Grand Arena - both loss?

"Winterwolves;c-2323505" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323395" wrote:

"Vos_Landeck;c-2323390" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323271" wrote:

I am aware of that. I was just thinking that they should give the person who wins the tiebreaker the "pseudo-win" for tournament progression's sake......Imagine you're someone who tried their best and lost their match. But instead of fighting a loser from round 1 (that you'd likely beat), you get to face a winner from round 1, and might lose again. That is pretty unfair towards that one person that gets chosen to fight the winner from round 1, despite losing their own first match.

And how do you know they don't match-up someone from the 0 to 0 loss with one of the winners from round 1? Sounds like you're just assuming they don't do that...and then you're assuming that someone who loses round 1 is "likely" to beat another loser from round 2? If 4 players lose in round 1 and then get matched up in round 2, then 2 will win and 2 will lose. That's a .500 win rate....not a "likely" to win. Regardless, seems like a lot bigger deal is being made out of this than is necessary. Life isn't 100% fair. The new system is going to push players towards a .500 winning percentage. One single round with some infrequent highly specific set of facts isn't really going to have much impact in the overall scheme one way or the other.

I'm not assuming, it's been confirmed by others that it's random. You will face someone with 0 wins, and it doesn't have to be one of the players that had their 0-0 loss-loss match. The only player you can't face is the one that you already beat in round 1, since you never face the same player twice within one bracket.

And fair enough, the "likely" win was probably badly worded by me, but that's not my main point. My main point is, if you lost your first round, why should you be facing another winner from round 1 in your second round? You should face a loser from round 1. Winners should only be matched up with other winners, and losers with others losers. It's not rocket science.

But now there can be more than 4 players with a loss I just don't know how they are sorting it. Your thrown match could still randomly put you into the top half, so you might end up with zero wins.

Precisely. Having more than 4 players with a loss is really unfair imo, because you could be thrown into the top half, as you just explained, and potentially end up with fewer wins than you would have if the win/loss ratio in the bracket was even. That's why they need to give a "pseudo-win" to someone at the very least imo. It's just a matter of fairness.

"Disruptor92;c-2323563" wrote:

"Winterwolves;c-2323505" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323395" wrote:

"Vos_Landeck;c-2323390" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323271" wrote:

I am aware of that. I was just thinking that they should give the person who wins the tiebreaker the "pseudo-win" for tournament progression's sake......Imagine you're someone who tried their best and lost their match. But instead of fighting a loser from round 1 (that you'd likely beat), you get to face a winner from round 1, and might lose again. That is pretty unfair towards that one person that gets chosen to fight the winner from round 1, despite losing their own first match.

And how do you know they don't match-up someone from the 0 to 0 loss with one of the winners from round 1? Sounds like you're just assuming they don't do that...and then you're assuming that someone who loses round 1 is "likely" to beat another loser from round 2? If 4 players lose in round 1 and then get matched up in round 2, then 2 will win and 2 will lose. That's a .500 win rate....not a "likely" to win. Regardless, seems like a lot bigger deal is being made out of this than is necessary. Life isn't 100% fair. The new system is going to push players towards a .500 winning percentage. One single round with some infrequent highly specific set of facts isn't really going to have much impact in the overall scheme one way or the other.

I'm not assuming, it's been confirmed by others that it's random. You will face someone with 0 wins, and it doesn't have to be one of the players that had their 0-0 loss-loss match. The only player you can't face is the one that you already beat in round 1, since you never face the same player twice within one bracket.

And fair enough, the "likely" win was probably badly worded by me, but that's not my main point. My main point is, if you lost your first round, why should you be facing another winner from round 1 in your second round? You should face a loser from round 1. Winners should only be matched up with other winners, and losers with others losers. It's not rocket science.

But now there can be more than 4 players with a loss I just don't know how they are sorting it. Your thrown match could still randomly put you into the top half, so you might end up with zero wins.

Precisely. Having more than 4 players with a loss is really unfair imo, because you could be thrown into the top half, as you just explained, and potentially end up with fewer wins than you would have if the win/loss ratio in the bracket was even. That's why they need to give a "pseudo-win" to someone at the very least imo. It's just a matter of fairness.

I mean, if you don't do anything in the round, you get what you deserve?

"TVF;c-2323590" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323563" wrote:

"Winterwolves;c-2323505" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323395" wrote:

"Vos_Landeck;c-2323390" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323271" wrote:

I am aware of that. I was just thinking that they should give the person who wins the tiebreaker the "pseudo-win" for tournament progression's sake......Imagine you're someone who tried their best and lost their match. But instead of fighting a loser from round 1 (that you'd likely beat), you get to face a winner from round 1, and might lose again. That is pretty unfair towards that one person that gets chosen to fight the winner from round 1, despite losing their own first match.

