I think saying it's "easy" to tie in GA is perhaps overstated, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence.
Of the 12 GA rounds I've played, 6 of them have been settled by fewer than 8 banners. If both you and your opponent clear all squads first time the score difference will be minimal and quite conceivably zero.
And in 3v3 the margins you can earn from sending in a short team are minimal. Sending in 4 toons to beat 5 is vastly safer than sending in 2 to beat 3!
I like the banner system, I think it makes sense to reward efficiency but not overly punish someone that has to chip away at a squad (e.g. taking 5 attempts to beat a tanky lineup earns the same points as taking 3 attempts) and also reward players who keep their toons unscratched. The problem is when it's used on the scale of a global game like this, there will be more than a handful of these "unlikely" outcomes.
so 0 out 12 ended in a draw? Eventhough you and your opponent fully cleared eachother with all 1st attempt wins 6(!) times?
interesting
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
I think saying it's "easy" to tie in GA is perhaps overstated, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence.
Of the 12 GA rounds I've played, 6 of them have been settled by fewer than 8 banners. If both you and your opponent clear all squads first time the score difference will be minimal and quite conceivably zero.
And in 3v3 the margins you can earn from sending in a short team are minimal. Sending in 4 toons to beat 5 is vastly safer than sending in 2 to beat 3!
I like the banner system, I think it makes sense to reward efficiency but not overly punish someone that has to chip away at a squad (e.g. taking 5 attempts to beat a tanky lineup earns the same points as taking 3 attempts) and also reward players who keep their toons unscratched. The problem is when it's used on the scale of a global game like this, there will be more than a handful of these "unlikely" outcomes.
so 0 out 12 ended in a draw? Eventhough you and your opponent fully cleared eachother with all 1st attempt wins 6(!) times?
interesting
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
I think that less than 10% of all GA's end up with both participants clearing the exact same amount of teams while using the exact same amount of teams. (i find it amazing that it happened to you 50% of the time to be honest.) Even less that also earn the exact same amount of banners, which would result in a tie. I reckon that less than 0.1% of all GA's end up in a tie (excluding the non-participation ties).
I obviously don't have access to any data, so it's just a guess.
But the point i was obviously trying to make is that even if it's really close a tie is just not likely to occur.
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
It still is going to be rare to tie, because it would be the same number of clears, using the same number of attempts, using the same number of characters, while having the same number of characters survive, and the same number of those surviving characters end up with less than full protection and less than full health. Is it possible? Sure. Are the odds against it? Yes.
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
It still is going to be rare to tie, because it would be the same number of clears, using the same number of attempts, using the same number of characters, while having the same number of characters survive, and the same number of those surviving characters end up with less than full protection and less than full health. Is it possible? Sure. Are the odds against it? Yes.
It doesn’t need to be quite so perfectly matched as that. Remember surviving units, units with full health, units with full protection and empty slots are all worth the same thing : 1 point.
So there just needs to be the right combination on each side of these things to result in a tie.
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
It still is going to be rare to tie, because it would be the same number of clears, using the same number of attempts, using the same number of characters, while having the same number of characters survive, and the same number of those surviving characters end up with less than full protection and less than full health. Is it possible? Sure. Are the odds against it? Yes.
It doesn’t need to be quite so perfectly matched as that. Remember surviving units, units with full health, units with full protection and empty slots are all worth the same thing : 1 point.
So there just needs to be the right combination on each side of these things to result in a tie.
I'm confused about empty slots, you know better? This is from the announcement post
I think saying it's "easy" to tie in GA is perhaps overstated, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence.
Of the 12 GA rounds I've played, 6 of them have been settled by fewer than 8 banners. If both you and your opponent clear all squads first time the score difference will be minimal and quite conceivably zero.
And in 3v3 the margins you can earn from sending in a short team are minimal. Sending in 4 toons to beat 5 is vastly safer than sending in 2 to beat 3!
