GAC ranking is irrational

"GIJippo;c-2204650" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2204639" wrote:

The rational thing would be to try clearing your opponent's defense as well.

And the gaslighting continues. Okay, so let's go all the way back to the beginning..... your opponent can make sure you don't full clear if he wants to. There isn't always a path to winning and full clear, depending on whom you draw as an opponent (which is something I don't control). This is precisely the issue. You are basically saying to go for the full clear instead of beating the tougher opponent because the win will be meaningless at the end of the day because people with easier schedules will rank higher even if they lose. I hope now you have seen the problem of how competitively backwards this is. But probably not, I've about lost hope.

You missed the key word:"try". I'm sure you will score more banners than if you don't try. You also missed the part about most times being able to clear your opponent even if he sets a strong defense and doesn't plan to attack.

Going for the full clear instead of beating the tougher opponent? No. That's not what I'm saying. Go for both. If you care so much about your championship rank then that would be the rational thing to do. And if it's a tougher opponent, why not just enjoy the free win (instead of the likely loss if they battled to win)?

How will people lose and rank higher than a winner? A win awards 1600 championship points - significantly more than the max possible number of offensive banners.

Be rational.

"Rath_Tarr;c-2204723" wrote:

"GIJippo;c-2204650" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2204639" wrote:

The rational thing would be to try clearing your opponent's defense as well.

And the gaslighting continues. Okay, so let's go all the way back to the beginning..... your opponent can make sure you don't full clear if he wants to. There isn't always a path to winning and full clear, depending on whom you draw as an opponent (which is something I don't control). This is precisely the issue.

If your opponent can prevent you from full clearing then you have flaws in your roster development, match strategy &/or battle tactics.

Sorry but saying that someone has a "flaw" because they can't clear a full top 30 defense reliably AND set a legit defense at the same time is being intellectually dishonest. You just closed my case that the"competition" is one-dimensional. Thanks for that.

"RandomSithLord;c-2203963" wrote:
GAC, in its current form awards your ability to hit as many targets in the scoring system as possible (see feats). The leaderboard's point is to highlight those that not only managed to win as many battles as possible, but also managed to do so efficiently, while also taking an alternative path from frequently used teams to complete the character specific feats, and in that aspect the scoring system is fine.

There should not be a higher importance given to simply winning (or even getting holds on defense for that matter). However, as pointed out over and over, divisions need to be extended. There are multiple feats that are arguably much easier to achieve in the lower end of a division than towards the higher GP brackets (especially in division 1). Some people just need to plug in the 1-3 feat specific characters in a solo team of theirs (like Wampa vs weak Phoenix) while others need to straight up lose a battle on purpose. In that sense, leaderboards are disingenuous in their current form (but could be more accurate with more divisions).

Very well said.

"GIJippo;c-2205586" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2204723" wrote:

"GIJippo;c-2204650" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2204639" wrote:

The rational thing would be to try clearing your opponent's defense as well.

And the gaslighting continues. Okay, so let's go all the way back to the beginning..... your opponent can make sure you don't full clear if he wants to. There isn't always a path to winning and full clear, depending on whom you draw as an opponent (which is something I don't control). This is precisely the issue.

If your opponent can prevent you from full clearing then you have flaws in your roster development, match strategy &/or battle tactics.

Sorry but saying that someone has a "flaw" because they can't clear a full top 30 defense reliably AND set a legit defense at the same time is being intellectually dishonest. You just closed my case that the"competition" is one-dimensional. Thanks for that.

If your goal is a full clear win but you don't save enough strong teams for offense to ensure a clear then your strategy is flawed.

"Bulldog1205;c-2202177" wrote:
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.

I agree. The current system dictates how you NEED to play if you are even wanting to be top of leaderboards. It's also the reasoning behind using certain teams only on offense (teams that are able to get protection back) etc. Some teams are amazing on offense but you're stuck using them on defense for the most part because they aren't banner friendly. It's not the end of the world or anything but just makes it kind of meh at higher divisions. There's a reason you see the same teams on defense and this is that reason.

"MetaThumper;c-2207141" wrote:

"Bulldog1205;c-2202177" wrote:
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.

I agree. The current system dictates how you NEED to play if you are even wanting to be top of leaderboards. It's also the reasoning behind using certain teams only on offense (teams that are able to get protection back) etc. Some teams are amazing on offense but you're stuck using them on defense for the most part because they aren't banner friendly. It's not the end of the world or anything but just makes it kind of meh at higher divisions. There's a reason you see the same teams on defense and this is that reason.

Exactly, exactly. In GAC we are punished unless we win a particular way. It's a real downer facing off against an opponent with things you can't beat, finding a way to work the board and win regardless but know you will be punished in rankings for your effort. It's appalling people respond to this with "well you should be better and clear".

Also, the addition of feats is terrible. It's like saying "well, you won the game, but because some of your team mates lost a game of dominoes during half time you drop in rankings". It's like, what is that? Having all of this other absurd BS thrown in kills the GAC. And I am only so critical because it is an excellent PVP game mode for this type of game. It's really fun, but the competitive substructure is compromised by the offense-only reward system and "feats" that have absolutely ZILCH to do what's going on the holotable. It's like for babies.