Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Deleted
    it would make sence to make draws mean your rating stays the same.
    it would not make sence to count a draw as a win.

    lore wise each time you try to attack the enemy you have used up some resources.
    if you didn't win those resources are wasted and so you lost them for no gain which is why a draw is a loss.

  2. #22
    Stood in the Fire Atrosity's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    435
    Because unless you win, you've lost. 2nd place is as bad as 100th, winning is all that matters.
    Tanks are made of steel, blood and a shield, not magic and twigs.
    My Warrior My Shaman

  3. #23
    In a dual to the death, if you don't kill the other person you are considered a traitor or a loser. Think of gladiatorial arena from ancient Rome.

  4. #24
    People are making a lot of points that tie into each other that don't make much sense.

    Saying that because you lost because you didn't win is untrue in this situation. There are 2 participating entities...if neither of you won, then who did either of you lose to? You can't say that you lost to yourself or your people, because realistically they aren't even involved, by virtue of their (willing or unwilling) investment in whatever progress your forces do or don't make--progress which is still at odds since neither side has gained or lost ground. It would be more accurate to say that both sides "failed", but even then it's meaningless because you're still on equal ground with the enemy as if the battle had never occurred and no one had "failed".

    Now to put this more fittingly in terms of WoW mechanics, I'm more inclined to the OP's opinion and in general agreement with viglante's post. It makes sense that ending a BG in a tie would not earn you the rewards in line with the outcome of having won. It should also not "reward" you with the same amount (in the case of regular BG's, since you still earn honor for participating) of honor as losing since a tie is decidedly better then straight-up losing. In the case of RBG's and arena, your rating should just not move at all, or at least not penalize you as much as it would if you lost...the latter being a possible and reasonable compromise to help curb the increased likelihood of people griefing other teams in full arena matches with full healer teams that just pillar hump the entire match until the other team leaves and they get free rating, or it ends in a tie and they lose nothing.

  5. #25
    Because tying isn't WINNING, you both lose.


  6. #26
    Scarab Lord foxHeart's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Inside Jabu-jabu's Belly
    Posts
    4,402
    You should get more honor for tying than losing. I don't really see how anything else makes sense. I mean, yeah, sure, you didn't exactly win, but I'm totally against the philosophy of tying being equivalent to a loss. A loss implies you were beaten by the other team while a tie implies you were able to match the other team, so I don't get how "lol u didn't win so you lost" scenario makes any sense at all. Obviously, you should get way more points for winning than tying, but tying shouldn't be level with losing.

  7. #27
    The Patient Phocket's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Down on the farm
    Posts
    277
    If the point is to win, and you didn't win, you've lost.

    If you want a "You've lost" from an economical standpoint: The opportunity cost of you playing in said BG is the time you could have invested doing other things, such as playing on a winning team, or not losing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokoz View Post
    Me: "Ok if its a healer/dps go for healer then dps! Alright?"
    Partner: "What if its a Paladin combo?"
    Me: "Then just leave..."

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Phocket View Post
    If the point is to win, and you didn't win, you've lost.

    If you want a "You've lost" from an economical standpoint: The opportunity cost of you playing in said BG is the time you could have invested doing other things, such as playing on a winning team, or not losing.
    Okay, let's say the entire point is just to win. Let's say the BG ended and you didn't win. What did you lose? From your second point it seems that you suggest that you lost the time spent which could have been better used doing something else. Perhaps running with a BG group that would have won. Great point, you've lost the time spent that could have been used in the opportunity of winning with a different group and match. So here you are, your reward is confirmation that you've won the match. No extra honor or rating for you, that wasn't part of the deal. The only positive thing you aimed to gain was to earn words saying that you did better than the other team, therefore you didn't waste the time you spent playing.

    Now by that point I hope realize that all that sets up is the fact that your example dictates that the team is what is being gambled and won or lost here, and that by not winning it's wasted. But all you did was *not lose*, because, what did you gain? Nothing. In your example, you didn't gain any of the item which you supposedly gambled which was time spent. Your point makes no sense because by winning, you didn't win anything. As opposed to having tied or lost in which cases you did actually lose something. This illustrates that the differences between wins, losses, and ties are more meaningful than you seem to believe due to the honor or rating you gain or lose depending on actual performance, rather than just time spent. With that in mind, how can you honestly say that winning is any better than a tie if a tie is no better than a loss when it's based off of performance compared to the other team and not just being told you won?

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    Okay, let's say the entire point is just to win. Let's say the BG ended and you didn't win. What did you lose? From your second point it seems that you suggest that you lost the time spent which could have been better used doing something else. Perhaps running with a BG group that would have won. Great point, you've lost the time spent that could have been used in the opportunity of winning with a different group and match. So here you are, your reward is confirmation that you've won the match. No extra honor or rating for you, that wasn't part of the deal. The only positive thing you aimed to gain was to earn words saying that you did better than the other team, therefore you didn't waste the time you spent playing.

    Now by that point I hope realize that all that sets up is the fact that your example dictates that the team is what is being gambled and won or lost here, and that by not winning it's wasted. But all you did was *not lose*, because, what did you gain? Nothing. In your example, you didn't gain any of the item which you supposedly gambled which was time spent. Your point makes no sense because by winning, you didn't win anything. As opposed to having tied or lost in which cases you did actually lose something. This illustrates that the differences between wins, losses, and ties are more meaningful than you seem to believe due to the honor or rating you gain or lose depending on actual performance, rather than just time spent. With that in mind, how can you honestly say that winning is any better than a tie if a tie is no better than a loss when it's based off of performance compared to the other team and not just being told you won?
    You can spin it anyway you like, but it doesn't change anything. They are battlegrounds. If you have a battle in a war, and you do not defeat your enemy by completing your objectives, you have failed. You didn't complete the objective, you don't get a consolation prize, because war doesn't give trophies for participation. You win, or you lose. A tie just means that both teams lost.