I like the banner system, I think it makes sense to reward efficiency but not overly punish someone that has to chip away at a squad (e.g. taking 5 attempts to beat a tanky lineup earns the same points as taking 3 attempts) and also reward players who keep their toons unscratched. The problem is when it's used on the scale of a global game like this, there will be more than a handful of these "unlikely" outcomes.
so 0 out 12 ended in a draw? Eventhough you and your opponent fully cleared eachother with all 1st attempt wins 6(!) times?
interesting
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
I think that less than 10% of all GA's end up with both participants clearing the exact same amount of teams while using the exact same amount of teams. (i find it amazing that it happened to you 50% of the time to be honest.) Even less that also earn the exact same amount of banners, which would result in a tie. I reckon that less than 0.1% of all GA's end up in a tie (excluding the non-participation ties).
I obviously don't have access to any data, so it's just a guess.
But the point i was obviously trying to make is that even if it's really close a tie is just not likely to occur.
I could guess that over 90% of GA’s end up with same number of clears / teams. As you say, neither of us have access to the data so we are both guessing and your figures are spurious and meaningless.
Based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, it is more than 10% of GA battles that end with same number of clears / teams. A healthy chunk of these people are clearing the full board every time, with virtually all first time clears as well. I can appreciate that this isn’t necessarily the same across the whole of the swgoh community.
Similarly, based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, nobody is failing to set Defence and/or attack in GA. Again, I can appreciate that this isn’t the same for the community either.
I’ve got a decent roster at ~4.15M. Clearing all teams is the norm at that level. As I suggest, if both you and the enemy do it, the stars don’t need to align all that much for a tie.
I think saying it's "easy" to tie in GA is perhaps overstated, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence.
Of the 12 GA rounds I've played, 6 of them have been settled by fewer than 8 banners. If both you and your opponent clear all squads first time the score difference will be minimal and quite conceivably zero.
And in 3v3 the margins you can earn from sending in a short team are minimal. Sending in 4 toons to beat 5 is vastly safer than sending in 2 to beat 3!
I like the banner system, I think it makes sense to reward efficiency but not overly punish someone that has to chip away at a squad (e.g. taking 5 attempts to beat a tanky lineup earns the same points as taking 3 attempts) and also reward players who keep their toons unscratched. The problem is when it's used on the scale of a global game like this, there will be more than a handful of these "unlikely" outcomes.
so 0 out 12 ended in a draw? Eventhough you and your opponent fully cleared eachother with all 1st attempt wins 6(!) times?
interesting
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
I think that less than 10% of all GA's end up with both participants clearing the exact same amount of teams while using the exact same amount of teams. (i find it amazing that it happened to you 50% of the time to be honest.) Even less that also earn the exact same amount of banners, which would result in a tie. I reckon that less than 0.1% of all GA's end up in a tie (excluding the non-participation ties).
I obviously don't have access to any data, so it's just a guess.
But the point i was obviously trying to make is that even if it's really close a tie is just not likely to occur.
I could guess that over 90% of GA’s end up with same number of clears / teams. As you say, neither of us have access to the data so we are both guessing and your figures are spurious and meaningless.
Based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, it is more than 10% of GA battles that end with same number of clears / teams. A healthy chunk of these people are clearing the full board every time, with virtually all first time clears as well. I can appreciate that this isn’t necessarily the same across the whole of the swgoh community.
Similarly, based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, nobody is failing to set Defence and/or attack in GA. Again, I can appreciate that this isn’t the same for the community either.
I’ve got a decent roster at ~4.15M. Clearing all teams is the norm at that level. As I suggest, if both you and the enemy do it, the stars don’t need to align all that much for a tie.
Since the required no of teams on the board doesn't scale properly with the GP divisions, full clears becomes the norm at higher GPs. I'm at the same GP as you, never experienced a tie, though can see how it will happen the way you described it. What's your proposed solution for it though?
I think saying it's "easy" to tie in GA is perhaps overstated, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence.
Of the 12 GA rounds I've played, 6 of them have been settled by fewer than 8 banners. If both you and your opponent clear all squads first time the score difference will be minimal and quite conceivably zero.
And in 3v3 the margins you can earn from sending in a short team are minimal. Sending in 4 toons to beat 5 is vastly safer than sending in 2 to beat 3!
