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.
.
“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.
What? You get a BIG chunk of banners for a win.
A solid full clear score for 5v5 + fleet in division 1 is a little over 2,100 banners.
A win, regardless of how much you achieve it, earns you an additional 1,600 banners.
To both Rath and DS...Are we talking about the same thing? To be clear I am talking about if your 5 person squad you set on defense (that you already gets 90 banners for) wins an individual battle after the opposing player attacks that squad you would receive 10 banners for the “defensive battle win”. So if you cleared the opponent and earned 2100 banners and won you received the additional 1600 banners if your defensive squads won 4 battles you would earn 2140 banners from setting, fighting and defending (my suggested addition) plus the 1600 banners for winning so it might amount to 3740 total banners for that round rather that what you earn now which would be 3700 banners
Ex on the photo my clones won 2 battles before losing that would get me 20 banners
To both Rath and DS...Are we talking about the same thing? To be clear I am talking about if your 5 person squad you set on defense (that you already gets 90 banners for) wins an individual battle after the opposing player attacks that squad you would receive 10 banners for the “defensive battle win”. So if you cleared the opponent and earned 2100 banners and won you received the additional 1600 banners if your defensive squads won 4 battles you would earn 2140 banners from setting, fighting and defending (my suggested addition) plus the 1600 banners for winning so it might amount to 3740 total banners for that round rather that what you earn now which would be 3700 banners
Ex on the photo my clones won 2 battles before losing that would get me 20 banners
But your opponent lost 30 banners, and that might help you win. I just don't see a reason for you to need the extra banners.
It is just that my opponent losing banners doesn’t help me reach Kyber level beyond winning the match which was the point of the whole discussion
If my defense wins why can’t we earn banners for that just like we earn banners for winning on offense
Here's a hypothetical scenario then. Guildmates/shard mates, friends or soemtimes even strangers agree to set an easy defense to help one of them that has a better ranking jump up the leaderboard.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
It is just that my opponent losing banners doesn’t help me reach Kyber level beyond winning the match which was the point of the whole discussion
If my defense wins why can’t we earn banners for that just like we earn banners for winning on offense
1) because it can be exploited, as described more than once
2) because it already rewards you by depriving your opponent of a better score
And crucially for me...
3) it changes the dynamic of the whole game mode.
At present it is always in your best interest to attack.
- Opponent wiped you with a superb score? Might as well get a good banner count in defeat.
- Opponent has a tricky team left that you’re not sure you can beat? No harm in trying.
But your proposal changes all of that. Here’s one for you:
- You and opponent appear to have stalled with one team left, but you have a slender lead. Under your proposal, you are actively discouraged from attempting to beat their team in case you fail and put them back in front.
The whole game, and GAC in particular, is about action. To get something you have to do something. I can’t get behind a system that in certain circumstances would punish action and reward doing nothing.
If people who win lots of their matches but can’t full clear want that situation to change, they need to do something about it. And I don’t mean requesting a change that would make a game mode that focuses on attack becoming a game of wait-and-see chess.
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.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
I can see your points on it, I have had times where it took me several tries to beat an opponents squad which would be discouraged and I guess I never realized collusion was as big of an issue as you feel it is.
To the Overlords who are intently watching this discussion waiting to see if they need to drastically alter the game based on my idea....I officially withdraw my idea!!
It was a fun debate thanks to all who participated and merry Christmas!
Also I happened to take a 1st this round so I guess based on that small sample size the game is fine
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
Lol who cares? 😂 yep, great response
What’s wrong with it as a response?
He keeps comparing this game mode to things that are not comparable. They are meaningless comparisons of no relevance.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
Lol who cares? 😂 yep, great response
What’s wrong with it as a response?
He keeps comparing this game mode to things that are not comparable. They are meaningless comparisons of no relevance.
