GAC ranking is irrational

"Bulldog1205;c-2202740" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2202289" wrote:

"Hortus;c-2202217" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2202115" wrote:
A win is a win disregarding whether it was won bye tiebreaker or not - and that's common in competitive sports (/environments).

Yeah, a win is a win... yet somehow in the GAC many wins and loses are different, with value often controlled not by you but by your opponent. And that's exactly the point which TS is trying to made:

Someone with one loss should never rank higher than someone with zero losses no matter how many banners.

Yes, you score and rank partly depends on your opponents and their strategies. Changing the scoring system won't change this fact. We're simply too many participants to have a round-Robin style tournament where we all battle each other one at a time.

No, but we could at least get a little bit closer, right? It's silly to finish GAC with a thousand undefeated accounts.

Why is it a goal for you to reduce the number of undefeated accounts?

If throughout the season you have the top of the leader boards face off against each other like you suggested you will reduce the number of undefeated accounts, yes, but a player with a 10-2 record who won the 10 first rounds will have much harder match-ups than a player who lost the first 2 followed by 10 wins. Seems silly to me.

Regarding you previous comment:

Awarding championship score based on winning margin instead of banners scored? Did you think your suggestion through? Why should a full clear win by 1 banner award less championship score than a full clear win where your opponent didn't attack? In both cases the winners accomplished the exact same things: a win and a full clear. Also, how much championship points do you suggest the losing player should be awarded? With the current system the losing player still scores championship points according to the accomplishment. A full clear loss is awarded much more championship points than a loss with no (or low) offensive banners. What would you suggest?