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 creates is the ability for someone to be a punk and block you intentionally from ranking by setting a defense that is impossible to clear even if they lose. This would never happen in a legitimate competitive set-up. Nobody should be able to intentionally lose to punish another team.

"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.

"GIJippo;d-238871" wrote: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.D1 college football says hi

"GIJippo;c-2201848" wrote:"Waqui;c-2201843" wrote:You're ranked by championship score - disregarding how you scored it. Completing more feats could make up for winning fewer rounds or battles. You may not like it but how is that ranking irrational?If you want to make sure that you're able to clear your opponent's defenses save enough for your offense. I'm not asking for help on how to make sure I clear the defense. Then why do you complain about not being able to clear your opponents' defense?If you want a higher score and rank clear their defenses. It's quite simple, really. No, I don't like it and yes it is irrational. It's irrational for the same reason no other competitive structure offers a path to ranking above others who are undefeated when you have LOST. Do you understand this? Yes, it's "the way it is". And "the way it is" is stupid, hence the post. Thanks.I understand that you feel you should rank higher. However, at the same time you don't feel the need to score more championship points - the metric by which you are ranked. That's not exactly rational thinking.

"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).

It's pretty clear that scoring system is pretty terrible. Someone mentioned college football. Can you imagine if the rankings and championship were determined by the total number of points you scored + a certain number of bonus points for each win? That would be ludicrous. The two clear problems are 1) playing with and/or against a strong defense is going to cost you offensive banners and 2) records aren't factored into matchmaking to make the top of the leaderboard face off against each other. The second one is a fairly easy fix IMO. The first not so much. How do you reward a strong defense without just gifting points to people who face an opponent who doesn't attack, which is fairly common? My personal opinion is awarding banners for margin of victory instead of total offensive banners, with a cap so that there is a max score that doesn't give those with an easy matchup too much of an advantage.

GAC ranking is irrational | EA Forums

Waquira
5 years ago
You're ranked by championship score - disregarding how you scored it. Completing more feats could make up for winning fewer rounds or battles. You may not like it but how is that ranking irrational?

If you want to make sure that you're able to clear your opponent's defenses save enough for your offense.
GIJippo
5 years ago
"Waqui;c-2201843" wrote:
You're ranked by championship score - disregarding how you scored it. Completing more feats could make up for winning fewer rounds or battles. You may not like it but how is that ranking irrational?

If you want to make sure that you're able to clear your opponent's defenses save enough for your offense.

I'm not asking for help on how to make sure I clear the defense. No, I don't like it and yes it is irrational. It's irrational for the same reason no other competitive structure offers a path to ranking above others who are undefeated when you have LOST. Do you understand this? Yes, it's "the way it is". And "the way it is" is stupid, hence the post. Thanks.
GIJippo
5 years ago
"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.
NyKynoe
5 years ago

"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).
ildarz
5 years ago
"DarjeloSalas;c-2202111" wrote:

As Kyno mentioned, it doesn’t seem rational to consider all wins of equal merit,

It's actually very funny because there are huge amount of championships in the world (videogames included) with exactly that golden rule - all wins are equal. And if this rule cannot be applied to the GAC scoring, it just one more confirmation that GAC scoring is flawed in several ways, not that the rule itself doesn't seem rational.

"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.
Waquira
5 years ago
"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.
tvsfrink
5 years ago
"Rath_Tarr;c-2203753" wrote:
Finding "the best" player in a division let alone in all of SWGoH is impossible because you would have to match rosters of very different power levels. Higher GP does not equal better player.

And even if you could, with a hundred thousand or more players in a division, it would take months of matches and would end up eliminating good players who missed even a single match for real life reasons.

So CG settled for month-long GACs, matching by roster strength to give everyone many chances to prove themselves.

Agreed, and it's fine.
Rath_Tarr0
5 years ago
Even if you could create brackets of 4096 players any two of whom could be fairly matched, which you almost certainly could not because the MM GP spreads would be too wide, it would take a full GAC's worth of 12 matches to get to 1 winner

And you would be left with participating_player_base / 4096 (so likely at least 250) such winners with no way to determine which of them is "the best" because their rosters would span over a 9m GP range and there is no way you could fairly match them.
GIJippo
5 years ago
"SithVicious;c-2202052" wrote:
"GIJippo;d-238871" wrote:
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.

D1 college football says hi

I rest my case. Probably the most hated ranking system ever.
GIJippo
5 years ago
"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.

"As has been explained a few times, the biggest point differential occurs when your opponent doesn’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.

"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."

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.

You have brought us back to the point and I appreciate that.