thread really is just turning into a complaint that the ranking of thousands of individuals and matches in a division should be determined by number of wins. But that system would result in a ridiculous amount of ties, making rank meaningless.
If you are winning every single round and somehow missing kyber, you need to rethink your strategy, plain and simple.
It doesn't matter "what kind of win". Winning matters no matter "how" is the fundamental. The idea of some kind of defensive reward isn't for any other reason than to correct the flaw that allows a 4 time loser to get higher rank than an undefeated. Is Div 3 a "lower division"? What are you considering "lower division" and why would 4 time loser ranking higher than undefeated be okay in any division? Basically winning doesn't matter. Why is strategic competence punished? So that strategic apathy can be rewarded? And feats? That messes things up too. Because nonody ranked top 10 will win a ships without calling reinforcement they field crap ships to get busted back down to 50 or 60. More losing on purpose! 👎
So if I offered you more banners for your stronger defense rather than what you had would you take it? And supposing that your GG squad was the missing piece to accessing the second tier squad area and you won with 1500 points rather than 2100 would you want a reward for you defensive units? This logic is like a waiter saying no thanks I don’t need a tip I already get paid hourly for my work
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
It’s equivalent in size to yours.
Virtually every match I take part in is full clear v full clear. I don’t know if you and GJippo are in lower divisions or not, but in division 1 people playing a defensive game are few and far between.
On the rare occasions I do win without full clearing, I absolutely do not think I should get more points. I didn’t clear all their teams, so I didn’t deserve more points.
I'm really thinking the "defensive win" people are in lower divisions. So far there are just a bunch of hypothetical scenarios that I can't see happening in a real GAC. If you set too much defense so that you couldn't full clear, but you still won anyway, then it is quite likely that you still would have won with a more balanced defense. The difference is you would have gotten more banners and feats.
Imagine this scenario--it comes down to one last team for each player. Player A knows or figures they have nothing left to beat the last team, and doesn't bother wasting effort. 0 attempts, 0 defends. Player B decides to try their best. They take 9 tries, but actually beat the last team and win the territory. Therefore, they WON the match. However, under the proposed "defensive win" model, player A now gets a bunch of banners for the 8 defends. It makes no sense. B beat all the teams and territories, not A, so why should A win for not trying?
Again, your reward for defends is that the other player loses out on enough banners that it can determine the match, giving you the bonus win banners. This thread really is just turning into a complaint that the ranking of thousands of individuals and matches in a division should be determined by number of wins. But that system would result in a ridiculous amount of ties, making rank meaningless.
If you are winning every single round and somehow missing kyber, you need to rethink your strategy, plain and simple.
It doesn't matter "what kind of win". Winning matters no matter "how" is the fundamental. The idea of some kind of defensive reward isn't for any other reason than to correct the flaw that allows a 4 time loser to get higher rank than an undefeated. Is Div 3 a "lower division"? What are you considering "lower division" and why would 4 time loser ranking higher than undefeated be okay in any division? Basically winning doesn't matter. Why is strategic competence punished? So that strategic apathy can be rewarded? And feats? That messes things up too. Because nonody ranked top 10 will win a ships without calling reinforcement they field crap ships to get busted back down to 50 or 60. More losing on purpose! 👎
Wrong on ships with no reinforcement. I frequently win battles without reinforcements. And again, the question remains: if you’re so strategically competent, how are people who lose 4 times finishing above you?
As mentioned above, this is now a pointless argument. You are scratching out low banner wins and want the system to be revised in your favour.
It’s not going to be. Adapt to improve, or learn to let go.
I just feel like if the ultimate goal is to make it to Kyber Level you obviously want to win the match but you would want to lean heavier on offense since that rewards more for you in banners but if you also won banners for holding territory then you could weigh posting stronger units on defense
There you go. You just made winning secondary. Flawed!
False. So very false.
Winning is your primary goal since winning awards more championship points than you could ever earn from a full clear loss. It's actually a rational system.
That's the way it should be, but it isn't. Check this out:
Player A: Averaged 1,700 banners every round, lost 4 times: 31,600 banners
Player B: Averaged 1,228 banners every round, went undefeated by using brilliant defense to beat his opponent up and force mistakes: 31,536 banners
Player A has higher ranking losing FOUR TIMES. Even the 1,400 "victory banners" weren't enough. It's like what the hell am I doing trying to beat people over my head in some cases? Calculators are cheap and for the 1,000th time, this set up is irrational. But by all means, let's have another round of "you should be good enough to clear your opponent" as if that is an adequate response of any kind.
Not only being able to pick appropiate counters but also doing so while recovering banners to a full 60 (or even undersizing) and getting feats down in the meantime is rightfully better weighted than putting up a brickwall.