Yes comparing our tournament to other tournaments around the world is definitely not comparable lol. If you can't compare it to other tournaments then what can you compare it to...... As for the "who cares" obviously GIJippo cares so it is definitely not a correct response.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
Lol who cares? 😂 yep, great response
What’s wrong with it as a response?
He keeps comparing this game mode to things that are not comparable. They are meaningless comparisons of no relevance.
Yes comparing our tournament to other tournaments around the world is definitely not comparable lol. Good one
Thanks - I thought it was a good one.
Anyway, this thread and entire argument is pointless. The GAC is scored the way it is scored and that’s not going to change, no matter how similar people pressing their phone whilst sitting on the toilet is to professional basketball.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
Lol who cares? 😂 yep, great response
What’s wrong with it as a response?
He keeps comparing this game mode to things that are not comparable. They are meaningless comparisons of no relevance.
Yes comparing our tournament to other tournaments around the world is definitely not comparable lol. If you can't compare it to other tournaments then what can you compare it to...... As for the "who cares" obviously GIJippo cares so it is definitely not a correct response.
If that comparison is going to be made, shouldn't it be made at a minimum, with events that use the same tournament style?
otherwise it does lost a fair amount of values in a comparison.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind?
I could ask the same question since you ignore all arguments presented to you and just keep on repeating that same one, very rare scenario.
Even in your example, the one that lost 4 matches won more total battles if they made it to kyber while the one with a winning streak of 12 (but no full clears) did not. The very least they put in more effort, which is rewarded. As pointed out above on several occasions, rewarding banners for defense gives an incentive to not even attack when it's a risky fight at a 1-2 team stale mate and the loss would just feed more banners to your opponent. Surely you can see how action is rewarded over inaction.
To the Overlords who are intently watching this discussion waiting to see if they need to drastically alter the game based on my idea....I officially withdraw my idea!!
Someone on this forum being swayed by other commentors and withdrawing their idea? That's got to be some kind of Christmas Miracle.
Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
Poker. It's not about the numbers of hands you win, only about total points.
Back to the point, I don't understand how what you're saying is possible though. Maybe it's a balancing point issue in lower than D2/D1 divisions.
To illustrate: this GAC, I score 830 for setting defense, and a 1600 points bonus for winning, total 2430 points. Let's say I win only 1 battle, hardly, for an extra 20 pts, when my opponent can't penetrate my brick wall at all. That's 2450 points total. My biggest score this round (not counting victory bonus) was 2127 pts with 9 battles for 9 wins (some less than 60pts, some undersizing). No way I'll be able to score more than 2450 pts losing a match.
About feats: GAC is supposed to be a fun game mode where you have an incensitive to use your roster to the extent. Feats allow 2 things: 1) it provides a change of pace, making you step away from your usual teams. 2) if you have a broad roster you'll get more "thematics" feats points (battle with 3 droids and watnot)..
Rules as written reward offensive type of play, as it is in a lot of other sports. For a lot of players (I guess), this is more fun this way. Yes, on the whole, it's probably a better strategy to put yourself in a position that allows you to clear the battlefield everytime because you'll score more points this way, However, it's your call, as you'll score more points with a defense heavy strategy+win than with an offense heavy strategy+defeat.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated.
If the four time loser still scored more championship points than the undefeated player then yes, he can. And that's perfectly rational and fine. You are ranked by championship score - not wins/losses.
This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear.
Your logic is severely flawed. A win always rewards more championship score than a full clear loss. Always. You've been told this several times now. The math is really simple. If you still don't understand you should try have a friend or a parent explain it to you.
There's plenty incentive to win - and no incentive whatsoever to lose on purpose if your goal is to rank high on leaderboards.
It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
European soccer. 4 ties reward more points than a win and 3 losses. There are other systems than your beloved NFL system.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
Oh wow "who cares that's how it is". I CARE, which is why I'm posting about it. And you should care too because no game mode should incentivize losing on purpose. There is nothing rational about that and unless you can demonstrate how it is then save your slogans. They carry no utility in the debate and are boring.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated.
