Maybe they should give the win to the player who attacked first since attacking second is such a massive advantage. Yes let's derail this thread even further
Actually, I could get behind the idea of the tie-break going to who got to that final banner count first. Kinda like a race. Both run the same distance, but one does it faster so gets the win.
Given this is a global game, I personally think that anything based on doing something before the other player is a terrible idea and grossly unfair.
It's only for these rare tie-break situations. Plus the person going second knows the score they have to beat. I like that it removes the GP obsession from the equation and still incentivizes spending.
Maybe they should give the win to the player who attacked first since attacking second is such a massive advantage. Yes let's derail this thread even further
Actually, I could get behind the idea of the tie-break going to who got to that final banner count first. Kinda like a race. Both run the same distance, but one does it faster so gets the win.
Given this is a global game, I personally think that anything based on doing something before the other player is a terrible idea and grossly unfair.
It's only for these rare tie-break situations. Plus the person going second knows the score they have to beat. I like that it removes the GP obsession from the equation and still incentivizes spending.
I dislike the tired trope that GP can only increase by spending.
Both the “tiebreak” and the “player going second” debates have been done to death.
GAC is how it is - I would say “get used to it”, but for most in this thread they already are.
So the most common tie is 10-10. Any change to the tiebreaker system that cg might consider spending the resources to implement would need to somehow significantly discourage the most common tie. I don’t see your balanced split the crystals evenly doing that so I don’t see cg thinking it’s a good idea.
You have to come up with an idea that can be universally accepted AND cg can see a way to make a profit off it. Otherwise I don’t see any change making even the very bottom of the to-do list.
So the most common tie is 10-10. Any change to the tiebreaker system that cg might consider spending the resources to implement would need to somehow significantly discourage the most common tie. I don’t see your balanced split the crystals evenly doing that so I don’t see cg thinking it’s a good idea.
You have to come up with an idea that can be universally accepted AND cg can see a way to make a profit off it. Otherwise I don’t see any change making even the very bottom of the to-do list.
Why do we care about a 10-10 tie? Those two players clearly don't care or it wouldn't happen.
Maybe they should give the win to the player who attacked first since attacking second is such a massive advantage. Yes let's derail this thread even further
Actually, I could get behind the idea of the tie-break going to who got to that final banner count first. Kinda like a race. Both run the same distance, but one does it faster so gets the win.
Given this is a global game, I personally think that anything based on doing something before the other player is a terrible idea and grossly unfair.
It's only for these rare tie-break situations. Plus the person going second knows the score they have to beat. I like that it removes the GP obsession from the equation and still incentivizes spending.
I dislike the tired trope that GP can only increase by spending.
Both the “tiebreak” and the “player going second” debates have been done to death.
GAC is how it is - I would say “get used to it”, but for most in this thread they already are.
But what would life be without windmills to fight?
So the most common tie is 10-10. Any change to the tiebreaker system that cg might consider spending the resources to implement would need to somehow significantly discourage the most common tie. I don’t see your balanced split the crystals evenly doing that so I don’t see cg thinking it’s a good idea.
You have to come up with an idea that can be universally accepted AND cg can see a way to make a profit off it. Otherwise I don’t see any change making even the very bottom of the to-do list.
Why do we care about a 10-10 tie? Those two players clearly don't care or it wouldn't happen.
Because someone is suggesting splitting the crystals for win / loss evenly in the case of a tie.
People dismiss that idea as something that can be engineered to happen if both players agree. The 10-10 score is by far the easiest way to guarantee a tie.
So the most common tie is 10-10. Any change to the tiebreaker system that cg might consider spending the resources to implement would need to somehow significantly discourage the most common tie. I don’t see your balanced split the crystals evenly doing that so I don’t see cg thinking it’s a good idea.
You have to come up with an idea that can be universally accepted AND cg can see a way to make a profit off it. Otherwise I don’t see any change making even the very bottom of the to-do list.
Why do we care about a 10-10 tie? Those two players clearly don't care or it wouldn't happen.
