If you could reuse toons in a battle that times out, you could use 1 GL to crush multiple difficult teams, always stopping just short of a win, then letting it time out, and bringing in a lesser team as a finisher while you use your GL against another strong defensive team.
Sure, you'd lose points on the wasted first attempt, but you could guarantee yourself a full clear. And you wouldn't have to use your GL and time out as soon as you get deep enough in that you know that your best other teams can take out the untouched teams that they have remaining.
If I knew that, I could put 6 GLs on defense and take one on offence -- repeatedly.
Exactly.
I’ve made this same argument to ontourallday before, though, so we can only assume he doesn’t see the flaw in his idea.
Thats not what ive said multi times, What I said was, for that one same battle only, you can use those same toons and not add other toons to assist you. You get a straight up rematch, if you then lose your cooked. If you win, good for your, but your toons are spent.
I didn't and haven't said take those toons to another battle at any point, I've been super clear on that also.
there is no flaw in my idea - my idea was pretty straightforward I didn't ask you to like, or not. If the CPU gets to reuse the exact same toons, then so should you in the same battle, no add ons. how hard is that to understand?
It’s not hard to understand. I don’t think the idea is flawed because I don’t understand the idea.
And it can still be exploited - imagine sending in CLS with Han & Chewy et al, doing nothing til there was 1 second to go then using Han’s shoot first ability just before the battle times out to dish out some damage. Rinse and repeat enough times and you’ll win any battle.
So whats the difference of that and the CPU using mother tarzin to regen her squad on her first turn when you go back into battle?
The CPU 99/100 regens their chars on the first and second turn of the second battle, its happened to me so many times and instead of only using two squads you end up using 3.
Sorry - are you claiming that Talzin can revive allies that were killed in a previous battle? Because that is impossible.
No i'm not and for some reason you seem to try and change what I commented and turn it into something else. I also don't need you to attempt to correct everything I suggest, its obvious you don't like my ideas.
Sorry - I’m just confused by what you meant by “regen”. I thought you meant “revive”, but I think now you mean “heal”.
There was a user on these forums many years back who swore blind that this had happened to him (Talzin reviving NS allies who died in an earlier battle) and I thought that the same thing was being claimed here.
But on your other point, that’s how public forums work. You’ve made a suggestion, I don’t think it’s a good idea and I’ve said so.
Give both teams the win and reward them either both with the first place rewards
Nah
people shouldn't get a win for a draw
That's a loss in my books
But how is that a loss? It’s literally a draw lol. That’s why the discussion is should the lower GP get the nod for punching up; or the higher GP for spending/roster bloating more?
I go back to the boxing analogy here - if a title match results in a draw, the challenger doesn't get the title - because they didn't win.
Also, the answer has been stated at least a couple of times in this thread - the person with the higher GP wins because that person has invested more in their roster. If you're CG and you want to reward people for building their roster, are you going to give the rewards to person that has invested less?
F2P since the last time I bought Kyros, Crystals, or the Conquest Pass.
If you could reuse toons in a battle that times out, you could use 1 GL to crush multiple difficult teams, always stopping just short of a win, then letting it time out, and bringing in a lesser team as a finisher while you use your GL against another strong defensive team.
Sure, you'd lose points on the wasted first attempt, but you could guarantee yourself a full clear. And you wouldn't have to use your GL and time out as soon as you get deep enough in that you know that your best other teams can take out the untouched teams that they have remaining.
If I knew that, I could put 6 GLs on defense and take one on offence -- repeatedly.
Exactly.
I’ve made this same argument to ontourallday before, though, so we can only assume he doesn’t see the flaw in his idea.
Thats not what ive said multi times, What I said was, for that one same battle only, you can use those same toons and not add other toons to assist you. You get a straight up rematch, if you then lose your cooked. If you win, good for your, but your toons are spent.