I like the banner system, I think it makes sense to reward efficiency but not overly punish someone that has to chip away at a squad (e.g. taking 5 attempts to beat a tanky lineup earns the same points as taking 3 attempts) and also reward players who keep their toons unscratched. The problem is when it's used on the scale of a global game like this, there will be more than a handful of these "unlikely" outcomes.
so 0 out 12 ended in a draw? Eventhough you and your opponent fully cleared eachother with all 1st attempt wins 6(!) times?
interesting
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
I think that less than 10% of all GA's end up with both participants clearing the exact same amount of teams while using the exact same amount of teams. (i find it amazing that it happened to you 50% of the time to be honest.) Even less that also earn the exact same amount of banners, which would result in a tie. I reckon that less than 0.1% of all GA's end up in a tie (excluding the non-participation ties).
I obviously don't have access to any data, so it's just a guess.
But the point i was obviously trying to make is that even if it's really close a tie is just not likely to occur.
I could guess that over 90% of GA’s end up with same number of clears / teams. As you say, neither of us have access to the data so we are both guessing and your figures are spurious and meaningless.
Based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, it is more than 10% of GA battles that end with same number of clears / teams. A healthy chunk of these people are clearing the full board every time, with virtually all first time clears as well. I can appreciate that this isn’t necessarily the same across the whole of the swgoh community.
Similarly, based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, nobody is failing to set Defence and/or attack in GA. Again, I can appreciate that this isn’t the same for the community either.
I’ve got a decent roster at ~4.15M. Clearing all teams is the norm at that level. As I suggest, if both you and the enemy do it, the stars don’t need to align all that much for a tie.
May i point out that your assumption on what is the norm at that level is about as baseless as my percentages? Or just as credible if you want to give it a possitive swing.
I do have to ask though, how many of your guildmates/shardmates have tied?
I think saying it's "easy" to tie in GA is perhaps overstated, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence.
Of the 12 GA rounds I've played, 6 of them have been settled by fewer than 8 banners. If both you and your opponent clear all squads first time the score difference will be minimal and quite conceivably zero.
And in 3v3 the margins you can earn from sending in a short team are minimal. Sending in 4 toons to beat 5 is vastly safer than sending in 2 to beat 3!
I like the banner system, I think it makes sense to reward efficiency but not overly punish someone that has to chip away at a squad (e.g. taking 5 attempts to beat a tanky lineup earns the same points as taking 3 attempts) and also reward players who keep their toons unscratched. The problem is when it's used on the scale of a global game like this, there will be more than a handful of these "unlikely" outcomes.
so 0 out 12 ended in a draw? Eventhough you and your opponent fully cleared eachother with all 1st attempt wins 6(!) times?
interesting
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
I think that less than 10% of all GA's end up with both participants clearing the exact same amount of teams while using the exact same amount of teams. (i find it amazing that it happened to you 50% of the time to be honest.) Even less that also earn the exact same amount of banners, which would result in a tie. I reckon that less than 0.1% of all GA's end up in a tie (excluding the non-participation ties).
I obviously don't have access to any data, so it's just a guess.
But the point i was obviously trying to make is that even if it's really close a tie is just not likely to occur.
I could guess that over 90% of GA’s end up with same number of clears / teams. As you say, neither of us have access to the data so we are both guessing and your figures are spurious and meaningless.
Based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, it is more than 10% of GA battles that end with same number of clears / teams. A healthy chunk of these people are clearing the full board every time, with virtually all first time clears as well. I can appreciate that this isn’t necessarily the same across the whole of the swgoh community.
Similarly, based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, nobody is failing to set Defence and/or attack in GA. Again, I can appreciate that this isn’t the same for the community either.
I’ve got a decent roster at ~4.15M. Clearing all teams is the norm at that level. As I suggest, if both you and the enemy do it, the stars don’t need to align all that much for a tie.
May i point out that your assumption on what is the norm at that level is about as baseless as my percentages? Or just as credible if you want to give it a possitive swing.
I do have to ask though, how many of your guildmates/shardmates have tied?
Not as baseless, I don’t think. In guild and shard chats on discord I’m talking to ~90 people, most of whom are 3.9MGP or above, and as No_Try attests it is the norm to clear the board at that level - especially in 3v3. I am by no means the only one who has had several battles end in full board clears with each player using the same amount of teams.