I didn’t say I care. I say cg would need to care. If the idea proposed means more “engagement” by players and is universally accepted then maybe you have a chance. The split the crystals evenly fails on both counts.
Because it’s gone from a polar opposite to a more balanced idea for a change. Why not get an updated response after almost 4 years when the whole scope of GAC has changed since then?
What? You are suggesting the tie is broken by the exact opposite criteria currently used. What is more balanced about that?
I asked “why bother the CMs / devs with this?” Your answer, “why not?”, is about as uncompelling as it gets.
Anecdotal. Perhaps not to you, but to a number of people it is. Hence the discussion lol
But if tiebreaks were changed to award the lower GP the win, can’t you see that exactly the same amount of people would now be unhappy with the resolution?
@Ravens1113 I’ve taken the time to go through the thread in more detail, and must assume you’re referring here to your idea that the crystals for 1st/2nd are split in the event of a tie, rather than your suggestion in the opening post.
Whilst I understand the principle, I’m afraid I can see the collusion issue being too big an obstacle for this to work.
As for CMs engaging with the debate, I’d far rather they addressed the skill squish issue and how it’s affecting the Kyber 1 population than rake over this old ground again.
Because it’s gone from a polar opposite to a more balanced idea for a change. Why not get an updated response after almost 4 years when the whole scope of GAC has changed since then?
What? You are suggesting the tie is broken by the exact opposite criteria currently used. What is more balanced about that?
I asked “why bother the CMs / devs with this?” Your answer, “why not?”, is about as uncompelling as it gets.
Anecdotal. Perhaps not to you, but to a number of people it is. Hence the discussion lol
But if tiebreaks were changed to award the lower GP the win, can’t you see that exactly the same amount of people would now be unhappy with the resolution?
I was in my OP then I saw the idea tossed out of splitting the crystals in the event of a tie and giving the win to the higher GP to move on up in the brackets.
Because it’s gone from a polar opposite to a more balanced idea for a change. Why not get an updated response after almost 4 years when the whole scope of GAC has changed since then?
What? You are suggesting the tie is broken by the exact opposite criteria currently used. What is more balanced about that?
I asked “why bother the CMs / devs with this?” Your answer, “why not?”, is about as uncompelling as it gets.
Anecdotal. Perhaps not to you, but to a number of people it is. Hence the discussion lol
But if tiebreaks were changed to award the lower GP the win, can’t you see that exactly the same amount of people would now be unhappy with the resolution?
Ravens1113 I’ve taken the time to go through the thread in more detail, and must assume you’re referring here to your idea that the crystals for 1st/2nd are split in the event of a tie, rather than your suggestion in the opening post.
Whilst I understand the principle, I’m afraid I can see the collusion issue being too big an obstacle for this to work.
As for CMs engaging with the debate, I’d far rather they addressed the skill squish issue and how it’s affecting the Kyber 1 population than rake over this old ground again.
Just saw you acknowledged this.
I’m sure there’s ways to safeguard against it honestly, along with the overall desire to get the most crystals of you know you will win or have the bigger roster.
I just think it can be made a little better but it’s just an opinion I opened up the discussion about.
I do 100% agree the skill squish issue is far more important to address and don’t like how they’re completely silent on this.
Or just hide banners/attacks until after the round so we don't have to try to outwait our opponents and nobody has an advantage.
i mean if you could score better by waiting, you should be scoring better from the getgo
There is also a strategy in going first and putting up a big score, to bait your opponent to take bigger risks than they normally would for extra banners leading to a dropped battle.
Regarding original post. Just split the rewards equal when its a tie. Bigger roster deserv the win because he has played longer / invested more money is no argumen at all, it just entitlement. Both did good both get rewards.
You need a winner and a loser to know who will face who next round.
Divide the crystals even( loosing + winning amount) and give the "win" to the one who dealt first blow. Easy.
Under no circumstances should there be any reward for taking the first move. Gac opens at 10pm gmt, so anyone in central Europe is straight away up the creek because it’s the middle of the night. Why should they suffer based on geography?
Regarding original post. Just split the rewards equal when its a tie. Bigger roster deserv the win because he has played longer / invested more money is no argumen at all, it just entitlement. Both did good both get rewards.
