GAC Tiebreaker
Is it just me or is the GAC tiebreaker needing a review. I’m going to lose because I have the lower GP. I think the lower GP player should be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player.
Forum Discussion
Is it just me or is the GAC tiebreaker needing a review. I’m going to lose because I have the lower GP. I think the lower GP player should be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player.
- Since the matchmaking is based on very similar top 80, there is hardly such a thing as lower total GP player having a more difficult time clearing, at least most of the time.
At that point the one winning is the one that overall invested more in their roster (higher GP), which is fine.
(Saying that as someone who has only been on the lower GP end of ties.) - Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
"Waqui;c-2191887" wrote:
Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP."Camdent13;c-2191948" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191887" wrote:
Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.
If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?"Waqui;c-2191950" wrote:
"Camdent13;c-2191948" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191887" wrote:
Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.
If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?
Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go."Camdent13;c-2191990" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191950" wrote:
"Camdent13;c-2191948" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191887" wrote:
Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.
If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?
Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.
But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?"Camdent13;c-2191990" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191950" wrote:
"Camdent13;c-2191948" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191887" wrote:
Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.
If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?
Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.
Yes, the tie needs to be broken but why is giving the victory to the player with less total roster GP the right way to go?- Deja vu. Am I in The Matrix again? :D
Tie breaking by GP was always arbitrary and dumb. A virtual coin flip would be fairer and lowest deployed GP would be better still but no sense holding your breath for either one. "Nikoms565;c-2191993" wrote:
"Camdent13;c-2191990" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191950" wrote:
"Camdent13;c-2191948" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191887" wrote:
Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.
If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?
Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.
But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?
But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP."Camdent13;c-2192050" wrote:
"Nikoms565;c-2191993" wrote:
"Camdent13;c-2191990" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191950" wrote:
"Camdent13;c-2191948" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2191887" wrote:
Total GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round so why do you consider yourself the underdog? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP.
The underdog comment was just simply because I had the lower GP.
If that's true why should you "be rewarded for being the underdog and competing with the higher GP player" (your words)?
Because in the end someone has to take the tie breaker and giving it to someone who has 300k more GP than me seems like the wrong way to go.
But that 300k more GP didn't have any effect on the outcome. So perhaps think of it as a nod to the player who has the slightly more well-rounded roster?
But by that theory why are we rewarding a player with a “more well rounded roster” with the win when he clearly underperformed and tied someone with a lesser GP.
How did that player underperform? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP. Total roster GP is irrelevant for your chances to win a round. If you were the underdog in that match it wasn't because of differences in total roster GP.
