GAC ranking is irrational

"Waqui;c-2204473" 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?

I'm quite sure @DarjeloSalas gets it. What you on the other hand don't seem to get is this:

1. In your example your opponents aren't necessarily tougher than his - they just use a different strategy (stout defense vs. strong offense).
2. It's your own choice if you don't save enough strong teams for offense.
3. You don't control your opponent's strategy - but you control your own.

"GIJippo;c-2204298" wrote:

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.

False. Many championships in the sports I follow use points as the main metric - not wins/losses. There are other sports in the world than your beloved NFL. False statements will not support your point of view.

"GIJippo;c-2204298" wrote:

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.

As previously stated:
Ranking by championship score is perfectly rational. Not choosing an appropriate strategy seems irrational to me.

When I encounter defenses like the one you describe I usually have the advantage roster wise and still clear. If I didn't have the stronger roster I would probably just consider myself lucky to have an easy low score win instead of a loss.

"GIJippo;c-2204298" wrote:

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.

A win awards 1600 championship points. If you miss out on 3200 points by encountering the type of defense you describe you really should reconsider your strategy (or improve your roster if that's your problem).

"GIJippo;c-2204298" wrote:

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.

Do you consider this rational?

I really appreciate the attention here, but you haven't yet articulated why this set up is rational when someone who *happens* to draw crap defense most of the time and can easily full clear gets to rank higher (despite losing one) and I, who drew much tougher defenses, went undefeated and got a lower ranking for my troubles. You appear to be saying "well, deal with it". I DID DEAL WITH IT by putting together great strategies that won. That's like exactly what you are wanting me to do :D There isn't always a path to full clear AND winning depending on your match-up. And because of that it is irrational to punish people for finding a way to win, when the other person didn't have to find a way to win, they just opted to full clear every time even if they lose banner shoot-out. No big whoop I guess.

Should I just not care about winning either? I wonder what would happen in everyone stopped caring about winning? I'll tell you what would happen. You would end up with all full clears and a barn-burner for banners at the end and GAC would be reduced to a one-dimensional affair that would cause people to lose interest quickly. That would destroy the quality control of the competition. It's okay, like I said before not everyone understands the remedial principles of competition. That's what I'm here to help with.