In fact, the biggest anxiety on both these servers is clearing the board with maximum efficiency. Since it is so common for both players to clear, the only way you have a chance of winning is to do so with the most possible banners for toons with full health / protection / unused slots. Several people get to their final battle knowing they need 53 banners for a win, but 52 will only tie.
Seriously - I’m not making this up to be difficult - this is what I’ve experienced so far in GA.
As for how many have tied, I’ve seen four with a quick scan of Discord. There may be more if I searched more actively, and there’s the less talkative members as well who don’t always report results (though I imagine they’d have something to say about a tie).
@No_Try you asked for my proposed solution? I think there should be a ticker counting total GP used. If 2 people tie, the person who did so using the least GP should get the win. (I’m spitballing - there is likely a flaw in that I haven’t foreseen!)
@leef ties will be rare. Probably rarer than I think and not as rare as you think!
@No_Try you asked for my proposed solution? I think there should be a ticker counting total GP used. If 2 people tie, the person who did so using the least GP should get the win. (I’m spitballing - there is likely a flaw in that I haven’t foreseen!)
@leef ties will be rare. Probably rarer than I think and not as rare as you think!
Yeah, that's a good solution as it takes in a comprehensible competetiveness parameter. It might be too calculation heavy though for CG to adopt, dunno.
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
It still is going to be rare to tie, because it would be the same number of clears, using the same number of attempts, using the same number of characters, while having the same number of characters survive, and the same number of those surviving characters end up with less than full protection and less than full health. Is it possible? Sure. Are the odds against it? Yes.
It doesn’t need to be quite so perfectly matched as that. Remember surviving units, units with full health, units with full protection and empty slots are all worth the same thing : 1 point.
So there just needs to be the right combination on each side of these things to result in a tie.
I'm confused about empty slots, you know better? This is from the announcement post
Not using a unit in a team can net you 1 or 2 more points in a battle.
What you could get:
Survival bonus + full health + (maybe) full protection = 2-3 points
Going in 4v5 = 4 extra points, but none of the above points.
Making the difference if you go in with 4v5, + 1-2 points depending on the possible outcome had you went in 5v5.
point being that you draw conclusions based upon what you and others you're in contact with have experienced, that's the same i did with the percentages.
You're probably right that they're not as rare as i think they are simply because i think they are inredibly rare, like 0.5% or something. I really do think ties that rare, haha.
Regardless, even if like 5% out of all GAs end up in a tie, it's still not that big of an issue and any tiebreaker used will be arbitrary. We've got so much control over GA that it's pretty much always your own fault if you tie, i don't see why having used less GP doing so would make you more deserving of the win (or any other tiebreaker used for that matter). Who wins being random is adequate imo.
I think saying it's "easy" to tie in GA is perhaps overstated, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence.
Of the 12 GA rounds I've played, 6 of them have been settled by fewer than 8 banners. If both you and your opponent clear all squads first time the score difference will be minimal and quite conceivably zero.
And in 3v3 the margins you can earn from sending in a short team are minimal. Sending in 4 toons to beat 5 is vastly safer than sending in 2 to beat 3!
I like the banner system, I think it makes sense to reward efficiency but not overly punish someone that has to chip away at a squad (e.g. taking 5 attempts to beat a tanky lineup earns the same points as taking 3 attempts) and also reward players who keep their toons unscratched. The problem is when it's used on the scale of a global game like this, there will be more than a handful of these "unlikely" outcomes.
so 0 out 12 ended in a draw? Eventhough you and your opponent fully cleared eachother with all 1st attempt wins 6(!) times?
interesting
Perhaps they were doing things the hard way because tying was too easy.
point being that you draw conclusions based upon what you and others you're in contact with have experienced, that's the same i did with the percentages.
You're probably right that they're not as rare as i think they are simply because i think they are inredibly rare, like 0.5% or something. I really do think ties that rare, haha.
Regardless, even if like 5% out of all GAs end up in a tie, it's still not that big of an issue and any tiebreaker used will be arbitrary. We've got so much control over GA that it's pretty much always your own fault if you tie, i don't see why having used less GP doing so would make you more deserving of the win (or any other tiebreaker used for that matter). Who wins being random is adequate imo.
