GAC incentivizes losing on purpose (it still does)
December 22, 2020 10:32PM
edited December 2020
There is a claim by someone unmemorable in the closed thread that my insistence there is an "incentive to lose on purpose" is irrational. That comment is exactly why I keep repeating it. There appears to be either a willingness to not get it or cognitive dissonance. I don't know which, but here is the math again... again.
Here's a Deivision 3 scenario where a player took only 2 lands per match all season but won every round in low scoring affairs with good defense. And don't say this doesn't happen. I basically lived this way in the past (to my detriment as it turns out lol) so let's just not even start with that.
DIVISION 3:
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.
So, that's why there is an incentive to lose on purpose in favor of clearing in order to preserve rank. If someone has some kind of counter to this empirically factual scenario that I just presented please let me have it.
Also, I am still waiting for someone to name another competitive system that rewards losing on purpose where head-to-head matchups are included. I'm dying to know what they are.
Here's a Deivision 3 scenario where a player took only 2 lands per match all season but won every round in low scoring affairs with good defense. And don't say this doesn't happen. I basically lived this way in the past (to my detriment as it turns out lol) so let's just not even start with that.
DIVISION 3:
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.
So, that's why there is an incentive to lose on purpose in favor of clearing in order to preserve rank. If someone has some kind of counter to this empirically factual scenario that I just presented please let me have it.
Also, I am still waiting for someone to name another competitive system that rewards losing on purpose where head-to-head matchups are included. I'm dying to know what they are.
0
- 61.6K General Discussion
- -35 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.7K Arena and Character Strategy
- 3.2K Individual Events
- 5.5K Guild Events
- 4.7K PVP and Rivalry
- 51K Guild Recruitment
- 751 Art and Media
- 4.2K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
I’ll keep it short.
1) if Player A had won the 4 matches they’d lost, they would have scored even more banners and ranked even higher. On what planet does your scenario represent an incentive to lose on purpose?
2) again, if Player B is winning all their matches “brilliantly” and scoring that few banners, they need to rethink their strategy.
There is no point in you starting a new thread if you can’t explain what incentive there is to lose on purpose.
My gratitude for keeping it short. What you seek is here https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/238871/gac-ranking-is-irrational#latest
And yes there is a need to open a new thread because you just decided you were right and whined to the moderator to close it where the argument suited you. Paleez.
I agree with you that it's a terrible scoring system and the above shouldn't be true, or at least to the extent it is now. But it does not actually incentivize losing.
That doesn’t explain it at all.
Why would anyone be better off losing than winning?
In Div. 3 the bonus for winning is 1400 championship points which is more than one can possibly score on offense in a full clear loss. Hence, there is absolutely no incentive to lose on purpose. It was explained to you by myself and others in the now closed thread, but for some reason you keep repeating your FALSE claim.
Here it is, exactly this.
In this tournament style, things can definitely happen that cause odd scoring situations, but it doesnt incentivize losing.
This tournament style doesnt rank on wins and loses, that is not what you are "measured by", you are measured by your ability to score point, within the rules of engagement. Winning and losing are not "end all be all" of this system. This seems to have been at least part of the point of choosing this style of tournament. It is not as crushing when /if you lose, you can still "come back" to a good spot, and on the same point, winning doesnt mean you just get the top spot.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
Let's try.
I agree with the empiric part of your statement, facts are facts and I have no reason to believe you're lying.
But the parts I've put in bold are not empiric at all, and that's where we disagree.
GAC has rules that are available to the players. Someone that chose a path to victory that lead to score only a few points on offense didn't used 'brillant defense'. A brillant defense would be one that forces mistakes without preventing you to clear the board.
You score more points if you win a match than if you lose it. Always, no exception. So you're conclusion that there is a incentive to lose on purpose is flawed imo. However, there is an incentive to clear the board and it punishes turtle strategy.
In your example, player A took the offensive road. She tried to win all her matches and failed 4 times.
Player B took the defensive path and finished undefeated. Good for her, but it was a questionable strategic decision, as your example showed.
As you wanted examples from other types of games/sports, let's talk poker. Player B won more hands, but player A won more money.
There is absolutely no incentive to lose on purpose, ever. You can't risk intentional losses early on because you don't know if you'll have unintentional losses later. Your example is flawed because while someone with an imperfect win record who won well will rank higher than an undefeated person who scraped by, they will NOT rank higher than an undefeated person who also won well. But also consider that ranking isn't the only source of prizes. While league promotion prizes are arguably better than any of the others, you get greater round rewards on the rounds you win, and your rank each week (which actually IS based on win/loss record) awards you more points at the top. So no, "losing" is not incentivized in any way, shape, or form.
Others have pointed out that if setting a stronger defense costs you that many offensive points, perhaps it's not as brilliant a strategy as you think. At any rate, you are trying to play a different game than what GAC actually is, and blaming your poor ranking on the system rather than your choices (be they defense choices or roster progression choices).
The matchmaking is not based on your win/loss or banner total (except you will be matched within your prize tier Carbonite, Bronzium, Chromium, Aurodium etc.), there is no incentive for having less banners or less wins in terms of easier future matches.
Plenty of disadvantages, the loss of Championship tokens, lower Weekly prizes and missing out on zetas for weekly group wins is also significant.
Your strategy should always be to get more banners than your opponent in each match. That will always leave you with more banners than if you lost the match as you get at least 1000 for a win in D8 and more in higher divisions.
The win scenarios for me are:
1) If I am more efficient than my opponent and we both full clear on offense.
or
2) If I am able to get a successful hold on defense and still full clear on offense.
or
3) We both don't full clear on offense but I am more efficient than my opponent(which doesn't happen often to me in D8 but is more common as you rise in divisions)
There is no point in arguing hypothetical scenarios that are vague and don't actually reflect a decision a player might have to make.
Typically given my development and low Division 8, I shoot for scenario 2) because I have stronger fleet and my opponents usually have stronger toons. I get less overall banners than scenario 1) but I don't run the risk of losing the match so a small loss in banners is worth it to guarantee me a win.
The most optimal way to play is to bring all of your strongest toons and fleet on offense and get as many banners on offense as possible. You do not get any points for stopping your opponent on defense. However in my case the extra 1 - 20 banners I might get by employing scenario 1) is not worth risking a loss and losing the 1000 banners for winning the match so I favor scenario 2) in my defensive strategy.
Instead of mindlessly repeating your FALSE claim you should try understanding the rather simple math instead:
If player A of your example had converted only a single 1700 banner loss to a 1228 banner win the gain would have been (1400 + 1228 - 1700) = 928 championship points for a total score of 32528 championship points instead of the 31600 of your example.
There is absolutely no incentive to lose on purpose if you want to maximize your championship score. A win always rewards more championship points than a loss. Always! You obviously don't understand this simple logic and math and you don't trust people here, who explain it to you. Maybe you should ask a friend whom you trust to explain the math and logic.