If the four time loser still scored more championship points than the undefeated player then yes, he can. And that's perfectly rational and fine. You are ranked by championship score - not wins/losses.
This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear.
Your logic is severely flawed. A win always rewards more championship score than a full clear loss. Always. You've been told this several times now. The math is really simple. If you still don't understand you should try have a friend or a parent explain it to you.
There's plenty incentive to win - and no incentive whatsoever to lose on purpose if your goal is to rank high on leaderboards.
It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
European soccer. 4 ties reward more points than a win and 3 losses. There are other systems than your beloved NFL system.
I already provided the math that proves a FOUR TIME LOSER outranks an undefeated in a simple scenario. Not sure why you're still defending it. What is your obsession with "NFL"? Why do you keep going to that as if it's some kind of relevant rebuttal? NO SYSTEM does this. Just pick one and I'll show you where someone who lost four times in a system where there are head 2 head match-ups WILL NEVER BE A CHAMPION unless the next best was 5 losses. And you know it's dumb but for whatever reason you feel compelled to argue in FAVOR of a system where losing on purpose is incentivized. Do you have any kind of reasoning losing on purpose should be incentivized? Because it is. I already demonstrated using math. Mentioning the NFL again isn't any kind of answer, just FYI.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated.
If the four time loser still scored more championship points than the undefeated player then yes, he can. And that's perfectly rational and fine. You are ranked by championship score - not wins/losses.
This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear.
Your logic is severely flawed. A win always rewards more championship score than a full clear loss. Always. You've been told this several times now. The math is really simple. If you still don't understand you should try have a friend or a parent explain it to you.
There's plenty incentive to win - and no incentive whatsoever to lose on purpose if your goal is to rank high on leaderboards.
It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
European soccer. 4 ties reward more points than a win and 3 losses. There are other systems than your beloved NFL system.
I already provided the math that proves a FOUR TIME LOSER outranks an undefeated in a simple scenario. Not sure why you're still defending it. What is your obsession with "NFL"? Why do you keep going to that as if it's some kind of relevant rebuttal? NO SYSTEM does this. Just pick one and I'll show you where someone who lost four times in a system where there are head 2 head match-ups WILL NEVER BE A CHAMPION unless the next best was 5 losses. And you know it's dumb but for whatever reason you feel compelled to argue in FAVOR of a system where losing on purpose is incentivized. Do you have any kind of reasoning losing on purpose should be incentivized? Because it is. I already demonstrated using math. Mentioning the NFL again isn't any kind of answer, just FYI.
Maybe you didn't see my reply. What you're saying (more points if you lose a match than if you win) is impossible in D2/D1. Here is my math again:
To illustrate: this GAC, I score 830 for setting defense, and a 1600 points bonus for winning, total 2430 points. Let's say I win only 1 battle, hardly, for an extra 20 pts, while my opponent can't penetrate my brick wall at all. That's 2450 points total. My biggest score this round (not counting victory bonus) was 2127 pts with 9 battles for 9 wins (some less than 60pts, some undersizing). No way I'll be able to score more than 2450 pts losing a match (without scoring an extra 1600 pts).
Could you please show your math again ? I don't understand.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur. Can you demonstrate where else anyone else set something up like this?
Who cares? This is swgoh, not NFL, Tennis or the Royal Rumble.
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
People who lose 4 times but still make Kyber are absolutely not losing on purpose, I can assure you of that.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
Oh wow "who cares that's how it is". I CARE, which is why I'm posting about it. And you should care too because no game mode should incentivize losing on purpose. There is nothing rational about that and unless you can demonstrate how it is then save your slogans. They carry no utility in the debate and are boring.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated.
If the four time loser still scored more championship points than the undefeated player then yes, he can. And that's perfectly rational and fine. You are ranked by championship score - not wins/losses.
This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear.
