Why do Tie breakers in GAC go to highest GP?

It rewards people for building their rosters.

Another thread about this... ?

"KeDe_Ari_007;c-2257746" wrote:
But by getting a tie I'm doing just as good as them with less to work with and that's A) more difficult to do in this pay to win game and B shows I'm playing the game better

High GP doesn't mean you paid for it. I have a high GP because I have a lot of G10/G11 characters. I'm pretty sure my G11 Jedi Consular or G10 Lobot aren't going to be gamebreakers, but here they are on my roster.

You can artificially keep your GP low by not gearing or not leveling characters. They've said a whole bunch of times that they want to disincentivise hording. It creates a chilling effect where people get miserly about what to use gear on, just in case some other character comes out. Miserly players are grumpy players. They want you to bring that Marquee character up to 3*, level 85, gear 7/8 (depending on when they need their first piece of gear that uses carbanti sensor arrays) and put mods on it.

Giving the tiebreaker to people who have done that is an incredibly minor way to incentivise deeper, wider rosters.

It's just an arbitrary way to break a tie, a holdover from early GA where matchmaking was by total GP.

It wasn't a great solution then and it's an even worse one now.

You are tied. If you were to keep on fighting, which one would have more and/or better built teams to use? Right, that's a good reason why higher GP wins.

"Adamklark;c-2257901" wrote:

"th3evo;c-2257867" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2257865" wrote:
The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

If you get what i am trying to say.

If you have a better and more efficient roster, why did you only tie? It may only seem better to you, but by not winning, I think you just proved it is not.

"Adamklark;c-2258171" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2258094" wrote:

"Adamklark;c-2257901" wrote:

"th3evo;c-2257867" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2257865" wrote:
The thing I don’t like about the tiebreaker system is that it settles the outcome based on something that wasn’t used in the match itself.

It would be much better if the GP used on defence, offence or both combined was used. That way every decision the player made would have contributed to the outcome of the tie.

You go in the match with your whole roster. Just because you decided not to use some characters doesn't mean that they aren't part of the match. If a hockey players sits on the bench for the whole match he is still part of the match.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

I do not necessary agree with this analogy, just because there are extras, they did not affect the match at all. The player with more GP might have extra points from gearing up Tuskens, should that be awarded compared to lower GP player who managed his roster more efficiently and focused on the 'good' teams and overcame a challange with less number of available teams?

If you get what i am trying to say.

If you have a better and more efficient roster, why did you only tie? It may only seem better to you, but by not winning, I think you just proved it is not.

?

what part is difficult?

and no, getting a tie in a match that pitted you against someone who has a theoretically equal roster to yours is not an achievement in itself. It's bare minimum at best, and you don't get a pat on the back for that.

"Adamklark;c-2258215" wrote:
"theorietically equal opponent"..

Anyone can be on either side of that, so we may as well work with that assumption. Otherwise bickering over a tie is trivial anyway (not that it isn't already)

Just give both second place rewards like in TW and make everyone mad.