Grand Arena - both loss?

"Disruptor92;c-2323067" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323060" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323057" wrote:

"Gouj4;c-2323047" wrote:

"ImaSmakya;c-2322988" wrote:
He won because he had a higher GP but I don’t think he gets any rewards for the round win as I think you have to score a minimum of 10 points to get rewards for the round.

I don’t think the GP tiebreaker is kicking in though. In my group only 3 people have wins after the first round.

This ?. There are brackets where after round 1, 3 people have a win, and 5 people have a loss. So in a 0-0 point situation in which both do nothing, both lose. The tiebreaker system from the previous GAC either isn't working, or got removed.

Dude this was already answered multiple times. Read up.

You lose if you do nothing. Tie breakers kick in if you do something, such as attempt one attack (and get the 10 free attack banners).

Unless I'm mistaken, CG never stated that you "lose if you do nothing". They said that you won't get any rewards if you don't do anything. They never talking about losing. They also never said that tiebreakers wouldn't kick in if both had 0 points. I was under the assumption that one person would still win by tiebreaker (for the sake of tournament progression), but wouldn't get the rewards for doing so, so it'd kinda be like a "pseudo-win". I'm not 100% sure on this, as I haven't read all of the Q & A, so if some of that was answered there, please point me to that paragraph, or quote it to prove me wrong/clear things up. I just think it's weird having 3 people with 1 win and 5 people with 0 wins after round 1. How would they decide who to match with the 3rd person that got a win? Sounds pretty imbalanced to me.

It says it literally in game.

Click a zone.

“You must earn at least 10 banners from any battle to qualify for rewards.”

"slickdealer;c-2323075" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323067" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323060" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323057" wrote:

"Gouj4;c-2323047" wrote:

"ImaSmakya;c-2322988" wrote:
He won because he had a higher GP but I don’t think he gets any rewards for the round win as I think you have to score a minimum of 10 points to get rewards for the round.

I don’t think the GP tiebreaker is kicking in though. In my group only 3 people have wins after the first round.

This ?. There are brackets where after round 1, 3 people have a win, and 5 people have a loss. So in a 0-0 point situation in which both do nothing, both lose. The tiebreaker system from the previous GAC either isn't working, or got removed.

Dude this was already answered multiple times. Read up.

You lose if you do nothing. Tie breakers kick in if you do something, such as attempt one attack (and get the 10 free attack banners).

Unless I'm mistaken, CG never stated that you "lose if you do nothing". They said that you won't get any rewards if you don't do anything. They never talking about losing. They also never said that tiebreakers wouldn't kick in if both had 0 points. I was under the assumption that one person would still win by tiebreaker (for the sake of tournament progression), but wouldn't get the rewards for doing so, so it'd kinda be like a "pseudo-win". I'm not 100% sure on this, as I haven't read all of the Q & A, so if some of that was answered there, please point me to that paragraph, or quote it to prove me wrong/clear things up. I just think it's weird having 3 people with 1 win and 5 people with 0 wins after round 1. How would they decide who to match with the 3rd person that got a win? Sounds pretty imbalanced to me.

It says it literally in game.

Click a zone.

“You must earn at least 10 banners from any battle to qualify for rewards.”

"They never talking (sic) about losing"

"TVF;c-2323080" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323075" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323067" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323060" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323057" wrote:

"Gouj4;c-2323047" wrote:

"ImaSmakya;c-2322988" wrote:
He won because he had a higher GP but I don’t think he gets any rewards for the round win as I think you have to score a minimum of 10 points to get rewards for the round.

I don’t think the GP tiebreaker is kicking in though. In my group only 3 people have wins after the first round.

This ?. There are brackets where after round 1, 3 people have a win, and 5 people have a loss. So in a 0-0 point situation in which both do nothing, both lose. The tiebreaker system from the previous GAC either isn't working, or got removed.

Dude this was already answered multiple times. Read up.

You lose if you do nothing. Tie breakers kick in if you do something, such as attempt one attack (and get the 10 free attack banners).

Unless I'm mistaken, CG never stated that you "lose if you do nothing". They said that you won't get any rewards if you don't do anything. They never talking about losing. They also never said that tiebreakers wouldn't kick in if both had 0 points. I was under the assumption that one person would still win by tiebreaker (for the sake of tournament progression), but wouldn't get the rewards for doing so, so it'd kinda be like a "pseudo-win". I'm not 100% sure on this, as I haven't read all of the Q & A, so if some of that was answered there, please point me to that paragraph, or quote it to prove me wrong/clear things up. I just think it's weird having 3 people with 1 win and 5 people with 0 wins after round 1. How would they decide who to match with the 3rd person that got a win? Sounds pretty imbalanced to me.

It says it literally in game.

Click a zone.

“You must earn at least 10 banners from any battle to qualify for rewards.”

"They never talking (sic) about losing"

It says in game if you don’t get 10 banners you don’t get rewards.

Did people really think you would win with no rewards? Of course this is a loss.