  10. #30
    I guess blizzard are the "glass is half empty" kind of peeps

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Imadraenei View Post
    You can spin it anyway you like, but it doesn't change anything. They are battlegrounds. If you have a battle in a war, and you do not defeat your enemy by completing your objectives, you have failed. You didn't complete the objective, you don't get a consolation prize, because war doesn't give trophies for participation. You win, or you lose. A tie just means that both teams lost.
    This is part of one I mean, without just coming out and saying it with your example. In a real battle within a war your objectives in a land war aren't so cut and dry. Using WSG/ashenvale/lumber-camp-areas as an example, what happens if the alliance wins a WSG battle? They take control of the horde's territory in the area. If they lose, the horde takes their territory. If they tie no one gains or loses any ground. You didn't fail all of your objectives, as you didn't lose your foothold in the area. You also managed to weaken your enemy's forces in the area as much as they did yours. The objective isn't simply to take and hold their territory...that would mean you could leave your side empty and just take theirs and you really didn't gain anything if you traded. This means that you also have the objective of *not losing your current holdings*, which by means of a tie, you achieve.

  12. #32
    Fluffy Kitten Zoma's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    8,103
    There are two categories. Winning, and not winning. Winning is winning, and draws and loses are not winning.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoma View Post
    There are two categories. Winning, and not winning. Winning is winning, and draws and loses are not winning.
    You forgot the third category: Bi-Winning!

  14. #34
    The Patient
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Over there
    Posts
    247
    No-one won, that's why.

    To be perfectly fair its to encourage going for a win, not sitting on your hands after getting ahead.
    Well that's just typical. Ten minutes before the most important party of my life, and half the house has been destroyed by a giant sandwich.

  15. #35
    If a tie gave full or even decent points, people would be encouraged to deliberately draw out a losing match into a tie, wasting everyone's time. Or worse yet, build specifically to force ties consistently, because it's easier than winning, especially if you're bad.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by IceQbe View Post
    No, neither of us lost, which is my point. If we're fighting over land or whatever, and neither side loses any of the land they are risking in battle, this is a better outcome than losing said land, wouldn't you agree?
    The problem with this line of thinking is that if you were actually fighting over land, there wouldn't be an arbitrary time limit and there wouldn't be a random new opponent when battle over said land resumed the next day.

    In this BG scenario, you either Win or you Don't Win. Don't think of it as a loss, because it isn't. It also isn't a victory. Since Victory is the only favorable outcome, it should be the only outcome with a favorable reward.

    I don't believe ties should exist. Play until a victor is decided. That, however, is an argument for another time.

  17. #37
    The Patient Phocket's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Down on the farm
    Posts
    277
    @ Dippin

    The entire point of BG's is to hold the most bases to reach 1600/2000 (BfG and AB) before the other team. That's your objective. It's a True/False statement, simply put.

    You gained the appropriate amount of resources before the other faction: True. You win.

    You gained the appropriate amount of resources before the other faction: False. You lose.

    In a Cap the Flag style match, if you're constantly going back and forth without a team scoring for 25 minutes (which, let's be honest, how often do any of these tie situations actually come up?) then you essentially went afk in a corner for 25 minutes because nothing was accomplished and nothing happened to warrant a team a win.

    Or maybe you're used to the game of horseshoes or the concept of hand grenades. "Close" counts in both of those, seeing as you get points in that game (horseshoes) and shrapnel wounds (hand grenades)* for being "close enough". Same goes for peewee soccer and baseball, "Hey, you tried really, really, really hard! Here's a trophy. Of course, it means nothing and taught you nothing about being competitive, but if it gets your parents off my back, what the hell."

    If they started handing out rating and honor/conquest for a tie, they might as well start handing it out for a loss as well.


    * Just wanted to clear up any misconceptions of horseshoes exploding and people trying to play games with hand grenades. While both being deadly, one weighs five pounds and looks like a big U, the other weighs five pounds and has a kill radius of 10 yards after 5 seconds.

    Edit: Clarity.
    Last edited by Phocket; 2011-09-16 at 04:06 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokoz View Post
    Me: "Ok if its a healer/dps go for healer then dps! Alright?"
    Partner: "What if its a Paladin combo?"
    Me: "Then just leave..."

  18. #38
    Stood in the Fire
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Muskegon, MI
    Posts
    406
    I would assume it's probably the same reason if 2 people tie for second place, the next person to place would be 4th... it's just what happens

  19. #39
    High Overlord Bulma's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    190
    Honestly this is what you find to complain about? So you think if both teams tie you should be awarded more honor than a loss? Let's look at that compared to real life situations. If people tie in a game of cards or any sport you usually settle it in some way. This is my idea for your devastating tie breaker, que up again.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Phocket View Post
    @ Dippin

    * Just wanted to clear up any misconceptions of horseshoes exploding and people trying to play games with hand grenades. While both being deadly, one weighs five pounds and looks like a big U, the other weighs five pounds and has a kill radius of 10 yards after 5 seconds.

    Edit: Clarity.
    haha, I like your clarification edit. Anyway, I totally agree that honor/conquest being given out for losses is questionable, but it's already in the game, even for losing an RBG you get conquest points. No matter what the rules are, my point is that blizzard already gives a bottom line amount of points just for participating, and then more points based on performance. Since a tie is a better performance than losing, it makes sense that people who tie should get slightly more points than if they lost, but still nowhere near as much as if they had won. This way you're always trying to beat the other team because it's better for you in every way, and you don't feel quite as robbed when you play an equal team and tie.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •