GAC draw results unfair for lower GP

"MaruMaru;c-2411070" wrote:

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411064" wrote:
But they aren’t gaining an unfair advantage. Arguably they are entitled to have a 4m GP buffer over you by virtue of their investment in the game (be it time or money) comparative to yours. The fact that they have lost out on resources by not playing GAC to the potential of their roster is a choice they are choosing to make.

Also, he’s not necessarily ruining your rewards. How do you know you would have beaten another player with, say 1.5m GP with the same skill rating that could have been in their place?

Yea, the last sentence is the crust of the issue.

This part of your post was delicious.

"GegeGerard24;c-2411123" wrote:

Next time, i will feel grateful when i see higher GP, knowing that my winning chance is 90%.

I'm not saying it is that high, just that it could be that case. Assuming it is 50/50 isn't necessarily true either.

"GegeGerard24;c-2411123" wrote:

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411118" wrote:

If the chance that they play, against a player with your GP given that they've dropped that far (and that's the important bit), is only 10% then you have a 90% chance of winning against such a player. Not all outcomes are equally likely, and that's what you seem to be missing.

I'm not sure I can find another way of explaining this.

Ok, I understand.
I had 90% of winning against that 6M GP, given that he might have dropped that far from Aurodium III to Carb III.

Why didn't i feel that?
As soon as i saw his deployed squads, i knew I could do nothing.
Just for fun, i had 1 squad with 2 relic-ed characters, so why not...and I won only that battle.

BTW, i am out.
Next time, i will feel grateful when i see higher GP, knowing that my winning chance is 90%.

If you’re punching up then it’s higher than 50% that you will see an opponent with more GP. Conversely, if you are losing a bunch, it’s higher than 50% that you will see opponents with less GP. Instead of trying to calculate the probability of your chance to win by looking at GP, just remember that no matter what you think the percentage is it’s zero if you don’t even try.

You can’t control who you are matched up against. You can’t control whether or not they “show up” in most cases. So try your best and move to the next round. As long as you keep growing you should eventually move past the people who aren’t trying.

I can appreciate the frustration but many sports and games have "unfair" mechanics/rules like this that reward people who are already ahead. Where winners go first or get to keep possession of the ball ("make it take it"), serve first, get first move next game, etc. Are these systems all fair? No, probably not. But they're the rules we all play by and there's not much we can do about them. If it helps you maintain your sanity think of it not as a tie, but a 1 point loss (since you needed 1 extra point to avoid that situation and failed to achieve that).

Also, as someone who plays 6 accounts I can tell you ties are indeed very rare. I think I've had one, maybe two in the last few YEARS.

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2411095" wrote:

"GegeGerard24;c-2411090" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2411083" wrote:

So you're suggesting that people who don't engage with GAC for a while, or just plain suck at it should be banned?

Now I've heard everything.

I thought you could read...
I had clearly said this and you quoted it.

"GegeGerard24;c-2411081" wrote:

By unfair advantage, i am talking about their manipulation of skill rating. They intentionally lower their skill rating so that they can achieve whatever goal they have.

Than ofcourse, an player who has taken an hiatus from GAC has to be identified in ban investigation.
They have the datas whether a player intentionally lower their skill rating or not.

Tha fact is, by doing that, they put other in disadvantage (75% losing probability)

How do you prove someone intentionally lowered their skill rating? I mean, it's easy to say "... has to be identified in ban investigation", but what do you think CG should/can/will do when somebody says "well my brother borrowed my phone so I couldn't play last GAC", ask them to send a picture of their brother holding up today's paper and their phone?

+1 for the "my brother" reference from another equally comical thread that we see about as often as these.

Oooh boohoo.