You need a winner and a loser to know who will face who next round.
Divide the crystals even( loosing + winning amount) and give the "win" to the one who dealt first blow. Easy.
Under no circumstances should there be any reward for taking the first move. Gac opens at 10pm gmt, so anyone in central Europe is straight away up the creek because it’s the middle of the night. Why should they suffer based on geography?
Regarding original post. Just split the rewards equal when its a tie. Bigger roster deserv the win because he has played longer / invested more money is no argumen at all, it just entitlement. Both did good both get rewards.
You need a winner and a loser to know who will face who next round.
Divide the crystals even( loosing + winning amount) and give the "win" to the one who dealt first blow. Easy.
This thread could reach 50 pages and CG still isn't going to change this. There's no reason to change it. It works fine. A really big deal is being made about an edge case scenario that only happens very rarely. I'm shocked that the thread has gone on this long tbh.
The only way they could make it more "fair" would be to make it a coin-flip, and we all know how much we love RNG determining our fate. At least with the current system you know exactly where you stand when you go into the match. If you have lower GP - the only way to win is to out-score your opponent. That works both ways - when your opponent has lower GP, they will lose if they tie you.
F2P since the last time I bought Kyros, Crystals, or the Conquest Pass.
Under no circumstances should there be any reward for taking the first move. Gac opens at 10pm gmt, so anyone in central Europe is straight away up the creek because it’s the middle of the night. Why should they suffer based on geography?
Regarding original post. Just split the rewards equal when its a tie. Bigger roster deserv the win because he has played longer / invested more money is no argumen at all, it just entitlement. Both did good both get rewards.
You need a winner and a loser to know who will face who next round.
Divide the crystals even( loosing + winning amount) and give the "win" to the one who dealt first blow. Easy.
This thread could reach 50 pages and CG still isn't going to change this. There's no reason to change it. It works fine. A really big deal is being made about an edge case scenario that only happens very rarely. I'm shocked that the thread has gone on this long tbh.
The only way they could make it more "fair" would be to make it a coin-flip, and we all know how much we love RNG determining our fate. At least with the current system you know exactly where you stand when you go into the match. If you have lower GP - the only way to win is to out-score your opponent. That works both ways - when your opponent has lower GP, they will lose if they tie you.
I know what you're trying to say, but to be honest, a coin-flip would probably actually be the most fair thing. I don't think the community will ever find a consensus on whether the higher or the lower GP player should get the win in case of a tie, as we can clearly see in this thread. There's good arguments for either side, so I don't think we are getting anywhere with our discussion here. So before we willingly make one specific party (either the lower or the higher GP players of a tie) upset with our solution, why not just have a coin-flip decide? I know that people don't like rng, but a coin-flip deciding a tie is at least as unbiased as it can get, and imo ultimately the most fair solution. Why should any player have a predetermined advantage in case of a tie at all? Just flip a coin and decide that way.
Under no circumstances should there be any reward for taking the first move. Gac opens at 10pm gmt, so anyone in central Europe is straight away up the creek because it’s the middle of the night. Why should they suffer based on geography?
Regarding original post. Just split the rewards equal when its a tie. Bigger roster deserv the win because he has played longer / invested more money is no argumen at all, it just entitlement. Both did good both get rewards.
You need a winner and a loser to know who will face who next round.
Divide the crystals even( loosing + winning amount) and give the "win" to the one who dealt first blow. Easy.
This thread could reach 50 pages and CG still isn't going to change this. There's no reason to change it. It works fine. A really big deal is being made about an edge case scenario that only happens very rarely. I'm shocked that the thread has gone on this long tbh.
The only way they could make it more "fair" would be to make it a coin-flip, and we all know how much we love RNG determining our fate. At least with the current system you know exactly where you stand when you go into the match. If you have lower GP - the only way to win is to out-score your opponent. That works both ways - when your opponent has lower GP, they will lose if they tie you.
