GAC ranking is irrational

"DarjeloSalas;c-2204331" wrote:

"GIJippo;c-2204298" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2204212" wrote:

"GIJippo;c-2204194" wrote:
Check out this awesome scenario:

An NFL team plays in the toughest division. They go undefeated even though the games were low scoring. But, because 6 other teams play in crappy divisions they rack up more points and are awarded the 6 playoff spots even though they all managed to drop a game. Not only do they rank ahead of the undefeated team, the undefeated team doesn't even have a post season!

But as we all know that would never happen. Because that's dumb. Why bust your balls going undefeated????

This is swgoh, not the NFL.

"GIJippo;c-2204190" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2203944" wrote:

"GIJippo;c-2203906" wrote:
If it were me, I would offer bonus banners for the point differential in a win. If your opponent doesn't clear anything, you get the banners of the difference in the score added on top. Easy. Because right now, just going by banners makes people just go all offense in clear and who cares. They can lose TWO matches and still rank ahead of me when I worked to BEAT my opponent if I happen to draw some ringers that set hard D. I don't know why the idea that winners should rank higher than losers is controversial. It's so stupid simple of a concept.

There’s a paradox in here.

As has been explained a few times, the biggest point differential occurs when your opponent doesn’t try. You suggest you should be rewarded for when you “beat” your opponent, but people who are drawn against several opponents who set defence and no more will be rewarded far more than people drawn against opponents that try.

The problem with most of these suggestions is that the key determining factor in the banners awarded is what your opponent does. But you can’t control that. If I draw 12 successive people who all try and I win narrowly each time, I’m going to be miles behind someone who draws even just a couple of opponents who don’t try.

Do you mean except for when you set big D and they AFK set and you only get one territory and win? You say a "big" differential in that? I sure don't.

No. I mean, for example, I round 1 of the current GA, my opponent beat 1 team then failed against my Rey. I then full cleared him. He did not attack again.

If I understand you correctly you’re suggesting that I get rewarded for my huge banner differential? I can’t get behind that idea. Some enemies fight til the death, others give up the second they know they can’t win. The winners in those matches are not in control of what their opponent does, so it is not workable to reward people for the banner differential. Just the banners they earn.

EXACTLY. Your opponent can set cheesy defense to not allow but 2 lands even though they lose in the process to keep you from clearing and ranking. This sucks because YOU CAN'T CONTROL THAT. There is no tenable argument FOR your opponent being able to control YOUR rank.

I’m not entirely sure what your first sentence means, but you’re proving my point, not countering it.

If people are rewarded for their points differential, those who get matched with people that don’t attack gain an advantage that is absolutely nothing to do with anything they’ve done. If people stop you scoring highly by setting defences you can’t beat, isn’t that the whole point of the game mode? Why should someone who can’t full clear their opponents be rewarded more than someone who can?

I do think the points / ranking system could be improved, but what you’re suggesting is not the solution because all it does it make more problems.

Yes, you don't get what I'm saying. That's okay, not everyone understands simple competitive theory. So, if you draw two tossers who place **** on defense and I draw opponents who place stout D why do YOU get to rank ahead of me when I beat tougher opponents? What is your tenable position for that? Spoiler alert: This argument goes back to the fundamentals of wins/losses as the first metric of ranking. There's a reason everyone does it that way. YES, for about the 20th time now it is SWGOH. It's not NFL or anything else. That's exactly why I made the post. SWGOH is doing it totally stupidly. You can like it if you want, but it is irrational and flawed and stupid. It is **** someone can bust their balls pulling out wins against stout opponents when someone else can rank higher losing two matches but that's okay because they drew people who placed ZERO defense. The standing of my case is legitimate.

Yes, reward the point differential in some way, maybe give winning many more banners because otherwise YOU ARE PUNISHED FOR WINNING. That is untenable.

I understand you less and less every time you post.

1) look me up on swgoh.gg. When I full clear, I’m not beating “tossers who place **** on defence”. I’m full clearing players who have 2-3 GLs. You seem to think that the only people who are full clearing are people facing weak defence. This is definitely not the case. You’re not punished for winning, you’re rewarded for winning and clearing your opponent’s defences.

2) I’ve raised, several times, examples of people getting a large points differential that they have not earned. You refuse to address this. For the 4th or 5th time... when I full clear my opponent for 2100+ banners, I have earned that score. If they full clear for 2097 banners, or if they attack one team then spit the dummy leaving them on 885 banners, what is it that I’ve done to earn the 1215 differential in one of those matches compared with the 5 differential in the other?

I would love it if you addressed that second part - and remember that there are thousands of players who are full clearing strong defences every single round.

When people make complaints like this it’s sometimes hard to tell if they’ve just got a chip on their shoulder. It’s looking more and more like that’s what’s going on in this thread.

I'm not arguing for the system suggested by GIJippo but if they did implement it, players would know that if they don't attack their opponent then they are giving them free points and a higher ranking so it is highly likely they would make sure to attack even when the battle is lost. At the moment there's nothing lost by not attacking which is why once they know they've lost, they stop.