Why no reward for defense in GA?
December 14, 2020 9:04PM
edited December 2020
I know you get points for setting a defensive squad but why not give a reward at the end for surviving squads?
Post edited by Kyno on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
* you get banners for setting the squad
* you deny your opponent banners if it holds
Somewhat true, but because banners are also used to determine league promotions and final scoreboard placement, not fully true.
This, it is giving you banners for defensive holds.
Them winning on the second attempt is the same as you being given 20 banners for holding, or 30 for a win on a third attempt.
even when you win, you are awarded points for placing a better defensive team. that is why they lose points for units without full health/protection and survival.
The system is giving you banners for the things your defense does, its probably just easier for display and system purposes for it to be "displayed" on the attackers side, vs "passed to you" to be displayed.
I'm not defending (ha) the idea of awarding more points for D, just pointing out the flaw (or rather the missing component) in the argument being used.
Good luck with this. People don't get it. I've tried. It's obvious there needs to be a reward of some kind for not allowing yourself to be full cleared. Instead, you are punished if you are matched with a better opponent and defense is the only path to victory. Oh well!
This one wouldn’t work as it is so susceptible to abuse. Someone could be convinced / coerced / bribed into chucking team after team of bottom end roster rubbish at a defence team to let you rack up the points.
It could work if there was a limit to the points obtained though, as that would close the loophole.
The natural counter argument, though, is that in depriving your opponent of banners with defense, you increase your odds of winning the round. Therefore you DO get more points for progression, since you get the +1600 win banners.
This doesn't make much sense. If your opponent is better...then they're better. They shouldn't win for being better? This seems like a rehash of the matcmaking arguments where you made poor roster choices. How are you supposed to have a path to a defensive victory if they are, in fact, better? You are saying you are awarded more points for defensive holds than you lose by not attempting to even attack the teams you can't beat? So you get rewarded for not attacking and they get punished for actually trying?
Why is it a goal in itself to post stronger units on defense?
Yes its all about choices and balance. you want to win matches and complete feats to make kyber. to do that you need to balance your choices on what you place on defense to meet your goals. more points awarded (on top of what you already get) for defense, wont really factor in unless they are huge(which they really shouldn't be), because the win is such a large point value, as it should be.
again, you do earn points for what your defense does. here is a hypothetical:
you both set a good defense:
Player 1 clears all zones and beats every team.
Player 2 clears 3 zones and loses to 1 team.
in the current setup Player 1 wins because the opponent scored less banners than them, because player 2 was awarded less banners
in the setup you want with the same above results, Player 1 wins because they scored more banners than their opponent, because they were given banners after the opponent lost a battle.
the scores would be exactly the same, if they changed the system to award points rather than hold them for the player to "take". There is no difference, just how the banners are seen, not in any way that would mean you should change your strategy.
if you just want them to add points on top of the whole system that is build, that seems odd, because they already account for offensive wins and defensive losses, it doesn't make sense for them to add more on top of what you already get. This would also make it easier to advance in divisions, which is not really needed.
There you go. You just made winning secondary. Flawed!
If I beat them they aren't better are they? No. If someone lost and I didn't they aren't "better" are they? Empirically, no. Therefore they shouldn't rank higher.
Until you account for differences in difficulty of schedule. I draw people that place GAS qnd DR on D, I still somehow win (defense is the only path to victory) but someone who played against weak defenses but still lost a match ranks ahead??? Get outta here with that. There is no teneble argument for that.
Right now is susceptible to abuse. Someone could be convined / coerced / bribed into placing all top 30 D at expense of loss that can't be full cleared to prevent a certain player from ranking because clearing is what its all about. 🤷. This is why wins / losses are the rational QC of any competitive system where head to head matches are involved.
The way it is now is indefensibly irrational 💯
To be fair they list your lifetime total banners earned rather than your life time GA win/loss record, But that isn’t the point.
A win isn’t just a win you are rewarded with banners based on style points for winning and those style points are based on the quality of your offense not the quality of your defense. I can still win with a lousy defense if I out score them and for that I am rewarded with 3700 banners (2100+1600 for the win) even if I get swept on defense my opponent could have earned 2099 banners meaning we collectively earned 5799 banners between us
If I put stronger squads on defense and so does my opponent as a result I only clear 2 sections and hold 2 with my defense but still win I earn 3100 banners (1500+1600) and my opponent earn 1499 then we collectively earned 4599 banners
so with the inevitability that one side will win and one will lose by trying on defense under this system my opponent and I lose 1200 extra banners fighting for the 1600 prize that one of us will win either way
At the very least why not reward banners for defensive wins 20 points for the first win 10 for the second 5 for a third
False. So very false.
Winning is your primary goal since winning awards more championship points than you could ever earn from a full clear loss. It's actually a rational system.
If you beat them they can't possibly score more than you (unless they score much more points from feats than you). A win is always worth more championship score than a loss. Always.
As someone else pointed out in a previous comment:
Your defensive holds are rewarded by your opponent winning less (or no) bonus points for 1st/2nd attempt wins. They increase your own chances to win.
That's not what you said though. You laid down the premise they are better. You have also yet to explain how you can get a defensive victory against a better opponent.
Even if you don't full clear them, but still won, that means you beat more teams than they did or beat them more efficiently, or maybe you cleared a teritory where they didn't. Is that a "defensive win" for you, or an offense one? Why does them setting a team you can't beat not net them a "defensive win?" It seems like you are playing a semantic game. Defenses cause your opponent to lose banners, thus lowering their chances of a win, and therefore costing them the bonus banners towards advancement.
I'm going to assume your comment about ranking is not about an individual match, but whether an opponent you beat got a higher final ranking than you or made kyber where you didn't. But those things take into account all your matchups and also how many feats you've done. There's no reason to judge someone who made a higher final placement than you just because you beat them in an individual matchup. There's also just a lot of probability involved there. One victory isn't a be-all-end all determination of final success.