Award banners for GAC defense wins
It is mathematically possible to clear the opponent in all 1 tries, have them take 2 tries on one of your teams, and you still lose. Also, any number of attempts beyond the second does not penalize the attacker at all. This all goes against the very nature of "efficient offense". Award banners for defensive holds please.
0
Replies
Can you provide the math?
Disagree. If you don't play efficient enough on offense to beat an opponent who's maximum possible banners is 20 less, you don't deserve to win.
The real dealbreaker is that you can "give" your opponent nearly infinite banners by just wasting attempts sending your entire roster to die 1 by 1.
There are more reasons why the current system is preferable, but the one i just mentioned is reason enough on it's on for it to never happen.
The penalty is that the attacker loses characters on each failed attack since each character can only be used once.
if they can come back from a 20 point deficit, they beat you, and the 2nd try just happened to be there.
you would need to do pretty bad on quite a few matches and they would have to do great on quite a few matches to make up those points. at that point they are seemingly superior to you and should win.
There can be a realistic 10 point delta between offence wins (52-62) so you can easily make up a mistake
correct they can, but thats is when you are going bad and they are doing good, so they should win. a single first round loss shouldn't be more punishing, because it allows a player to not be better than their opponent and still win.
when my long reply with math gets approved, you will see that you don't even have to do so much differently, even an average of 56 vs an average of 60 on the other battles is more than enough even in lower gp divisions.
the math is simple, difference of 5 points over 4 matches, or any other combination of 20/ teams used.
the thing is if you are scoring 3-5 points less per battle, you are on track to deserving the loss. nothing should be an automatic or guaranteed loss/win
The difference in points between clearing in one try and two tries is 20 points. That’s not an obscene number of points to overcome.
If he was “perfect” in every battle otherwise, then that means you had at least 21 “toon-points” you lost in battles. There’s a lot of combinations throughout the war between lost health, lost protection, death, or all three that could contribute to this deficit.
For example. If you had seven toons die and the rest had full health/protection, and he had zero die and all remained with perfect health and protection, you would lose by one point.
Another example is he finished all his battles with perfect health and protection, and you had 21 toons lose protection. Or 11 lose both health and protection. (These scenarios assuming the opponent had perfect scores)
This doesn’t even take into account unused slots on offense. Another example, I ALWAYS defeat Geos for 62 points using just Sion and Traya.
In fact, this is so statistically possible that there’s way too many possible combinations to list here for my liking.
it is.
as the OP didn't reply till now, i'll pitch in -
say that we are talking division 4 (up to 3.1m). so we have six teams for each player. lets assume all zones were cleared, and one player took two tries at one of the teams, rest of the teams cleared in one.
now, a perfect win is 64 banners, easy for example with znest vs ewoks, or plainly fighting a weak team with a strong soloist like wampa.
for every additional toon, its 1 banner less. for every toon without full prot or health, its 1 banner each, and finally 1 additional banner lost if he dies.
so that in mind, with a full squad you can usually expect to get 50-60 on a win, usually over 55 if you had a good win (all team intact, only lost prot and a bit of health for some toons). in the worst case scenario, for a win with one remaining toon and not full health and prot, you still get 64 - 4 - 5 - 5 - 4 = 46.
a second attempt is -20 banners, so in the best case you can score 44, still less than the one clear.
let's say i waged a mirror battle of darth revans, and lost only marginally - only his bastilla fallen survived.
furious, i used a strong solo toon like cls, and beat up the remaining bastila, scoring 44.
suppose for the rest of my battles i did well, and scored 60 in each fight (very possible, as f2p with 3.3m gp im currently averaging at 58.5 in the past two rounds of gac, and usually average 57-61 in most rounds).
now lets assume the opponent doesnt do as well, and scores 56 average on his fights. so in total, i still win with 540+180+180+150+150+44+60+60+60+60+60 = 1544
vs my opponent that only scored
540+180+180+150+150+56+56+56+56+56+56 = 1536
now, regarding the OP's post. Bear in mind, this is my opinion only -
While it does make some sense to reward good defenses, you get your reward in the fact that your opponent lost many banners, and may not reach your back wall. as we all have limited rosters, it also makes sense that placing good defense is a sacrifice that needs to hurt in some way towards your win, otherwise you would see extremely fortified rounds to maximize points, ending with very little battle wins - hardly entertaining and fun. Nothing i hate more, than seeing that my enemy pretty much gave up and placed it all on defense, it just hurts both parties bannerwise and kinda spoils the mode.