I didn't and haven't said take those toons to another battle at any point, I've been super clear on that also.
there is no flaw in my idea - my idea was pretty straightforward I didn't ask you to like, or not. If the CPU gets to reuse the exact same toons, then so should you in the same battle, no add ons. how hard is that to understand?
It’s not hard to understand. I don’t think the idea is flawed because I don’t understand the idea.
And it can still be exploited - imagine sending in CLS with Han & Chewy et al, doing nothing til there was 1 second to go then using Han’s shoot first ability just before the battle times out to dish out some damage. Rinse and repeat enough times and you’ll win any battle.
So whats the difference of that and the CPU using mother tarzin to regen her squad on her first turn when you go back into battle?
The CPU 99/100 regens their chars on the first and second turn of the second battle, its happened to me so many times and instead of only using two squads you end up using 3.
Sorry - are you claiming that Talzin can revive allies that were killed in a previous battle? Because that is impossible.
No i'm not and for some reason you seem to try and change what I commented and turn it into something else. I also don't need you to attempt to correct everything I suggest, its obvious you don't like my ideas.
Then are you claiming Talzin can heal her team, because that can't happen either.
People still comparing GP like it is everything?
"Out performed" his opponent because he has higher GP ?
What about modding, dtc and counter? They are as important as using the right counter and never talked about and at a certain point, it is more important than GP.
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.
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.
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
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
So far I see the fairest solution is that in the event of a tie both split the crystal rewards for that round. The person with the higher GP is awarded the win and thereby is placed on a better path to get better rewards for the end of week bracket and ultimately the end of season rewards.
Give both teams the win and reward them either both with the first place rewards
Nah
people shouldn't get a win for a draw
That's a loss in my books
But how is that a loss? It’s literally a draw lol. That’s why the discussion is should the lower GP get the nod for punching up; or the higher GP for spending/roster bloating more?
I go back to the boxing analogy here - if a title match results in a draw, the challenger doesn't get the title - because they didn't win.
Also, the answer has been stated at least a couple of times in this thread - the person with the higher GP wins because that person has invested more in their roster. If you're CG and you want to reward people for building their roster, are you going to give the rewards to person that has invested less?
If a boxing match results in a draw they go by a points based system like quality punches, punches landed, etc to determine those split decisions.
However in a true draw yes the champion retains the title but then you’re saying someone with a higher GP is fighting as the “champion” then simply because of roster bloat?
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
So far I see the fairest solution is that in the event of a tie both split the crystal rewards for that round. The person with the higher GP is awarded the win and thereby is placed on a better path to get better rewards for the end of week bracket and ultimately the end of season rewards.
Give both teams the win and reward them either both with the first place rewards
Nah
people shouldn't get a win for a draw
That's a loss in my books
But how is that a loss? It’s literally a draw lol. That’s why the discussion is should the lower GP get the nod for punching up; or the higher GP for spending/roster bloating more?
I go back to the boxing analogy here - if a title match results in a draw, the challenger doesn't get the title - because they didn't win.
Also, the answer has been stated at least a couple of times in this thread - the person with the higher GP wins because that person has invested more in their roster. If you're CG and you want to reward people for building their roster, are you going to give the rewards to person that has invested less?
If a boxing match results in a draw they go by a points based system like quality punches, punches landed, etc to determine those split decisions.
However in a true draw yes the champion retains the title but then you’re saying someone with a higher GP is fighting as the “champion” then simply because of roster bloat?
We already have two point systems, and both are used in the event of a tie. You tied the battle points, so now it backs off to use the GP points. Honestly, any dev time spent on doing anything other than what is already in place for GAC scoring is a waste.
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
So far I see the fairest solution is that in the event of a tie both split the crystal rewards for that round. The person with the higher GP is awarded the win and thereby is placed on a better path to get better rewards for the end of week bracket and ultimately the end of season rewards.
Give both teams the win and reward them either both with the first place rewards
Nah
people shouldn't get a win for a draw
That's a loss in my books
But how is that a loss? It’s literally a draw lol. That’s why the discussion is should the lower GP get the nod for punching up; or the higher GP for spending/roster bloating more?
