GAC Tiebreakers

There should never be an incentive to not grow your GP.

"StarSon;c-2376343" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2376342" wrote:
They are rewarding people that have either spent more time with the game, have put in money or both with the tie breaking system.

You give them too much credit. They knew a tie breaker was needed, so they picked the easiest option.

How many matches per season really end up in a tiebreak? Certainly not enough worth the coding effort for changing the rule.

And why is it less fair that the person, who made more GP investment (and maybe even by paying) get the win? I can imagine it's very fair in CG's eyes.

"Antario;c-2376351" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2376343" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2376342" wrote:
They are rewarding people that have either spent more time with the game, have put in money or both with the tie breaking system.

You give them too much credit. They knew a tie breaker was needed, so they picked the easiest option.

How many matches per season really end up in a tiebreak? Certainly not enough worth the coding effort for changing the rule.

And why is it less fair that the person, who made more GP investment (and maybe even by paying) get the win? I can imagine it's very fair in CG's eyes.

You're the one that said they were doing it on purpose to reward player investment. I was merely pointing out what you did: they took the easiest path that required the least amount of coding.

I don't think it's unfair. It's just a thing. People have argued both for and against, and I don't think it matters either way.

"StarSon;c-2376343" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2376342" wrote:
They are rewarding people that have either spent more time with the game, have put in money or both with the tie breaking system.

You give them too much credit. They knew a tie breaker was needed, so they picked the easiest option.

Probably right on that.

"RuffStuff;c-2376340" wrote:

"Antario;c-2376228" wrote:

"RuffStuff;d-258001" wrote:
I know it’s been discussed many times before as being unfair, but I wanted to share my most recent experience with the tiebreaking system. Here’s the results of the final (to decide first place) 3v3 battle:



Now, I’m significantly lower GP than my opponents, which is a huge problem that many are experiencing currently. Here’s what I don’t understand though: if you can’t get players into fair matchups, the tiebreaker shouldn’t be decided by GP. Or “arena power”, whatever that term is they use. It really sucks to do an incredible job as a significantly weaker combatant, and then get shafted by the tiebreaking mechanic.
Sorry, but if someone with 1.5m higher GP allows a tie, I don’t believe they should be awarded the win.

Again (for the trillion times) the match-up is FAIR because there is no match-making logic except win-loss performance. You got matched with him means you both have similar win-loss records. And the fact you got tied only reinforce it even more.

Interestingly, one of my recent matches also ended up in a tie in favor for my opponent. At the end, we just enjoyed the tense fight and had some fun in the in-game chat afterwards. Get over it and move on.

No, the matchmaking system is not “fair”. There is a significant outcry from guild mates, content creators, and others on the forums that agree with me. You practically cannot defeat someone with a GL on defense if you have none. CG literally set it up that way, especially with the nerfing of viable GL counters in the past. When you have players at 2m GP going up against players at 6m GP who have two GLs, and you still call that fair, I don’t want to know what you’d consider unfair lol.

I’m glad you can stay in good spirits on a loss, but I’m sure you can still understand why a loss like this would be frustrating.

The matchmaking seems much more fair in GAC than it is in TW. You're looking at this in the wrong way I think. If you are punching up in relation to your GP then it means you have teams upgraded that are capable of handling things like a GL mismatch or severe relic/mods mismatch. What you are saying is "I want to continuously beat up on people in my own GP range that are disadvantaged". GP is not very meaningful in this game. It's the teams you upgrade and the mods (and now DC's) you have. Water seeks its own level. It should want to at least if we are talking about anything close to being fair.

Everyone is going to have the occasional severe mismatch. It's not just you and if it is happening all the time then you are being adjusted back down to a more fair level.

The new GAC system is fair in the sense that one is expected to win 50% of matches. That indicates you are meeting fair opponents in the long run. I know there was an argument that one can hit 50% win ratios by always beating absolute trash opponents 50% of times, and then hit absolute insurmountable opponents in the other 50% of times. In that case, it is indeed all unfair matchup, but I wonder how many matchups is like that. I see mostly all matches up are winnable.

"Screerider;c-2376349" wrote:
There should never be an incentive to not grow your GP.

Only a complete moron would suppress their GP just in case they happened to get into a GAC tiebreaker at some point. :D

Gp is a naff metric and meaningless. Top 40 gp is closer to the mark is cg wanted to be stingy.

Better would be if you both got credited as a win. You’d lose the bottom place position, but as draws are rare it would be infrequent, but everyone in the group would be happy with the outcome.

If there are more matches to play, the high gp player could then face the winner opponent and the low gp player face the losing opponent. The effect could cascade too so it could work regardless of which round it occurred in and how many draws occurred.

Granted it would be an in built method for gaining the system which some would use, however given that cheaters are rarely punished, and their victims never compensated as cg promised in the early announcements for gac, I don’t thinks it’s a huge issue. Cg obviously would disagree on every aspect of that of course.

"Antario;c-2376351" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2376343" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2376342" wrote:
They are rewarding people that have either spent more time with the game, have put in money or both with the tie breaking system.

You give them too much credit. They knew a tie breaker was needed, so they picked the easiest option.

How many matches per season really end up in a tiebreak? Certainly not enough worth the coding effort for changing the rule.

And why is it less fair that the person, who made more GP investment (and maybe even by paying) get the win? I can imagine it's very fair in CG's eyes.

It's true that there are probably not a lot of ties, especially under the new matchmaking, but then, what coding effort? All they have to do is to change literally from:

if player1_gp > player2_gp then player1_wins()

to:

if player1_gp < player2_gp then player1_wins()

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2376363" wrote:

"Antario;c-2376351" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2376343" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2376342" wrote:
They are rewarding people that have either spent more time with the game, have put in money or both with the tie breaking system.

You give them too much credit. They knew a tie breaker was needed, so they picked the easiest option.

How many matches per season really end up in a tiebreak? Certainly not enough worth the coding effort for changing the rule.

And why is it less fair that the person, who made more GP investment (and maybe even by paying) get the win? I can imagine it's very fair in CG's eyes.

It's true that there are probably not a lot of ties, especially under the new matchmaking, but then, what coding effort? All they have to do is to change literally from:

if player1_gp > player2_gp then player1_wins()

to:

if player1_gp < player2_gp then player1_wins()

There is no fair way to determine a winner in a tie. Players that tie should just split the top rewards and not get penalized skill rating. Then add in w/l/t record for determining round rewards.

"HokieFiend;c-2376379" wrote:

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2376363" wrote:

"Antario;c-2376351" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2376343" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2376342" wrote:
They are rewarding people that have either spent more time with the game, have put in money or both with the tie breaking system.

You give them too much credit. They knew a tie breaker was needed, so they picked the easiest option.

How many matches per season really end up in a tiebreak? Certainly not enough worth the coding effort for changing the rule.

And why is it less fair that the person, who made more GP investment (and maybe even by paying) get the win? I can imagine it's very fair in CG's eyes.

It's true that there are probably not a lot of ties, especially under the new matchmaking, but then, what coding effort? All they have to do is to change literally from:

if player1_gp > player2_gp then player1_wins()

to:

if player1_gp < player2_gp then player1_wins()

There is no fair way to determine a winner in a tie. Players that tie should just split the top rewards and not get penalized skill rating. Then add in w/l/t record for determining round rewards.

On merit - the player with less resources

Impartial - RNG coin flip

CG - the player with the most resources even if they have a million more GP and two more GLs and still couldn't get the higher score