Your logic is severely flawed. A win always rewards more championship score than a full clear loss. Always. You've been told this several times now. The math is really simple. If you still don't understand you should try have a friend or a parent explain it to you.
There's plenty incentive to win - and no incentive whatsoever to lose on purpose if your goal is to rank high on leaderboards.
It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
European soccer. 4 ties reward more points than a win and 3 losses. There are other systems than your beloved NFL system.
I already provided the math that proves a FOUR TIME LOSER outranks an undefeated in a simple scenario. Not sure why you're still defending it. What is your obsession with "NFL"? Why do you keep going to that as if it's some kind of relevant rebuttal? NO SYSTEM does this. Just pick one and I'll show you where someone who lost four times in a system where there are head 2 head match-ups WILL NEVER BE A CHAMPION unless the next best was 5 losses. And you know it's dumb but for whatever reason you feel compelled to argue in FAVOR of a system where losing on purpose is incentivized. Do you have any kind of reasoning losing on purpose should be incentivized? Because it is. I already demonstrated using math. Mentioning the NFL again isn't any kind of answer, just FYI.
I still don't see where you think people are being incentivized to lose or are losing on purpose. You are rewarded for winning. No one starts the championship thinking that since they are allowed four losses they should just lose to get the full clear. Everyone is trying to win. You idea that people are losing on purpose only works if it's the very last matchup and they are close to kyber. But if they can make kyber by setting weak defense, they are within 1200-1300 points at most. A win is 1600. So if dumping everything on defense was as sure fire a way to win as you suggest, they could do that too. But most people in Div 1 would probably still set a balanced defense, hoping for either a win or a full clear. Do you know what the people who don't care about losing do? They set NO defense and let it auto set, then they don't attack AT ALL and claim their last place rewards. They are certainly not making Kyber.
In any case, there are plenty of times when win-loss record is not as important as how well you won or who you won against. Imagine someone taking a test who gets all answers correct vs. someone who got a few wrong. Is the person who got all correct smarter than the person who got some wrong if they had been taking a much easier test? There are SO, SO, many variables in GAC wins/losses. One is obviously matchups. Another is plain rng. If you attack a team with something that is a reasonably consistent counter, except you hit that 15% base resist chance or 2% dodge chance one too many times at crucial moments, things can suddenly go south for you. You lose the 20 first-time banners and if this causes you to lose by 1, you don't think that person deserves to have their total offensive banners count for anything?
You have provided arithmetic with numbers you conjured out of a hat to show how someone could go undefeated with fewer banners than someone who lost a few rounds. However, you have not demonstrated that it's a plausible or frequent scenario, nor have you proven that oversetting defense is a more reliable route to victory than setting a balanced defense which both earns you more banners and hinders your opponent's ability to do so.
If number of wins was the only ranking factor, there would just be 13 ranks: 0-12. That means a lot of ties for the top ranks. While I would be ok with that, CG doesn't seem to be.
You may be hung up on the "champions" at the head of the leaderboards sometimes have worse rosters than those who rank 5,000th. My advice in that case is to let it go. Like I said, there are so many variables involved there, including rng. I presume that they are likely undefeated, however. Just try not to see it as any indication that they are "better" than anyone else on the board. They may in fact be a great strategist, but they also still basically won the lottery.
My thinking is that either you don't really understand good team placement strategy as well as you think you do, you have a top-heavy roster in a lower division, or you're just a saddist who likes watching your opponents smash themselves against your wall more than you enjoy earning victories on your own.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated.
If the four time loser still scored more championship points than the undefeated player then yes, he can. And that's perfectly rational and fine. You are ranked by championship score - not wins/losses.
This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear.
Your logic is severely flawed. A win always rewards more championship score than a full clear loss. Always. You've been told this several times now. The math is really simple. If you still don't understand you should try have a friend or a parent explain it to you.
There's plenty incentive to win - and no incentive whatsoever to lose on purpose if your goal is to rank high on leaderboards.