I know what you're trying to say, but to be honest, a coin-flip would probably actually be the most fair thing. I don't think the community will ever find a consensus on whether the higher or the lower GP player should get the win in case of a tie, as we can clearly see in this thread. There's good arguments for either side, so I don't think we are getting anywhere with our discussion here. So before we willingly make one specific party (either the lower or the higher GP players of a tie) upset with our solution, why not just have a coin-flip decide? I know that people don't like rng, but a coin-flip deciding a tie is at least as unbiased as it can get, and imo ultimately the most fair solution. Why should any player have a predetermined advantage in case of a tie at all? Just flip a coin and decide that way.
I'm sure introducing a new RNG element will sit well here.
This needs closed. No matter how the deciding factor is on GAC there will never be a clear winner on what that deciding factor is. Especially on ties where i think ive never had one, like the majority.
Such a dumb suggestion. If you're not higher gp that's your problem. Either raise or spend to raise like the others did. If you can't then that's your problem. Asking for charities like some peasants
?? I see someone has come looking to try and start an argument after this discussion had such a nice track record of being civil….
Replies
Both the “tiebreak” and the “player going second” debates have been done to death.
GAC is how it is - I would say “get used to it”, but for most in this thread they already are.
You have to come up with an idea that can be universally accepted AND cg can see a way to make a profit off it. Otherwise I don’t see any change making even the very bottom of the to-do list.
Why do we care about a 10-10 tie? Those two players clearly don't care or it wouldn't happen.
But what would life be without windmills to fight?
People dismiss that idea as something that can be engineered to happen if both players agree. The 10-10 score is by far the easiest way to guarantee a tie.
I didn’t say I care. I say cg would need to care. If the idea proposed means more “engagement” by players and is universally accepted then maybe you have a chance. The split the crystals evenly fails on both counts.
Whilst I understand the principle, I’m afraid I can see the collusion issue being too big an obstacle for this to work.
As for CMs engaging with the debate, I’d far rather they addressed the skill squish issue and how it’s affecting the Kyber 1 population than rake over this old ground again.
I was in my OP then I saw the idea tossed out of splitting the crystals in the event of a tie and giving the win to the higher GP to move on up in the brackets.
Just saw you acknowledged this.
I’m sure there’s ways to safeguard against it honestly, along with the overall desire to get the most crystals of you know you will win or have the bigger roster.
I just think it can be made a little better but it’s just an opinion I opened up the discussion about.
I do 100% agree the skill squish issue is far more important to address and don’t like how they’re completely silent on this.
i mean if you could score better by waiting, you should be scoring better from the getgo
Oh no here we go again...
There is also a strategy in going first and putting up a big score, to bait your opponent to take bigger risks than they normally would for extra banners leading to a dropped battle.
You can dust off your wampa and just have fun
Divide the crystals even( loosing + winning amount) and give the "win" to the one who dealt first blow. Easy.
This thread could reach 50 pages and CG still isn't going to change this. There's no reason to change it. It works fine. A really big deal is being made about an edge case scenario that only happens very rarely. I'm shocked that the thread has gone on this long tbh.
The only way they could make it more "fair" would be to make it a coin-flip, and we all know how much we love RNG determining our fate. At least with the current system you know exactly where you stand when you go into the match. If you have lower GP - the only way to win is to out-score your opponent. That works both ways - when your opponent has lower GP, they will lose if they tie you.
I know what you're trying to say, but to be honest, a coin-flip would probably actually be the most fair thing. I don't think the community will ever find a consensus on whether the higher or the lower GP player should get the win in case of a tie, as we can clearly see in this thread. There's good arguments for either side, so I don't think we are getting anywhere with our discussion here. So before we willingly make one specific party (either the lower or the higher GP players of a tie) upset with our solution, why not just have a coin-flip decide? I know that people don't like rng, but a coin-flip deciding a tie is at least as unbiased as it can get, and imo ultimately the most fair solution. Why should any player have a predetermined advantage in case of a tie at all? Just flip a coin and decide that way.
I'm sure introducing a new RNG element will sit well here.
?? I see someone has come looking to try and start an argument after this discussion had such a nice track record of being civil….