GAC ranking is irrational
Are there any plans to fix GAC? When will winning carry the weight it should? Someone with one loss should never rank higher than someone with zero losses no matter how many banners. What this cr...
Forum Discussion
"GIJippo;c-2202044" wrote:"Kyno;c-2202040" wrote:"GIJippo;c-2201968" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-2201876" wrote:
So @GIJippo, for the sake of argument, do you think someone who wins each and every one of their 12 matches by higher GP tiebreak after neither player attacks should rank above someone who wins 11 matches comfortably but then loses 1 match by a single banner?
Nope. That player should have a record of 0-0-12. Ties don't count as a win or loss where adults set things up. Thanks for bringing up that irrationality as well.
That is not a tie counting as a win, it's a win counting as a win. They win by the rules of engagement, so not irrational, actually quite logical.
How would you measure 2 players who never face each other and face different calibers of players?
Logic would dictate that you use metrics from the battle since not all wins are created equal.
Unless you think the quoted situation makes a player better than the other due to calling all wins equal (which seems a little irrational).
No, if the score ends in a tie it's a tie and it isn't counted as a win nor a loss. That's the price you pay for not participating. It's also the price you pay for being unable to manufacture a winner. Not sure how you are reading my comment but it seems like you are trying to find an argument for the same of arguing. You don't position people who don't participate in with people who do. It's among the most remedial quality controls of a competitive environment.
Did you ever hear of tiebreakers? GAC only operates with wins and losses. All ties are broken for the sake of matching players within a GA (within a group of 8). A win is a win disregarding whether it was won bye tiebreaker or not - and that's common in competitive sports (/environments).