It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
European soccer. 4 ties reward more points than a win and 3 losses. There are other systems than your beloved NFL system.
I already provided the math that proves a FOUR TIME LOSER outranks an undefeated in a simple scenario.
You're ranked by championship score - not wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
Not sure why you're still defending it. What is your obsession with "NFL"? Why do you keep going to that as if it's some kind of relevant rebuttal? NO SYSTEM does this.
You're wrong. You've been given examples. Yet you still post your false claim.
Just pick one and I'll show you where someone who lost four times in a system where there are head 2 head match-ups WILL NEVER BE A CHAMPION unless the next best was 5 losses.
In soccer an undefeated team can rank lower than a team with losses. You've been told already. Repeating your false claim is quite frankly silly.
Each and every Kyber Champion in GAC were undefeated.
And you know it's dumb but for whatever reason you feel compelled to argue in FAVOR of a system where losing on purpose is incentivized.
Again:
More false claims. You've already been told that there is absolutely no incentive to lose on purpose. A win will always reward more points than a loss. Do the math. It's simple math.
You're not helping anyone by repeating your false claims over and over.
Replies
Edit: fixed your quote mishap.
A solid full clear score for 5v5 + fleet in division 1 is a little over 2,100 banners.
A win, regardless of how much you achieve it, earns you an additional 1,600 banners.
Ex on the photo my clones won 2 battles before losing that would get me 20 banners
But your opponent lost 30 banners, and that might help you win. I just don't see a reason for you to need the extra banners.
If my defense wins why can’t we earn banners for that just like we earn banners for winning on offense
Now imagine it's the final round, someone is floating at rank 200 or so and coincidentally matches a friend willing to collude, who already made kyber but has no chance for a better ranking. Let's say they won't only set an easy defense (that normally gives you an extra 20-30 banners compared to an efficient full clear) but the other one intentionally drops a battle or two against every team (since there is no stake for them), making the player at rank 200 instantly go to top 10.
Scoring can already be exploited to some degree as it is, no need for another way to collude for better ranks.
2) because it already rewards you by depriving your opponent of a better score
And crucially for me...
3) it changes the dynamic of the whole game mode.
At present it is always in your best interest to attack.
- Opponent wiped you with a superb score? Might as well get a good banner count in defeat.
- Opponent has a tricky team left that you’re not sure you can beat? No harm in trying.
But your proposal changes all of that. Here’s one for you:
- You and opponent appear to have stalled with one team left, but you have a slender lead. Under your proposal, you are actively discouraged from attempting to beat their team in case you fail and put them back in front.
The whole game, and GAC in particular, is about action. To get something you have to do something. I can’t get behind a system that in certain circumstances would punish action and reward doing nothing.
If people who win lots of their matches but can’t full clear want that situation to change, they need to do something about it. And I don’t mean requesting a change that would make a game mode that focuses on attack becoming a game of wait-and-see chess.
The leader boards rank you by championship score - not by wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
To the Overlords who are intently watching this discussion waiting to see if they need to drastically alter the game based on my idea....I officially withdraw my idea!!
It was a fun debate thanks to all who participated and merry Christmas!
Also I happened to take a 1st this round so I guess based on that small sample size the game is fine
Yes that's how it is done. And it is not "rational and fine" I have demonstrated very clearly why that is. Someone who lost 4 times can rank higher than someone who went undefeated. This creates an incentive to lose on purpose so long as you get the clear. It creates a poor quality competitive environment. This is why you don't see anything else set up this way. Nobody crowns a champion based on points scored where head to head games/matches also occur unless its some sort of tie breaker. Can you demonstrate where else we see something set up like this?
This scenario already exists but in the opposite direction. People can collude to set all the best squads on defense to prevent an opponent from full clear and thus ranking up. It is an incontrovertible fact that the incentive to lose on purpose EXISTS NOW. Are you being willfully blind? The fact someone can lose FOUR TIMES but still rank ahead of someone undefeated substantiates this fact empirically.
