GAC draw

ATMtheWookie wrote:

1.) But that lower gp player DIDN'T play better. If they did they would have won not tied.

However, the lower GP has played better to get into the position to play the match up.  If the lower GP had played/built their account equally as badly as the higher GP player, they'd be in a lower league/division.

Lower GP player deserves the tie-break, IMO.  The fact I've never had one (to my knowledge),  and that I have been playing since GA/GAC started, suggests that it's such a small thing it isn't worth worrying about either way, nor would people attempt to game the system in some way.

I think the rule for breaking ties is backwards for the only really competitive part of the game still.  The win should go to the underdog. 

From ATM the Wookie: 

Plenty of spenders who are terrible at the game and ftp who are good.

Looking at you, Elon Musk. 

From Darjelo:

As a wider point, there is a constant risk of seasoned forumers seeming dismissive to newcomers because 95% (made up stat) of forum suggestions are things we’ve seen time and time again.

Yeah, I try to provide info the first couple of replies, but there comes a point where my patience run out. I try to walk away rather than engage in unproductive stuff, but it's obviously a natural human thing to be tempted to be dismissive when you've seen something 40 times before and are wondering why new players/new forumers think that no one else has ever thought of their genius idea before. None of the new players/commenters are intending to call everyone else dumb for not thinking of this stuff before, but human psychology is human psychology and some people feel that way and respond as if that were true. 

The longer these threads go on, the more likely we are to see that kind of conflict, and I find myself wishing that Cheese could just accept that this is a well-discussed topic. People both agree and disagree with Cheese, but it's not new and it's not going to be changed at this point. 

I definitely read OP post as them having TIED and lost 3 times not just having lost 3 times. 

Did the lower player really play better to get into that matchup? Because all we hear on these threads is complaining about the larger accounts sandbagging into lower leagues. I'd say its more lower players being about where they should be and the larger players probably should be higher(if they played with full effort and ability). We've seen time and time again on these threads that a lot of the people complaining have a largely overinflated view of what league they should be in. 

While I admire the underdog spirit I just don't think you should get the win. Especially because while in this thread its a drastic gp difference but it can lead to some absurd results if people are close enough in gp where its from toons that had no impact on the round. 

ATMtheWookie wrote:

Did the lower player really play better to get into that matchup? Because all we hear on these threads is complaining about the larger accounts sandbagging into lower leagues.

So, why should the 'sandbagger' be rewarded?   Would it not be better to reward the player that is trying harder?

Or are you saying that rewarding the higher GP player helps to re-address league imbalances?

I'm the first person to say that GP is a poor determiner as to who's the better player.  However, rewarding the larger account in this rare situation, doesn't seem right to me.

ATMtheWookie wrote:

it can lead to some absurd results if people are close enough in gp where its from toons that had no impact on the round. 

This is one distinct situation though.  We could come up with 100 equally distinct situations to favour each side.  For me, logically, it should go to the person who's done the better job.  The player that has progressed the most (or done down the least) is the player doing the better job in GAC and should therefore be rewarded with the tie-break.

It’s the “in a row” part you have mentioned several times I’m querying. 

I said that I lost 3 in a row by 6 points or less, recently.  Possibly, there was a mix up.

When these threads get so long, it's difficult to navigate to the bottom.  Is this forum set-up deliberately bad, so that long threads peter-out?