Suggestion: GAC tiebreaker

Justokay

After losing another tie break, was thinking this could be improved now that crystals are tied to it. Rather than total roster GP, I thought it would make more sense to break the tie based on used/deployed GP in the round. That way either side at least has a chance to win the tie break. Whether it’s least GP used or most GP used in the round that decides the tie break feels like an improvement over what we have now.

CCyrilS

Justokay wrote: »

After losing another tie break, was thinking this could be improved now that crystals are tied to it. Rather than total roster GP, I thought it would make more sense to break the tie based on used/deployed GP in the round. That way either side at least has a chance to win the tie break. Whether it’s least GP used or most GP used in the round that decides the tie break feels like an improvement over what we have now.

Easier improvement would be to just add 1 gp pt.

Winterwolves

Justokay wrote: »

After losing another tie break, was thinking this could be improved now that crystals are tied to it. Rather than total roster GP, I thought it would make more sense to break the tie based on used/deployed GP in the round. That way either side at least has a chance to win the tie break. Whether it’s least GP used or most GP used in the round that decides the tie break feels like an improvement over what we have now.

In a battle where neither full cleared, then this would give the win to whoever could be bothered sending in the more teams to fail. End result could be the exact same as current system, where both players sit there using every toon in their roster to get the win. Same result for way more effort. Nah.

harvestmouse

Tie break: Each player's ugnaught faces off in an AI controlled match up. The better little piggy takes the whole shebang!

TVF

Why would most GP used be the deciding factor?

Justokay

Why not least gp used?

TVF

You brought up most and I don't understand why.

Justokay

I want least GP used. Current system is most GP which people seem to like. So I was throwing a bone to those people if they want to defend a most GP system. It doesn’t really matter. The point is whether there’s a better system. Do you have a suggestion?

CCyrilS

Justokay wrote: »

I want least GP used. Current system is most GP which people seem to like. So I was throwing a bone to those people if they want to defend a most GP system. It doesn’t really matter. The point is whether there’s a better system. Do you have a suggestion?

Leave it like it is.

Justokay

Why give more points to undersized squads then? There is in-game precedent for recognizing something equivalent to less GP being skillful.

CCyrilS

Justokay wrote: »

Why give more points to undersized squads then? There is in-game precedent for recognizing something equivalent to less GP being skillful.

Yeah, if you WIN with an undersized squad. Not tie/draw/timeout.

Justokay

Well, if we were talking about winning, we wouldn’t need tiebreaks, would we. Stay on target. So tell me why you think someone who has a bigger roster and uses more GP just to get a tie deserves the to win the tie break? Why NOT have a system that at least allows both sides a chance at winning a tie break?

CCyrilS

Justokay wrote: »

Well, if we were talking about winning, we wouldn’t need tiebreaks, would we. Stay on target. So tell me why you think someone who has a bigger roster and uses more GP just to get a tie deserves the to win the tie break? Why NOT have a system that at least allows both sides a chance at winning a tie break?

Simple, the game rewards expanding your roster. Why reward the person who spent less time/money?

Justokay

That’s not really much of an argument for equity. That’s just entitlement packaged as philosophy. Sport also rewards expanding rosters. Man U should win all ties under that philosophy. But no one would advocate for that. Why? Because what is competition really if there are set outcomes. I’m advocating for competition, not the rewarding of either side. You would have one side always win a tie. For what? A bigger wallet. I would have competition.

crzydroid

Justokay wrote: »

Well, if we were talking about winning, we wouldn’t need tiebreaks, would we. Stay on target. So tell me why you think someone who has a bigger roster and uses more GP just to get a tie deserves the to win the tie break? Why NOT have a system that at least allows both sides a chance at winning a tie break?

Because GP used is meaningless. If you need to use a specific counter team, it's not like you can unrelic a character. You may overkill, but sometimes removing a key character is out of the question.

These arguments always pop up that the person with a smaller roster should win because they were good enough to tie a player with a larger roster. But if they were so good, why couldn't they outright win? You could argue that the person with the larger roster managed a tie against the person who was such a better player.

I get it, losing to a tie seems worse than losing by 20, or 10, or 3 banners. But the result is you still lost. You did not win. The "fairest" thing might just be a straight up coinflip. But people would hate that too.The system the have now is no worse or better than any other arbitrary system they'd come up with. If ties were more common, there might be reason to rethink it, but fortunately, they're pretty rare.

Justokay

We just disagree then. Spotting a side points before a match starts cannot be the answer in any competitive environment. And let’s be very clear, the team with the higher GP overall is being spotted a half point. A side is being favored with points before a match begins. That can’t be the answer. In a world of relativity, there are alternatives that are better than that. Frankly that should be near the bottom.