As has been said many times - but not acknowledged by you - anybody who is winning all 12 battles but ranking below someone who loses 4 really needs to look at their own strategy.
Lol who cares? 😂 yep, great response
He keeps comparing this game mode to things that are not comparable. They are meaningless comparisons of no relevance.
Yes comparing our tournament to other tournaments around the world is definitely not comparable lol. If you can't compare it to other tournaments then what can you compare it to...... As for the "who cares" obviously GIJippo cares so it is definitely not a correct response.
Anyway, this thread and entire argument is pointless. The GAC is scored the way it is scored and that’s not going to change, no matter how similar people pressing their phone whilst sitting on the toilet is to professional basketball.
If that comparison is going to be made, shouldn't it be made at a minimum, with events that use the same tournament style?
otherwise it does lost a fair amount of values in a comparison.
Even in your example, the one that lost 4 matches won more total battles if they made it to kyber while the one with a winning streak of 12 (but no full clears) did not. The very least they put in more effort, which is rewarded. As pointed out above on several occasions, rewarding banners for defense gives an incentive to not even attack when it's a risky fight at a 1-2 team stale mate and the loss would just feed more banners to your opponent. Surely you can see how action is rewarded over inaction.
Someone on this forum being swayed by other commentors and withdrawing their idea? That's got to be some kind of Christmas Miracle.
Poker. It's not about the numbers of hands you win, only about total points.
Back to the point, I don't understand how what you're saying is possible though. Maybe it's a balancing point issue in lower than D2/D1 divisions.
To illustrate: this GAC, I score 830 for setting defense, and a 1600 points bonus for winning, total 2430 points. Let's say I win only 1 battle, hardly, for an extra 20 pts, when my opponent can't penetrate my brick wall at all. That's 2450 points total. My biggest score this round (not counting victory bonus) was 2127 pts with 9 battles for 9 wins (some less than 60pts, some undersizing). No way I'll be able to score more than 2450 pts losing a match.
About feats: GAC is supposed to be a fun game mode where you have an incensitive to use your roster to the extent. Feats allow 2 things: 1) it provides a change of pace, making you step away from your usual teams. 2) if you have a broad roster you'll get more "thematics" feats points (battle with 3 droids and watnot)..
Rules as written reward offensive type of play, as it is in a lot of other sports. For a lot of players (I guess), this is more fun this way. Yes, on the whole, it's probably a better strategy to put yourself in a position that allows you to clear the battlefield everytime because you'll score more points this way, However, it's your call, as you'll score more points with a defense heavy strategy+win than with an offense heavy strategy+defeat.
If the four time loser still scored more championship points than the undefeated player then yes, he can. And that's perfectly rational and fine. You are ranked by championship score - not wins/losses.
Your logic is severely flawed. A win always rewards more championship score than a full clear loss. Always. You've been told this several times now. The math is really simple. If you still don't understand you should try have a friend or a parent explain it to you.
There's plenty incentive to win - and no incentive whatsoever to lose on purpose if your goal is to rank high on leaderboards.
European soccer. 4 ties reward more points than a win and 3 losses. There are other systems than your beloved NFL system.
Oh wow "who cares that's how it is". I CARE, which is why I'm posting about it. And you should care too because no game mode should incentivize losing on purpose. There is nothing rational about that and unless you can demonstrate how it is then save your slogans. They carry no utility in the debate and are boring.
I already provided the math that proves a FOUR TIME LOSER outranks an undefeated in a simple scenario. Not sure why you're still defending it. What is your obsession with "NFL"? Why do you keep going to that as if it's some kind of relevant rebuttal? NO SYSTEM does this. Just pick one and I'll show you where someone who lost four times in a system where there are head 2 head match-ups WILL NEVER BE A CHAMPION unless the next best was 5 losses. And you know it's dumb but for whatever reason you feel compelled to argue in FAVOR of a system where losing on purpose is incentivized. Do you have any kind of reasoning losing on purpose should be incentivized? Because it is. I already demonstrated using math. Mentioning the NFL again isn't any kind of answer, just FYI.