I can imagine that people who have “lost” a tie feel differently!
My suggestion, GP used on offence, would surely make it almost impossible to tie. The players at least have some control over that during each round, unlike the lock GP figure.
point being that you draw conclusions based upon what you and others you're in contact with have experienced, that's the same i did with the percentages.
You're probably right that they're not as rare as i think they are simply because i think they are inredibly rare, like 0.5% or something. I really do think ties that rare, haha.
Regardless, even if like 5% out of all GAs end up in a tie, it's still not that big of an issue and any tiebreaker used will be arbitrary. We've got so much control over GA that it's pretty much always your own fault if you tie, i don't see why having used less GP doing so would make you more deserving of the win (or any other tiebreaker used for that matter). Who wins being random is adequate imo.
I can imagine that people who have “lost” a tie feel differently!
My suggestion, GP used on offence, would surely make it almost impossible to tie. The players at least have some control over that during each round, unlike the lock GP figure.
lets be honest here, the only difference that would make is that you can't blame it on the game for it being pre-determined. The control you have over using the least amount of GP on offense is absymal compared to the control you have to not tie in the first place.
That said, i don't care either way because ties are that rare (atleast for me they are) and the downsides to such a tiebreaker are negligible. It just seems to me that people are trying to come up with elaborate plans to solve a non-issue while the current way of dealing with ties is adequate. If you don't like it, make sure you don't tie in the first place instead of asking for some kind of control over who gets the win in case of a tie. That just seems a bit silly to me. There are far more pressing matters the devs can spend their time on imo.
So i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.
My only quibble is that lower GP should be the winner in a tie, not higher.
And, whatever the metric that is used should be clearly discernible at all times. If a tie in my match with player B would see me lose, I’d like to KNOW that, so I understand my target banners is 1 more than his!
My only quibble is that lower GP should be the winner in a tie, not higher.
And, whatever the metric that is used should be clearly discernible at all times. If a tie in my match with player B would see me lose, I’d like to KNOW that, so I understand my target banners is 1 more than his!
i think you're ranked on GP at all times in the rewards table, atleast with the opponent you're playing against since he has the same amount of wins. So if you're higher ranked, you can tie to win. I'm not entirely certain though.
My only quibble is that lower GP should be the winner in a tie, not higher.
And, whatever the metric that is used should be clearly discernible at all times. If a tie in my match with player B would see me lose, I’d like to KNOW that, so I understand my target banners is 1 more than his!
The metric used isn’t the point of playing, You should always have a target of one more banner then your opponent.
My only quibble is that lower GP should be the winner in a tie, not higher.
And, whatever the metric that is used should be clearly discernible at all times. If a tie in my match with player B would see me lose, I’d like to KNOW that, so I understand my target banners is 1 more than his!
The metric used isn’t the point of playing, You should always have a target of one more banner then your opponent.
If I knew a tie would be credited as a win to me, I might try to take advantage of that I’m afraid. What a cad!!
My only quibble is that lower GP should be the winner in a tie, not higher.
And, whatever the metric that is used should be clearly discernible at all times. If a tie in my match with player B would see me lose, I’d like to KNOW that, so I understand my target banners is 1 more than his!
The metric used isn’t the point of playing, You should always have a target of one more banner then your opponent.
If I knew a tie would be credited as a win to me, I might try to take advantage of that I’m afraid. What a cad!!
My only quibble is that lower GP should be the winner in a tie, not higher.
And, whatever the metric that is used should be clearly discernible at all times. If a tie in my match with player B would see me lose, I’d like to KNOW that, so I understand my target banners is 1 more than his!
Lower and higher gp as tie-breaker is exactly the same. Lower GP deserves the win more since he's lower hold no water for me since the difference is extremely superficial. Both are not in player control and pretty much the same as the tiebreaker rng draw that happens before the raids.
Besides if you haven't noted down the GPs at the exact time GA is locked, you don't have access to the locked GPs.
If the current case is to be changed, it should replaced with a solid counter of....-something else- (like the one you proposed)
point being that you draw conclusions based upon what you and others you're in contact with have experienced, that's the same i did with the percentages.