All in all, i believe this is a really bad idea. also, it would kinda ruin the mode entirely for those without the meta teams, as they would hit a wall and be discouraged from even attempting it, to not further lower their chances of winning.
You lose 20 points in GA if you aren’t able to clear your opponent in first try (max points is 44 on second try)
Minimum points you can get on 1st attempt is 46 I believe
You are still 2 points ahead on every battle
And that is with the assumption opponent is clearing every zone with one toon at max health + prot
I suggest you read the reply where i wrote down the math (sorry for it being a bit long).
from what write i understand you assume one player clears in one shot, the other loses on every team once.
This wasn't the case discussed, he talked about losing a single match. (btw, i've won once after losing two).
EDIT: i see in your first reply you said "all teams", i should have said ^this there xD
You won’t be 2 points ahead on every battle, if they only have 1 second attempt and the rest first attempts.
In div1/2, say player A has 1 second time win scoring 42 banners, and 7 first time wins averaging 59 banners each. They score 1895.
Player B has 8 first time clears averaging 56 banners each. They score 1888.
That’s a perfectly conceivable scenario.
But I agree with what many others have said. Player A would deserve the win.
I think it’s fair that opponent can win even if they fail to one shot all your teams. They ran more efficient teams and I think that is far more difficult than strong defense
Efficient offense > defense > offense
I think there needs to be a fighting chance even if you fail once, and the risk is greater trying to go for more efficiency if your roster depth and mods aren’t up to par
Agreed. While I like the idea of rewarding defense....because the current system is heavily skewed towards offense....there is too much potential for abuse. Instead, I'd like to see some sort of bonus based upon point differential. If I beat my opponent 1900 to 1500, that should be worth more than someone who beats their opponent 1900 to 1899. That would reward winning with strong defense.
If they 2 shot one team and you 1 shot all their teams, it is mathematically possible to lose still despite being more efficient. If you used less teams and didn't lose, you are by definition more efficient.
My particular example is from this just passed round where I won 1891 to 1887. I 1-shot all of his defense, had a couple undersized teams, all in all I did pretty well. He had one 2-shot and still almost won. This, by the very definition of efficiency, should not even be possible in a game like this. There is no way someone should be able to win if they lose more than their opponent, it just doesn't make any sense. Sure people will spin it in a million different ways, but at the end of the day if any of us lost a round in this manner we would be furious. It's a flaw in the scoring system that it is even possible.
Btw this would promote offense > defense even more.
More so to the point that people have the best teams on the game on offense and Tuskens on defense.
I think you’re missing a lot of the meaning behind the scoring system.
What does it mean when you say “no one should be able to win if they lose more than their opponents?”
You imply that it means discrete matches should solely dictate the outcome, and it seems most of the community disagrees.
If it takes you eight battles to clear their board, and it takes them nine battles to clear your board - does that truly mean you lost less by that single metric?
If you barely survived your eight attempts, and they easily coasted through eight attempts and lost one attempt, who actually lost more? What if you lost a total of 73 toons combined on offense and defense, and your opponent lost a total of 45 on offense and defense, who actually lost more? What if you were a General in a war, which would you choose.... to win a higher percentage of battles and lose twice as many soldiers in the process, or have several great victories with no casualties and one lost battle?
At the end of the day, we know how CG feels about it... we all know the rules and the scoring system, and strategizing to that system is the way to earn victories.