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

BTTripleZero
4 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.

That's not at all what I recommended. Matchmaking groups of 4096 players. You don't need months. You don't group by people of "very different power levels." You don't need to extend the season any further than it is. What is the point of having a leaderboard if you aren't wanting to determine the best players to some degree? Just go back to individual Grand Arenas. Then we can even mix and match 5v5, 3v3, etc without having to do the same thing for a month at a time.
GIJippo
4 years ago
"Waqui;c-2202106" wrote:
"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.

I didn't complain about not being able to clear defense. Not sure where you got that from. I pointed out that your opponent can lose on purpose and prevent you from ranking by setting all hard D that nobody trying to win would do. This is "griefing" and wouldn't be allowed in a competitive setting set up by people who know better. You were too busy trying to argue that you didn't even READ.

So what is your case for this system? Can you explain why it is better than a system that doesn't allow people to grief their opponent? Are you saying that it is logical that I should have to expect someone to throw their whole top 30 on defense every time? That is poor quality control of a competitive environment. I know you know it and you are arguing just to argue because you're on the internet.
GIJippo
4 years ago
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.
RSithLord
4 years ago
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).
EventineElesedi
4 years ago
Ranking is based on score. It is perfectly rational. If you want a higher rank, score more points.

Comparing this competition to other sports is futile. This is not figure skating, it is SWGOH GAC. Deal with it.
EventineElesedi
4 years ago
"GIJippo;c-2204300" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2204267" wrote:
Ranking is based on score. It is perfectly rational. If you want a higher rank, score more points.

Comparing this competition to other sports is futile. This is not figure skating, it is SWGOH GAC. Deal with it.

No, it is not rational. Comparing it to other competitive arrangements is NOT futile because there is a remedial competitive theory that makes sense. If not then you explain to me why someone should be punished for winning their match at the expense of a full clear. In what other competitive arrangement is LOSING a ranking strategy? Can you even do that? You can't, so don't waste your time.

Your final rank matters for naught but your fragile ego. If you want a higher rank, score more points. Feats are available to increase your score. This is perfectly logical and rational, and is not a difficult concept.

Seems like you are just looking for an argument here.
EventineElesedi
4 years ago
Ah, we are getting to the crux of the issue here: you could not beat the other guy's defense. This happens to everyone. Sometimes the other guy is just better.

Your loss is certainly not due to the scoring system.

Just let it go, it is not worth all the anger.
Rath_Tarr0
4 years ago
"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.
Rath_Tarr0
4 years ago
"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.

Sorry but blaming the system for your failure to optimize for the system is intellectually dishonest. You have clearly unbalanced your roster in your pursuit of SLKR and it's hurting you in matchmaking. You also sent an assist-heavy squad against a lead that punishes assists. You just closed my case that your problems are of your own making.
NyKynoe
4 years ago
can you give an example of what you mean?