Anyone can just place everything on defense, it requires 0 thinking. Playing for banner efficiency requires more skill though.
So you aren't accounting for strength of schedule again. You are essentially saying the spoils should go to player who not played the best and smartest no matter who they drew (competition) but rather through luck of draw where they get bloated GP opponents who arent good.
Optimising banners, knowing when to risk an undersized attempt and utilizing teams that can recover banners is arguably the smartest way to play this championship. That's why there are feats, that's why banner count is broken down to more details in GAC. It's not TW, if you want to get the best ranking possible, you can't play it like TW.
As for the second part of your argument, getting defensive holds is at least equally dependent on getting "bloated GP opponents who aren't that good", if not more. Would you mind explaining how defensive banners would make it a more fair competition?
If I tried to give you $50 when you get paid from your job each month would you take it?
I would look at your suspiciously and want to know who you are, why you are giving me money and what exactly you expect in return.
But that is of no relevance to this discussion other than to clearly illustrate once again that you do not understand my viewpoint or motivation.
It is of relevance in terms of finding out about the person I am discussing the issues with. I offer you more money with no other strings attached and you are suspicious and hesitant to take something of value. It is fine that we disagree but at a fundamental level you are fearful to get more for free and wish to maintain things as they are which is why you are quick and short in your responses to dismiss any notion that things could be better or changed to be of greater benefit to the players in this game.
Merry Christmas to you and a happy new year!
(No strings attached)
If I tried to give you $50 when you get paid from your job each month would you take it?
I would look at your suspiciously and want to know who you are, why you are giving me money and what exactly you expect in return.
But that is of no relevance to this discussion other than to clearly illustrate once again that you do not understand my viewpoint or motivation.
It is of relevance in terms of finding out about the person I am discussing the issues with. I offer you more money with no other strings attached and you are suspicious and hesitant to take something of value. It is fine that we disagree but at a fundamental level you are fearful to get more for free and wish to maintain things as they are which is why you are quick and short in your responses to dismiss any notion that things could be better or changed to be of greater benefit to the players in this game.
Merry Christmas to you and a happy new year!
(No strings attached)
“Greater benefit to the players” is not what’s going on here though. “Greater benefit to me” is more accurate.
And analogies are usually futile - this case being no exception.
“Greater benefit to the players” is not what’s going on here though. “Greater benefit to me” is more accurate.
And analogies are usually futile - this case being no exception.
Probably not as great of a benefit to me I have 179 total successful defenses so it’s not like I am currently trying to crush it on Defense just do enough to get by but every player wins on defense occasionally and they get no reward for that win thus it benefits everyone no just a greater benefit to me.
Replies
That's the way it should be, but it isn't. Check this out:
Player A: Averaged 1,700 banners every round, lost 4 times: 31,600 banners
Player B: Averaged 1,228 banners every round, went undefeated by using brilliant defense to beat his opponent up and force mistakes: 31,536 banners
Player A has higher ranking losing FOUR TIMES. Even the 1,400 "victory banners" weren't enough. It's like what the hell am I doing trying to beat people over my head in some cases? Calculators are cheap and for the 1,000th time, this set up is irrational. But by all means, let's have another round of "you should be good enough to clear your opponent" as if that is an adequate response of any kind.
Make it to where if you lose, you lose 14k points. That essentially sends all losers into their own brackets by amount of losses and record will always reign supreme.
There, problem solved.
Anyone can just place everything on defense, it requires 0 thinking. Playing for banner efficiency requires more skill though.
You’re one of a minority who thinks there’s a problem to be solved.
You’re one of a minority who think someone winning all 12 matches with low banner count deserves to rank above anyone and everyone who had even 1 defeat in their 12 matches.
You are definitely in a minority who wants to promote a system that rewards stale, boring matches where half the board is left uncleared because neither player has the firepower to deal with it.
The majority - and crucially the game developers - think that collecting offence banners should be the ranking measure. You don’t agree - we get that - but it’s probably time to dance to their tune.
Your logic is flawed. So very flawed.
A win always awards more championship points than a loss. Winning is your primary goal. Winning is not secondary like you wrongfully claim.
Player B of you example should consider a different strategy if they want to rank higher on the leaderboard since players are ranked by championship score - not number of wins.
Be rational.
or
win every match and make Kyber level 50%of the time?
I like it the way it is, thanks.
This right here.
I will lose my first match in forever because my opponent is more skillful at maximizing banners in a full one shot clear, and they deserve to win.
I also appreciate the strong sample size of research you brought to the table.
Virtually every match I take part in is full clear v full clear. I don’t know if you and GJippo are in lower divisions or not, but in division 1 people playing a defensive game are few and far between.
On the rare occasions I do win without full clearing, I absolutely do not think I should get more points. I didn’t clear all their teams, so I didn’t deserve more points.