I go back to the boxing analogy here - if a title match results in a draw, the challenger doesn't get the title - because they didn't win.
Also, the answer has been stated at least a couple of times in this thread - the person with the higher GP wins because that person has invested more in their roster. If you're CG and you want to reward people for building their roster, are you going to give the rewards to person that has invested less?
If a boxing match results in a draw they go by a points based system like quality punches, punches landed, etc to determine those split decisions.
However in a true draw yes the champion retains the title but then you’re saying someone with a higher GP is fighting as the “champion” then simply because of roster bloat?
We already have two point systems, and both are used in the event of a tie. You tied the battle points, so now it backs off to use the GP points. Honestly, any dev time spent on doing anything other than what is already in place for GAC scoring is a waste.
So it can’t even be discussed to see if there’s a different way other than overall GP or how to distribute in the event of a battle points tie?
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
So far I see the fairest solution is that in the event of a tie both split the crystal rewards for that round. The person with the higher GP is awarded the win and thereby is placed on a better path to get better rewards for the end of week bracket and ultimately the end of season rewards.
Give both teams the win and reward them either both with the first place rewards
Nah
people shouldn't get a win for a draw
That's a loss in my books
But how is that a loss? It’s literally a draw lol. That’s why the discussion is should the lower GP get the nod for punching up; or the higher GP for spending/roster bloating more?
I go back to the boxing analogy here - if a title match results in a draw, the challenger doesn't get the title - because they didn't win.
Also, the answer has been stated at least a couple of times in this thread - the person with the higher GP wins because that person has invested more in their roster. If you're CG and you want to reward people for building their roster, are you going to give the rewards to person that has invested less?
If a boxing match results in a draw they go by a points based system like quality punches, punches landed, etc to determine those split decisions.
However in a true draw yes the champion retains the title but then you’re saying someone with a higher GP is fighting as the “champion” then simply because of roster bloat?
We already have two point systems, and both are used in the event of a tie. You tied the battle points, so now it backs off to use the GP points. Honestly, any dev time spent on doing anything other than what is already in place for GAC scoring is a waste.
So it can’t even be discussed to see if there’s a different way other than overall GP or how to distribute in the event of a battle points tie?
We all know there are different ways. Doesn't change the fact that it's not worth the dev time to make it happen. The system we have is good enough, and already uses your boxing points system analogy.
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
So far I see the fairest solution is that in the event of a tie both split the crystal rewards for that round. The person with the higher GP is awarded the win and thereby is placed on a better path to get better rewards for the end of week bracket and ultimately the end of season rewards.
Give both teams the win and reward them either both with the first place rewards
Nah
people shouldn't get a win for a draw
That's a loss in my books
But how is that a loss? It’s literally a draw lol. That’s why the discussion is should the lower GP get the nod for punching up; or the higher GP for spending/roster bloating more?
I go back to the boxing analogy here - if a title match results in a draw, the challenger doesn't get the title - because they didn't win.
Also, the answer has been stated at least a couple of times in this thread - the person with the higher GP wins because that person has invested more in their roster. If you're CG and you want to reward people for building their roster, are you going to give the rewards to person that has invested less?
If a boxing match results in a draw they go by a points based system like quality punches, punches landed, etc to determine those split decisions.
However in a true draw yes the champion retains the title but then you’re saying someone with a higher GP is fighting as the “champion” then simply because of roster bloat?
We already have two point systems, and both are used in the event of a tie. You tied the battle points, so now it backs off to use the GP points. Honestly, any dev time spent on doing anything other than what is already in place for GAC scoring is a waste.
So it can’t even be discussed to see if there’s a different way other than overall GP or how to distribute in the event of a battle points tie?
We all know there are different ways. Doesn't change the fact that it's not worth the dev time to make it happen. The system we have is good enough, and already uses your boxing points system analogy.
Well tbf, not mine, nerf herder brought that analogy up.
