Why do Tie breakers in GAC go to highest GP?

Prev1
KeDe_Ari_007
3 posts Member
edited May 11
This doesn't make any sense, if I'm able to fight a guy to a tie but he's got over 1 million GP over me why does he get the win? It should go to lowest GP! What reason, other then they just wanna give an edge to people who probably paid more, is there that the dude who was given the advantage in matchmaking by going against a weaker opponent get the advantage AGAIN in the tie breaker
Post edited by Kyno on

Replies

  • Silenzeio
    39 posts Member
    edited May 11
    Gifafi wrote: »
    It rewards people for building their rosters.

    For playing the game and not sandbagging.

    Seriously, you're not cool for shooting yourself in the foot in terms of roster. It gets you nowhere. That's why higher GP wins.
  • KeDe_Ari_007
    3 posts Member
    edited May 11
    But by getting a tie I'm doing just as good as them with less to work with and that's A) more difficult to do in this pay to win game and B shows I'm playing the game better
  • Straegen
    167 posts Member
    This is a pay to win game so the advantage goes to those that have essentially spent more either in time or money.
  • gflegui
    281 posts Member
    Another thread about this... 🥱
  • Having more gp doesn't necessarily mean you "paid" more. I often get matched up with people who have near the same gp, but it is obvious by their roster and by their total gac score that they have been playing much longer then I. I totally get the sentiment of the OP, imo it doesn't make sense.
  • NicWester
    7978 posts Member
    But by getting a tie I'm doing just as good as them with less to work with and that's A) more difficult to do in this pay to win game and B shows I'm playing the game better

    High GP doesn't mean you paid for it. I have a high GP because I have a lot of G10/G11 characters. I'm pretty sure my G11 Jedi Consular or G10 Lobot aren't going to be gamebreakers, but here they are on my roster.

    You can artificially keep your GP low by not gearing or not leveling characters. They've said a whole bunch of times that they want to disincentivise hording. It creates a chilling effect where people get miserly about what to use gear on, just in case some other character comes out. Miserly players are grumpy players. They want you to bring that Marquee character up to 3*, level 85, gear 7/8 (depending on when they need their first piece of gear that uses carbanti sensor arrays) and put mods on it.

    Giving the tiebreaker to people who have done that is an incredibly minor way to incentivise deeper, wider rosters.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • crzydroid
    5750 posts Moderator
    But by getting a tie I'm doing just as good as them with less to work with and that's A) more difficult to do in this pay to win game and B shows I'm playing the game better

    Or maybe they, with a bloated roster, are doing just as good as you with a lean one.

    Seriously, it's a tie. No one did better than the other, and in terms of "overcoming a disadvantage," we all know power is meaningless in terms of battles. There are so few teams in GAC that you probably didn't use all of what was causing the power differences. If you were really so much of a better player, you would have won.

    There are a lot of ways they could determine tie-breakers, they could have done a coin toss, etc. This is what they chose. You got the short end of that essentially random stick. You can still make Kyber with a few losses.
  • Rath_Tarr
    4223 posts Member
    It's just an arbitrary way to break a tie, a holdover from early GA where matchmaking was by total GP.

    It wasn't a great solution then and it's an even worse one now.
  • I know this is absolutely not an open debate but I would opt for counting the total participating GP on both sides (sum of GP used on defense and offense) and the lesser one wins.
  • Naver666
    255 posts Member
    I don't care that much about this Topic since i had only one tie so far (i lost) but how about higher GP set on Defense wins.
    Sounds fair and random enough for me
  • You are tied. If you were to keep on fighting, which one would have more and/or better built teams to use? Right, that's a good reason why higher GP wins.
  • DEATHER
    33 posts Member
    Higher actual GAC rank win tie, its common in sports that higher ranking player/team have advantage.
  • Adamklark
    793 posts Member
    edited May 11
    i feel the same way but the argument can go both ways, like i have more GP, because back then needed more GP for TB deploy and things like that, but i have more bad characters while the enemy could be a newer player with focused roster or a smurf account of a whale. who should win in a tie situation?
    Post edited by crzydroid on
  • i think the fair solution would be a rematch like in football "the golden goal" thing, but it would conflict with the usual schedule so yeah
  • The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.
  • th3evo
    291 posts Member
    edited May 11
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
  • th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I think I understand. I’ve never lost a tiebreak, but I’ve never felt good about winning that way.
  • Adamklark
    793 posts Member
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    If you have a better and more efficient roster, why did you only tie? It may only seem better to you, but by not winning, I think you just proved it is not.
  • SithVicious
    1264 posts Member
    Why not have a designated slot on the table as a “tiebreaker slot” in the event of a tie the amount of banners scored in this battle determines the winner. That’s more fair than highest GP in my opinion. Some of us have been playing for 5 years or more and have older squads that may have been good then but are garbage now like 75% of Jedi or Phoenix/Rogue one squads. Where as a 2 year old player got to skip most of that and don’t suffer from bloating. Believe me I would dump a lot of these useless toons if there was any way to.

    Make that slot random, otherwise Rey owners would finally have something to be happy about
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  • Waqui
    8498 posts Member
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    CG obviously want to award the player who spent more resources. I see why and it makes sense - even though a coin toss would be fine with me as well.

  • Kyno
    30562 posts Moderator
    Waqui wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    CG obviously want to award the player who spent more resources. I see why and it makes sense - even though a coin toss would be fine with me as well.

    unless a player is taking specific practices to always have the highest GP in their grouping, its just random anyway.
  • Waqui
    8498 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    CG obviously want to award the player who spent more resources. I see why and it makes sense - even though a coin toss would be fine with me as well.

    unless a player is taking specific practices to always have the highest GP in their grouping, its just random anyway.

    However, some players have a higher probability of being matched with players of lower total GP than others. With a coin toss it's as close as you get to a 50/50 win/loss chance.

    But again: Both systems are fine with me.
  • Adamklark
    793 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    If you have a better and more efficient roster, why did you only tie? It may only seem better to you, but by not winning, I think you just proved it is not.

    ?
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Adamklark wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    If you have a better and more efficient roster, why did you only tie? It may only seem better to you, but by not winning, I think you just proved it is not.

    ?

    what part is difficult?
  • I like it when I win a tie break by higher gp, because I have done that on purpose. It is a choice you can make. Grow your gp and you win. That is exactly what the devs want. Grow and win.

    I also grow my gp for tb. There is no reason not to grow your gp. The devs definitely don't want do give you a reason to not grow.

    You know the rules, now work to them.
  • Adamklark
    793 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    If you have a better and more efficient roster, why did you only tie? It may only seem better to you, but by not winning, I think you just proved it is not.

    ?

    what part is difficult?

    what you wrote, possible to get a tie, especially if you get paired with a whale who has more high end teams and you manage to at least tie (which is an achievement on its own) , in that situation the lower GP player would deserve the win. other times you are the higher GP player because bloated GP from old teams and get some focused player who started later. just read back what I have been commenting
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Adamklark wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Adamklark wrote: »
    th3evo wrote: »
    The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

    It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

    You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

    I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

    If you get what i am trying to say.

    If you have a better and more efficient roster, why did you only tie? It may only seem better to you, but by not winning, I think you just proved it is not.

    ?

    what part is difficult?

    what you wrote, possible to get a tie, especially if you get paired with a whale who has more high end teams and you manage to at least tie (which is an achievement on its own) , in that situation the lower GP player would deserve the win. other times you are the higher GP player because bloated GP from old teams and get some focused player who started later. just read back what I have been commenting

    "Deserve"

    Based on what? Lower investment? Good way to get people collect in a collection game.
Sign In or Register to comment.