I am in division 2 for the first time this go around and will be 4-1 overall through the total rounds so far. I am also ok with others disagreeing on the concept I just felt it would broaden the options for do I want to go all out on offense or sacrifice to build up on defense
Doesn't include the current match yet but here you go...
I'm really thinking the "defensive win" people are in lower divisions. So far there are just a bunch of hypothetical scenarios that I can't see happening in a real GAC. If you set too much defense so that you couldn't full clear, but you still won anyway, then it is quite likely that you still would have won with a more balanced defense. The difference is you would have gotten more banners and feats.
Imagine this scenario--it comes down to one last team for each player. Player A knows or figures they have nothing left to beat the last team, and doesn't bother wasting effort. 0 attempts, 0 defends. Player B decides to try their best. They take 9 tries, but actually beat the last team and win the territory. Therefore, they WON the match. However, under the proposed "defensive win" model, player A now gets a bunch of banners for the 8 defends. It makes no sense. B beat all the teams and territories, not A, so why should A win for not trying?
Again, your reward for defends is that the other player loses out on enough banners that it can determine the match, giving you the bonus win banners. This thread really is just turning into a complaint that the ranking of thousands of individuals and matches in a division should be determined by number of wins. But that system would result in a ridiculous amount of ties, making rank meaningless.
If you are winning every single round and somehow missing kyber, you need to rethink your strategy, plain and simple.
In Div1, the only defence I could set that would stop any opponent full clearing me would leave me with no chance of full clearing them.
That’s not strategy.
So based on your numbers if I gave you even just 10 banners per defensive battle won (457) 4570 banners out of 310k total banners you have would be a 1.47% increase which is marginal but it would make you care slightly more about when your defensive units preform well rather than setting to earn your initial base of banners and not caring whether they defended well or not as long as you won the match
I can’t calculate the number of territories left protected cause these is no info on that but if you awarded 50 banners per protected territory that would be a max of 200 banners if you defended all 4 spaces but realistically would be 50 or 100 banners if you hold a side which again isn’t a game breaker but would be enough to give you a slightly greater endorphin rush when your defense holds
for the division 1 players where it is always clear all and be cleared there will be no change although that argument is exactly the point wouldn’t it be cool if you got a reward for actually holding on defense in a game where you rarely do
It has been interesting to talk these ideas out with everyone reality is none of us get to make these decisions even if we were all in agreement so I guess the status quo will hold going forward
Nope.
Nope.
Yep.
If I tried to give you $50 when you get paid from your job each month would you take it?
But that is of no relevance to this discussion other than to clearly illustrate once again that you do not understand my viewpoint or motivation.
So you aren't accounting for strength of schedule again. You are essentially saying the spoils should go to player who not played the best and smartest no matter who they drew (competition) but rather through luck of draw where they get bloated GP opponents who arent good. Do you think every other competitive structure prioritizes winning because they are just trafficking in wrong think? I mean you just defended a scenario where somone who lost 4 times (thats a D grade) ranked higher than an undefeated. Thats scenario is absurd.
It doesn't matter "what kind of win". Winning matters no matter "how" is the fundamental. The idea of some kind of defensive reward isn't for any other reason than to correct the flaw that allows a 4 time loser to get higher rank than an undefeated. Is Div 3 a "lower division"? What are you considering "lower division" and why would 4 time loser ranking higher than undefeated be okay in any division? Basically winning doesn't matter. Why is strategic competence punished? So that strategic apathy can be rewarded? And feats? That messes things up too. Because nonody ranked top 10 will win a ships without calling reinforcement they field crap ships to get busted back down to 50 or 60. More losing on purpose! 👎
As mentioned above, this is now a pointless argument. You are scratching out low banner wins and want the system to be revised in your favour.
It’s not going to be. Adapt to improve, or learn to let go.
As for the second part of your argument, getting defensive holds is at least equally dependent on getting "bloated GP opponents who aren't that good", if not more. Would you mind explaining how defensive banners would make it a more fair competition?
It is of relevance in terms of finding out about the person I am discussing the issues with. I offer you more money with no other strings attached and you are suspicious and hesitant to take something of value. It is fine that we disagree but at a fundamental level you are fearful to get more for free and wish to maintain things as they are which is why you are quick and short in your responses to dismiss any notion that things could be better or changed to be of greater benefit to the players in this game.
Merry Christmas to you and a happy new year!
(No strings attached)
And analogies are usually futile - this case being no exception.
Probably not as great of a benefit to me I have 179 total successful defenses so it’s not like I am currently trying to crush it on Defense just do enough to get by but every player wins on defense occasionally and they get no reward for that win thus it benefits everyone no just a greater benefit to me.