Listen it’s rare enough that I don’t foresee me having an issue again for the near future but it’s worth discussion to see if it can be improved on.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Can't see you getting much more of a response than this, but good luck.
Considering this was almost 4 years ago, and things like getting GAC cheating under control
Before making the switch of crystal income clearly didn’t happen, there’s a lot in TopCash’s answers that left alot unfulfilled. Not to mention this answer was before the switch of crystals as well which would kind of go against the “non trivial amount of work” answer doesn’t really fit anymore.
That whole batch of Q&A’s from top hat left alot to be desired aside from him basically saying “no” or “can’t say”
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Can't see you getting much more of a response than this, but good luck.
Considering this was almost 4 years ago, and things like getting GAC cheating under control
Before making the switch of crystal income clearly didn’t happen, there’s a lot in TopCash’s answers that left alot unfulfilled. Not to mention this answer was before the switch of crystals as well which would kind of go against the “non trivial amount of work” answer doesn’t really fit anymore.
That whole batch of Q&A’s from top hat left alot to be desired aside from him basically saying “no” or “can’t say”
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Can't see you getting much more of a response than this, but good luck.
Considering this was almost 4 years ago, and things like getting GAC cheating under control
Before making the switch of crystal income clearly didn’t happen, there’s a lot in TopCash’s answers that left alot unfulfilled. Not to mention this answer was before the switch of crystals as well which would kind of go against the “non trivial amount of work” answer doesn’t really fit anymore.
That whole batch of Q&A’s from top hat left alot to be desired aside from him basically saying “no” or “can’t say”
They didn't care then, why would they care now
While you may be right, the concept of them caring so little is just sad
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Can't see you getting much more of a response than this, but good luck.
Considering this was almost 4 years ago, and things like getting GAC cheating under control
Before making the switch of crystal income clearly didn’t happen, there’s a lot in TopCash’s answers that left alot unfulfilled. Not to mention this answer was before the switch of crystals as well which would kind of go against the “non trivial amount of work” answer doesn’t really fit anymore.
That whole batch of Q&A’s from top hat left alot to be desired aside from him basically saying “no” or “can’t say”
They didn't care then, why would they care now
While you may be right, the concept of them caring so little is just sad
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Beware: there is a difference between something being resolved and something being resolved the way you and other forumers want it to be resolved.
An arbitrary, consistent mechanism to settle tiebreaks is required, and we’ve got one.
Replacing the current criteria with its polar opposite obviously won’t resolve the matter to everyone’s liking either, so what’s the point in asking a CM to look into this?
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
Agreed - this thread was largely unnecessary as it has been brought up several times before, and no clear conclusion is ever reached.
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Beware: there is a difference between something being resolved and something being resolved the way you and other forumers want it to be resolved.
An arbitrary, consistent mechanism to settle tiebreaks is required, and we’ve got one.
Replacing the current criteria with its polar opposite obviously won’t resolve the matter to everyone’s liking either, so what’s the point in asking a CM to look into this?
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?
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
Can't see you getting much more of a response than this, but good luck.
Considering this was almost 4 years ago, and things like getting GAC cheating under control
Before making the switch of crystal income clearly didn’t happen, there’s a lot in TopCash’s answers that left alot unfulfilled. Not to mention this answer was before the switch of crystals as well which would kind of go against the “non trivial amount of work” answer doesn’t really fit anymore.
That whole batch of Q&A’s from top hat left alot to be desired aside from him basically saying “no” or “can’t say”
They didn't care then, why would they care now
While you may be right, the concept of them caring so little is just sad
Not for this case, it's really not important.
Anecdotal. Perhaps not to you, but to a number of people it is. Hence the discussion lol
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?
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.
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.
Replies
There was a user on these forums many years back who swore blind that this had happened to him (Talzin reviving NS allies who died in an earlier battle) and I thought that the same thing was being claimed here.
But on your other point, that’s how public forums work. You’ve made a suggestion, I don’t think it’s a good idea and I’ve said so.