You're probably right that they're not as rare as i think they are simply because i think they are inredibly rare, like 0.5% or something. I really do think ties that rare, haha.
Regardless, even if like 5% out of all GAs end up in a tie, it's still not that big of an issue and any tiebreaker used will be arbitrary. We've got so much control over GA that it's pretty much always your own fault if you tie, i don't see why having used less GP doing so would make you more deserving of the win (or any other tiebreaker used for that matter). Who wins being random is adequate imo.
I can imagine that people who have “lost” a tie feel differently!
My suggestion, GP used on offence, would surely make it almost impossible to tie. The players at least have some control over that during each round, unlike the lock GP figure.
Lowest total GP used, offense + defense would be better. Kinda seems like overkill for what should be an uncommon occurrence though.
Beats me why they even used GP when it's about as arbitrary as a simple coin flip anyway. Might as well just RNG it you're going that route.
True of course, lol. But that is not in anyone’s control, your GP is in your control tho 😉
I mean I'll take the W and the extra rewards, I just genuinely felt a bit bad for the guy. I wish we had a way to tie break that was less random and perhaps even rewarded the most skillful player
you keep saying random, and while i understand your point to some extent. this is only the deciding factor when you both fail at strategy. it is the end of a sequence of events that are entirely in the players control.
Except that everything is in the hands of the second mover, not the first.
True of course, lol. But that is not in anyone’s control, your GP is in your control tho 😉
I mean I'll take the W and the extra rewards, I just genuinely felt a bit bad for the guy. I wish we had a way to tie break that was less random and perhaps even rewarded the most skillful player
you keep saying random, and while i understand your point to some extent. this is only the deciding factor when you both fail at strategy. it is the end of a sequence of events that are entirely in the players control.
Except that everything is in the hands of the second mover, not the first.
How so?
Does going second give you more points? Or make the matches easier so you get more banners than you would if you attacked first?
Replies
And what %age of the overall number of GA battles would that represent, do you think? My point is that there will be tens of thousands of battles where both participants clear the same number of teams with the same number of attempts. It stands to reason that some of these will end in ties.
And no, they weren't all full first time clears. Most recent victory (7 banners) saw both of us need a second attempt on one squad.
I think that less than 10% of all GA's end up with both participants clearing the exact same amount of teams while using the exact same amount of teams. (i find it amazing that it happened to you 50% of the time to be honest.) Even less that also earn the exact same amount of banners, which would result in a tie. I reckon that less than 0.1% of all GA's end up in a tie (excluding the non-participation ties).
I obviously don't have access to any data, so it's just a guess.
But the point i was obviously trying to make is that even if it's really close a tie is just not likely to occur.
It still is going to be rare to tie, because it would be the same number of clears, using the same number of attempts, using the same number of characters, while having the same number of characters survive, and the same number of those surviving characters end up with less than full protection and less than full health. Is it possible? Sure. Are the odds against it? Yes.
It doesn’t need to be quite so perfectly matched as that. Remember surviving units, units with full health, units with full protection and empty slots are all worth the same thing : 1 point.
So there just needs to be the right combination on each side of these things to result in a tie.
I'm confused about empty slots, you know better? This is from the announcement post
Based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, it is more than 10% of GA battles that end with same number of clears / teams. A healthy chunk of these people are clearing the full board every time, with virtually all first time clears as well. I can appreciate that this isn’t necessarily the same across the whole of the swgoh community.
Similarly, based on my experience and those in my guild / shard chat, nobody is failing to set Defence and/or attack in GA. Again, I can appreciate that this isn’t the same for the community either.
I’ve got a decent roster at ~4.15M. Clearing all teams is the norm at that level. As I suggest, if both you and the enemy do it, the stars don’t need to align all that much for a tie.
Since the required no of teams on the board doesn't scale properly with the GP divisions, full clears becomes the norm at higher GPs. I'm at the same GP as you, never experienced a tie, though can see how it will happen the way you described it. What's your proposed solution for it though?
May i point out that your assumption on what is the norm at that level is about as baseless as my percentages? Or just as credible if you want to give it a possitive swing.
I do have to ask though, how many of your guildmates/shardmates have tied?