Maybe you didn't see my reply. What you're saying (more points if you lose a match than if you win) is impossible in D2/D1. Here is my math again:
To illustrate: this GAC, I score 830 for setting defense, and a 1600 points bonus for winning, total 2430 points. Let's say I win only 1 battle, hardly, for an extra 20 pts, while my opponent can't penetrate my brick wall at all. That's 2450 points total. My biggest score this round (not counting victory bonus) was 2127 pts with 9 battles for 9 wins (some less than 60pts, some undersizing). No way I'll be able to score more than 2450 pts losing a match (without scoring an extra 1600 pts).
Could you please show your math again ? I don't understand.
I still don't see where you think people are being incentivized to lose or are losing on purpose. You are rewarded for winning. No one starts the championship thinking that since they are allowed four losses they should just lose to get the full clear. Everyone is trying to win. You idea that people are losing on purpose only works if it's the very last matchup and they are close to kyber. But if they can make kyber by setting weak defense, they are within 1200-1300 points at most. A win is 1600. So if dumping everything on defense was as sure fire a way to win as you suggest, they could do that too. But most people in Div 1 would probably still set a balanced defense, hoping for either a win or a full clear. Do you know what the people who don't care about losing do? They set NO defense and let it auto set, then they don't attack AT ALL and claim their last place rewards. They are certainly not making Kyber.
In any case, there are plenty of times when win-loss record is not as important as how well you won or who you won against. Imagine someone taking a test who gets all answers correct vs. someone who got a few wrong. Is the person who got all correct smarter than the person who got some wrong if they had been taking a much easier test? There are SO, SO, many variables in GAC wins/losses. One is obviously matchups. Another is plain rng. If you attack a team with something that is a reasonably consistent counter, except you hit that 15% base resist chance or 2% dodge chance one too many times at crucial moments, things can suddenly go south for you. You lose the 20 first-time banners and if this causes you to lose by 1, you don't think that person deserves to have their total offensive banners count for anything?
You have provided arithmetic with numbers you conjured out of a hat to show how someone could go undefeated with fewer banners than someone who lost a few rounds. However, you have not demonstrated that it's a plausible or frequent scenario, nor have you proven that oversetting defense is a more reliable route to victory than setting a balanced defense which both earns you more banners and hinders your opponent's ability to do so.
If number of wins was the only ranking factor, there would just be 13 ranks: 0-12. That means a lot of ties for the top ranks. While I would be ok with that, CG doesn't seem to be.
You may be hung up on the "champions" at the head of the leaderboards sometimes have worse rosters than those who rank 5,000th. My advice in that case is to let it go. Like I said, there are so many variables involved there, including rng. I presume that they are likely undefeated, however. Just try not to see it as any indication that they are "better" than anyone else on the board. They may in fact be a great strategist, but they also still basically won the lottery.
My thinking is that either you don't really understand good team placement strategy as well as you think you do, you have a top-heavy roster in a lower division, or you're just a saddist who likes watching your opponents smash themselves against your wall more than you enjoy earning victories on your own.
The “losing on purpose” statement he keeps peddling is such complete nonsense that the time for rational debate is gone.
Given that the OP seems to have changed his mind on the matter, maybe this thread is ready for closure, @Kyno ?
You're ranked by championship score - not wins/losses. It's perfectly rational and fine.
You're wrong. You've been given examples. Yet you still post your false claim.
In soccer an undefeated team can rank lower than a team with losses. You've been told already. Repeating your false claim is quite frankly silly.
Each and every Kyber Champion in GAC were undefeated.
Again:
More false claims. You've already been told that there is absolutely no incentive to lose on purpose. A win will always reward more points than a loss. Do the math. It's simple math.
You're not helping anyone by repeating your false claims over and over.