And how do you know they don't match-up someone from the 0 to 0 loss with one of the winners from round 1? Sounds like you're just assuming they don't do that...and then you're assuming that someone who loses round 1 is "likely" to beat another loser from round 2? If 4 players lose in round 1 and then get matched up in round 2, then 2 will win and 2 will lose. That's a .500 win rate....not a "likely" to win. Regardless, seems like a lot bigger deal is being made out of this than is necessary. Life isn't 100% fair. The new system is going to push players towards a .500 winning percentage. One single round with some infrequent highly specific set of facts isn't really going to have much impact in the overall scheme one way or the other.

I'm not assuming, it's been confirmed by others that it's random. You will face someone with 0 wins, and it doesn't have to be one of the players that had their 0-0 loss-loss match. The only player you can't face is the one that you already beat in round 1, since you never face the same player twice within one bracket.

And fair enough, the "likely" win was probably badly worded by me, but that's not my main point. My main point is, if you lost your first round, why should you be facing another winner from round 1 in your second round? You should face a loser from round 1. Winners should only be matched up with other winners, and losers with others losers. It's not rocket science.

But now there can be more than 4 players with a loss I just don't know how they are sorting it. Your thrown match could still randomly put you into the top half, so you might end up with zero wins.

Precisely. Having more than 4 players with a loss is really unfair imo, because you could be thrown into the top half, as you just explained, and potentially end up with fewer wins than you would have if the win/loss ratio in the bracket was even. That's why they need to give a "pseudo-win" to someone at the very least imo. It's just a matter of fairness.

I mean, if you don't do anything in the round, you get what you deserve?

Yup, agreed. That's exactly why I mentioned the "pseudo-win". You would only progress for tournament's sake, without any rewards that would normally go with it. That ensures that other losers don't get negatively affected by your non-participation. It would prevent round 1 losers from unfairly facing round 1 winners in round 2.

I also just noticed another thing on my alt account. In my alt's GAC bracket 0-0 double losses happened in round 2 as well, which messes up the whole thing even more.

Now 2 people have 2 wins, 3 people have 1 win, and 3 people have 0 wins. Round 3 is still ongoing so things might get even more complicated. There is 3 people with 0 losses, yet they're rank 6, 7, 8. Although they won't get rewards if they didn't participate, it's still problematic that they are in different reward tiers even though they have the same amount of wins.

It is entirely possible that 2 people out of those 3 had no participation at all, but one them might have had a legit loss (where they scored banners) due to facing a round 1 winner in round 2. Since there are only 3 people with 0 wins, one of them is currently facing a person that has 1 win. Now if they lose again, ending up with 0 wins, and the other 2 losers both have a no show match as well, the person that actually played a game or two and got banners, might end up being in rank 8, even though 6 and 7 didn't actually play a single game. So the rank 8 person basically gets robbed of their rank 5-7 rewards because ranks get allocated randomly for people with same amount of wins.

Why should a person that has no participated in all 3 rounds be above someone who actually tried 2 out of 3 times and even scored banners? Do you guys understand now how problematic this current system is? @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI @CG_SBCrumb_MINI Could you guys please look into making a "pseudo-win" feature happen? If 2 people don't participate, give the person that wins the GP tiebreaker a pseudo-win. Meaning they will get a win on the scoreboard for tournament progression's sake, but won't get any rewards or skill rating. This will prevent these chaotic and unfair matchups that I just explained above and in my other posts in this thread. Would be much appreciated!

"Disruptor92;c-2323619" wrote:
That's exactly why I mentioned the "pseudo-win". You would only progress for tournament's sake, without any rewards that would normally go with it. That ensures that other losers don't get negatively affected by your non-participation. It would prevent round 1 losers from unfairly facing round 1 winners in round 2.

What exactly is "unfair" when a loser is facing a winner? It's the same as when you got the pseudo-win by doing nothing and you're getting matched against another winner after. Where's the difference?

simple fix. take 20 seconds to start one match then forfeit. This is the way of things now.

And the matchmaking is still garbage. I have 5 gl's, had 2 matches where the opponent had 2. Just still the same, sadness.

I had 2 wins after the first two rounds, and to my surprise everyone else had either 1 win or 0 wins. I have also won my final round, but I could have finished first without even trying in round 3!

I don't think it actually sorts people into any order. Although the prize table is in ranks, I think you actually get the first prize for 3 wins, 2nd-4th for 2 wins, 5th-7th for 1 win and 8th for 0 wins. So if a group ends with no one on 3 wins, no one gets 1st. And if there are 3 on 0 wins they all get 8th.

Can anyone confirm? Anyone come top of the table with only 2 wins and get the 2nd-4th prize? Or any other weird stuff?