Not as baseless, I don’t think. In guild and shard chats on discord I’m talking to ~90 people, most of whom are 3.9MGP or above, and as No_Try attests it is the norm to clear the board at that level - especially in 3v3. I am by no means the only one who has had several battles end in full board clears with each player using the same amount of teams.
In fact, the biggest anxiety on both these servers is clearing the board with maximum efficiency. Since it is so common for both players to clear, the only way you have a chance of winning is to do so with the most possible banners for toons with full health / protection / unused slots. Several people get to their final battle knowing they need 53 banners for a win, but 52 will only tie.
Seriously - I’m not making this up to be difficult - this is what I’ve experienced so far in GA.
As for how many have tied, I’ve seen four with a quick scan of Discord. There may be more if I searched more actively, and there’s the less talkative members as well who don’t always report results (though I imagine they’d have something to say about a tie).
@No_Try you asked for my proposed solution? I think there should be a ticker counting total GP used. If 2 people tie, the person who did so using the least GP should get the win. (I’m spitballing - there is likely a flaw in that I haven’t foreseen!)
@leef ties will be rare. Probably rarer than I think and not as rare as you think!
Yeah, that's a good solution as it takes in a comprehensible competetiveness parameter. It might be too calculation heavy though for CG to adopt, dunno.
Not using a unit in a team can net you 1 or 2 more points in a battle.
What you could get:
Survival bonus + full health + (maybe) full protection = 2-3 points
Going in 4v5 = 4 extra points, but none of the above points.
Making the difference if you go in with 4v5, + 1-2 points depending on the possible outcome had you went in 5v5.
You're probably right that they're not as rare as i think they are simply because i think they are inredibly rare, like 0.5% or something. I really do think ties that rare, haha.
Regardless, even if like 5% out of all GAs end up in a tie, it's still not that big of an issue and any tiebreaker used will be arbitrary. We've got so much control over GA that it's pretty much always your own fault if you tie, i don't see why having used less GP doing so would make you more deserving of the win (or any other tiebreaker used for that matter). Who wins being random is adequate imo.
I can imagine that people who have “lost” a tie feel differently!
My suggestion, GP used on offence, would surely make it almost impossible to tie. The players at least have some control over that during each round, unlike the lock GP figure.
lets be honest here, the only difference that would make is that you can't blame it on the game for it being pre-determined. The control you have over using the least amount of GP on offense is absymal compared to the control you have to not tie in the first place.
That said, i don't care either way because ties are that rare (atleast for me they are) and the downsides to such a tiebreaker are negligible. It just seems to me that people are trying to come up with elaborate plans to solve a non-issue while the current way of dealing with ties is adequate. If you don't like it, make sure you don't tie in the first place instead of asking for some kind of control over who gets the win in case of a tie. That just seems a bit silly to me. There are far more pressing matters the devs can spend their time on imo.
So i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.
My only quibble is that lower GP should be the winner in a tie, not higher.
And, whatever the metric that is used should be clearly discernible at all times. If a tie in my match with player B would see me lose, I’d like to KNOW that, so I understand my target banners is 1 more than his!
i think you're ranked on GP at all times in the rewards table, atleast with the opponent you're playing against since he has the same amount of wins. So if you're higher ranked, you can tie to win. I'm not entirely certain though.
The metric used isn’t the point of playing, You should always have a target of one more banner then your opponent.
If I knew a tie would be credited as a win to me, I might try to take advantage of that I’m afraid. What a cad!!
Lol 😂. That might be why it’s setup the way it is
Lower and higher gp as tie-breaker is exactly the same. Lower GP deserves the win more since he's lower hold no water for me since the difference is extremely superficial. Both are not in player control and pretty much the same as the tiebreaker rng draw that happens before the raids.
Besides if you haven't noted down the GPs at the exact time GA is locked, you don't have access to the locked GPs.
If the current case is to be changed, it should replaced with a solid counter of....-something else- (like the one you proposed)
Beats me why they even used GP when it's about as arbitrary as a simple coin flip anyway. Might as well just RNG it you're going that route.
Except that everything is in the hands of the second mover, not the first.
How so?
Does going second give you more points? Or make the matches easier so you get more banners than you would if you attacked first?