"slickdealer;c-2323088" wrote:

"TVF;c-2323080" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323075" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323067" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323060" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323057" wrote:

"Gouj4;c-2323047" wrote:

"ImaSmakya;c-2322988" wrote:
He won because he had a higher GP but I don’t think he gets any rewards for the round win as I think you have to score a minimum of 10 points to get rewards for the round.

I don’t think the GP tiebreaker is kicking in though. In my group only 3 people have wins after the first round.

This ?. There are brackets where after round 1, 3 people have a win, and 5 people have a loss. So in a 0-0 point situation in which both do nothing, both lose. The tiebreaker system from the previous GAC either isn't working, or got removed.

Dude this was already answered multiple times. Read up.

You lose if you do nothing. Tie breakers kick in if you do something, such as attempt one attack (and get the 10 free attack banners).

Unless I'm mistaken, CG never stated that you "lose if you do nothing". They said that you won't get any rewards if you don't do anything. They never talking about losing. They also never said that tiebreakers wouldn't kick in if both had 0 points. I was under the assumption that one person would still win by tiebreaker (for the sake of tournament progression), but wouldn't get the rewards for doing so, so it'd kinda be like a "pseudo-win". I'm not 100% sure on this, as I haven't read all of the Q & A, so if some of that was answered there, please point me to that paragraph, or quote it to prove me wrong/clear things up. I just think it's weird having 3 people with 1 win and 5 people with 0 wins after round 1. How would they decide who to match with the 3rd person that got a win? Sounds pretty imbalanced to me.

It says it literally in game.

Click a zone.

“You must earn at least 10 banners from any battle to qualify for rewards.”

"They never talking (sic) about losing"

It says in game if you don’t get 10 banners you don’t get rewards.

Did people really think you would win with no rewards? Of course this is a loss.

No rewards and no win are two different things. If one person isn't awarded a win, there are only three people in the group at 1-0 and five at 0-1. How do matchups work now?

So, let me get this straight. You don’t want to participate but you still want to win? Is that correct? If you don’t want to play, why does it matter what your win/loss record is?

"TVF;c-2323089" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323088" wrote:

"TVF;c-2323080" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323075" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323067" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2323060" wrote:

"Disruptor92;c-2323057" wrote:

"Gouj4;c-2323047" wrote:

"ImaSmakya;c-2322988" wrote:
He won because he had a higher GP but I don’t think he gets any rewards for the round win as I think you have to score a minimum of 10 points to get rewards for the round.

I don’t think the GP tiebreaker is kicking in though. In my group only 3 people have wins after the first round.

This ?. There are brackets where after round 1, 3 people have a win, and 5 people have a loss. So in a 0-0 point situation in which both do nothing, both lose. The tiebreaker system from the previous GAC either isn't working, or got removed.

Dude this was already answered multiple times. Read up.

You lose if you do nothing. Tie breakers kick in if you do something, such as attempt one attack (and get the 10 free attack banners).

Unless I'm mistaken, CG never stated that you "lose if you do nothing". They said that you won't get any rewards if you don't do anything. They never talking about losing. They also never said that tiebreakers wouldn't kick in if both had 0 points. I was under the assumption that one person would still win by tiebreaker (for the sake of tournament progression), but wouldn't get the rewards for doing so, so it'd kinda be like a "pseudo-win". I'm not 100% sure on this, as I haven't read all of the Q & A, so if some of that was answered there, please point me to that paragraph, or quote it to prove me wrong/clear things up. I just think it's weird having 3 people with 1 win and 5 people with 0 wins after round 1. How would they decide who to match with the 3rd person that got a win? Sounds pretty imbalanced to me.

It says it literally in game.

Click a zone.

“You must earn at least 10 banners from any battle to qualify for rewards.”

"They never talking (sic) about losing"

It says in game if you don’t get 10 banners you don’t get rewards.

Did people really think you would win with no rewards? Of course this is a loss.

No rewards and no win are two different things. If one person isn't awarded a win, there are only three people in the group at 1-0 and five at 0-1. How do matchups work now?

Thank you, friend. This was basically my point, yes.

"Artumas;c-2323124" wrote:
Winning is considered a reward now as skill rating changes are based on winning.

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. They could simply put a "1" next to their profile to show that they won the tiebreaker, but not give them actual rewards (neither skill rating, nor items/materials etc.) That way it won't have to give the 3rd person that won a random matchup from the 5 people that lost. Don't get me wrong, I agree that people who don't participate shouldn't get rewards. But I just think they should at least give a visual indication of a win to avoid confusion and keep things a bit more fair. 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.

This explains why we only have three wins this round. Oh well. I should'nt have gotten 2nd this round, but I'll take it.

"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.

"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.

"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.

Old GAC always split the pool in half after round 1. The winners in the top half the losers in the bottom half. Then the winners played each other and the losers played each other. Then the winners of each half would play off in the 3rd round. It always meant that the player at the top has to beat all the best players to get there. Two of the players with 2 wins will be from the top half group, the other 1 from the bottom half group. The last place player was always from the bottom half group. I don't think that after the first round there was ever any matches between the top and bottom half groups.

If you looked at your pool and could see you were an easy beat for 3 players you used to be better off throwing your first match to be able to beat the other lower half players. Then you could have a much easier path to 2 wins.

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.