I go back to the boxing analogy here - if a title match results in a draw, the challenger doesn't get the title - because they didn't win.
Also, the answer has been stated at least a couple of times in this thread - the person with the higher GP wins because that person has invested more in their roster. If you're CG and you want to reward people for building their roster, are you going to give the rewards to person that has invested less?
Then are you claiming Talzin can heal her team, because that can't happen either.
"Out performed" his opponent because he has higher GP ?
What about modding, dtc and counter? They are as important as using the right counter and never talked about and at a certain point, it is more important than GP.
You need a winner and a loser to know who will face who next round.
Not to mention datacrons that don't add GP but can completely change the course of a GAC.
CG wants you to gear up characters and ships. In the rare case of a tie, higher GP seems like a decent enough tie breaker.
If you think you are being penalized, get one more banner next time.
This conversation has a lot of commentary for something that doesn't happen often, but ties do happen and there has to be a winner and loser chosen.
Not sure what you'd call being chosen the loser in the case of a tie other than 'penalized'.
I don't see them putting in a sudden death overtime mechanic...
"better"
An arbitrary, but consistent method is required to settle ties, and that’s exactly what we’ve got. /debate.
If only it were so easy...
Anecdotal but if it keeps coming up on the forums then it’s still not finding a resolution as you’ve said. So perhaps we could get a CM in here to make an official stance for once on why the Tie break is the way it is and if it has a chance to be revamped. You know that old elephant in the room called communication.
So far I see the fairest solution is that in the event of a tie both split the crystal rewards for that round. The person with the higher GP is awarded the win and thereby is placed on a better path to get better rewards for the end of week bracket and ultimately the end of season rewards.
If a boxing match results in a draw they go by a points based system like quality punches, punches landed, etc to determine those split decisions.
However in a true draw yes the champion retains the title but then you’re saying someone with a higher GP is fighting as the “champion” then simply because of roster bloat?
We already have two point systems, and both are used in the event of a tie. You tied the battle points, so now it backs off to use the GP points. Honestly, any dev time spent on doing anything other than what is already in place for GAC scoring is a waste.
So it can’t even be discussed to see if there’s a different way other than overall GP or how to distribute in the event of a battle points tie?
We all know there are different ways. Doesn't change the fact that it's not worth the dev time to make it happen. The system we have is good enough, and already uses your boxing points system analogy.
Well tbf, not mine, nerf herder brought that analogy up.
Listen it’s rare enough that I don’t foresee me having an issue again for the near future but it’s worth discussion to see if it can be improved on.
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/search?Page=p7&adv=1&author=CG_Tusken_Meathead,CG_SBCrumb&cat=all&comment_comment=1&date=&discussion_discussion=1&discussion_poll=1&search=Tie&subcats=1&tags=&title=&within=1+day
Can't see you getting much more of a response than this, but good luck.
Well, tbf, I think the analogy was made back on page 1. I just found it to be the most fitting lol.
Considering this was almost 4 years ago, and things like getting GAC cheating under control
Before making the switch of crystal income clearly didn’t happen, there’s a lot in TopCash’s answers that left alot unfulfilled. Not to mention this answer was before the switch of crystals as well which would kind of go against the “non trivial amount of work” answer doesn’t really fit anymore.
That whole batch of Q&A’s from top hat left alot to be desired aside from him basically saying “no” or “can’t say”
They didn't care then, why would they care now
While you may be right, the concept of them caring so little is just sad
Not for this case, it's really not important.
An arbitrary, consistent mechanism to settle tiebreaks is required, and we’ve got one.
Replacing the current criteria with its polar opposite obviously won’t resolve the matter to everyone’s liking either, so what’s the point in asking a CM to look into this?
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?
Anecdotal. Perhaps not to you, but to a number of people it is. Hence the discussion lol
I asked “why bother the CMs / devs with this?” Your answer, “why not?”, is about as uncompelling as it gets. 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?