"Rath_Tarr;c-1953210" wrote:"Waqui;c-1953160" wrote:"Rath_Tarr;c-1953073" wrote:"Waqui;c-1952741" wrote:"Jiden;c-1952698" wrote:
Just saying that in the spirit of competition, it makes little sense to use "higher GP" as the person who deserves to win.
It's got nothing to do with who deserves to win. You tied. Noone deserves it more than the other. It's a random selection of a winner.
The player who used less GP (offense + defense) to reach that result played better and thus deserves the win.
They scored the same amount of banners. They played equally well. Banners are all that matters.
If both players scored the same number of banners and one player used less GP to do so then that player was better and thus deserves the win.
The only other thing which remotely makes sense is a simple coin flip.
"mellamoroberto;c-1953255" wrote:
If we want a tiebreaker that has a skill/merit component to it, how about giving the win to the player that finished attacking first?
If you attack first, your opponent gets to see how you've done and knows how many points are needed to beat you. This can be quite advantageous.
So in the event of a tie, why not give the win to the one who attacked and earned the same score without that edge?
I'm not married to the idea, but it's more fair than going into a matchup knowing in the event of a tie you'll absolutely be the winner or loser based on GP numbers.
"DarjeloSalas;c-1953521" wrote:
Wrong.
It's matchmaking GP, not total GP, that decides a tie, so fluffed rosters have nothing to do with it. Just your top X toons.
"Rath_Tarr;c-1953210" wrote:
The only other thing which remotely makes sense is a simple coin flip.
"Beeblebrox;c-1952790" wrote:
I'll say what i've said several times before (and been ignored!):
1) You can NOT have ties broken by who attacked first/second as this is a worldwide game with all the associated Time Zones so some people will be asleep when GAC Attack rounds start, or at work etc.
2) Breaking a tie based on who has the higher/lower gp is an awful way to deal with a tie. There are multiple "performance" based metrics that could be used, so to just award it to who has the most (or least) gp just feels utterly wrong. However if a sensible person were going to use this particular value then they'd award it to the person with the lesser gp as a way of potentially recognizing "stepping up" against a larger player
3) The way a tie SHOULD be broken is by a "performance metric". Personally I'd do it by awarding the win to whichever player had the most 64-banner first-time wins, if still tied then the most 63 and so on. Then if still completely tied go to whoever had the most first-time undersized squad / fleet victories. Then if still tied go to whoever had the most Defensive holds, then if still tied who had the most Offensive first-time wins, and if still completely tied (unlikely!!) Only at that point would you move to using gp - I'm sure there are other performance metrics that could be totted up and used, or people may prefer to use the ones i've mentioned but in a different order, but pretty much anything along those lines would be better than just "big gp wins"
4) There's no reason why the points or new GAC store credits couldn't simply be split equally while there is no performance metric being used to determine the winner!
"mellamoroberto;c-1953255" wrote:
If we want a tiebreaker that has a skill/merit component to it, how about giving the win to the player that finished attacking first?
If you attack first, your opponent gets to see how you've done and knows how many points are needed to beat you. This can be quite advantageous. So in the event of a tie, why not give the win to the one who attacked and earned the same score without that edge?
I'm not married to the idea, but it's more fair than going into a matchup knowing in the event of a tie you'll absolutely be the winner or loser based on GP numbers. It lets the players' actions determine the tiebreak winner, instead of it being completely outside their control. :|
"Beeblebrox;c-1952790" wrote:
I'll say what i've said several times before (and been ignored!):
1) You can NOT have ties broken by who attacked first/second as this is a worldwide game with all the associated Time Zones so some people will be asleep when GAC Attack rounds start, or at work etc.
2) Breaking a tie based on who has the higher/lower gp is an awful way to deal with a tie. There are multiple "performance" based metrics that could be used, so to just award it to who has the most (or least) gp just feels utterly wrong. However if a sensible person were going to use this particular value then they'd award it to the person with the lesser gp as a way of potentially recognizing "stepping up" against a larger player
3) The way a tie SHOULD be broken is by a "performance metric". Personally I'd do it by awarding the win to whichever player had the most 64-banner first-time wins, if still tied then the most 63 and so on. Then if still completely tied go to whoever had the most first-time undersized squad / fleet victories. Then if still tied go to whoever had the most Defensive holds, then if still tied who had the most Offensive first-time wins, and if still completely tied (unlikely!!) Only at that point would you move to using gp - I'm sure there are other performance metrics that could be totted up and used, or people may prefer to use the ones i've mentioned but in a different order, but pretty much anything along those lines would be better than just "big gp wins"
4) There's no reason why the points or new GAC store credits couldn't simply be split equally while there is no performance metric being used to determine the winner!
"DarjeloSalas;c-1953519" wrote:"GIJippo;c-1953516" wrote:
I don't think one should be rewarded for less GP any more than a tie breaker in NFL should go to lower record. Having said that, this isn't a great tie-breaker as the qualifier is totally unrelated to the productivity of the contests.
To me this is like awarding NFL team tie-breaker based on the highest total team salary.
This is a tough issue. You can't use territories taken and points either. Why should I be punished for winning low scoring games by defense as my strategy?
Beats me. Why should the other guy be punished?
"DarjeloSalas;c-1953521" wrote:"SemiGod;c-1953221" wrote:"Rath_Tarr;c-1953210" wrote:"Waqui;c-1953160" wrote:"Rath_Tarr;c-1953073" wrote:"Waqui;c-1952741" wrote:"Jiden;c-1952698" wrote:
Just saying that in the spirit of competition, it makes little sense to use "higher GP" as the person who deserves to win.
It's got nothing to do with who deserves to win. You tied. Noone deserves it more than the other. It's a random selection of a winner.
The player who used less GP (offense + defense) to reach that result played better and thus deserves the win.
They scored the same amount of banners. They played equally well. Banners are all that matters.
If both players scored the same number of banners and one player used less GP to do so then that player was better and thus deserves the win.
The only other thing which remotely makes sense is a simple coin flip.
I think the higher GP wins because people complained about rosters being fluffed.
It rewards the OG players who have roster fluff for TBs.
If it was the other way the fluffers would get mad at the non fluffers
Wrong.
It's matchmaking GP, not total GP, that decides a tie, so fluffed rosters have nothing to do with it. Just your top X toons.
