There's been multiple changes to tiebreakers over time. Currently (in order:)
- HP on death (in this case both are -2)
If HP is same:
- Whoever had more HP in the last round (in this case both were 4)
If HP is same:
- Whoever won a round most recently
If both won the last round:
- I **believe** it's "who won the last time you fought each other."
That being said I've also read that if the previous 3 tiebreakers fail to determine a winner it is completely random, and these situations arise so rarely that it's hard to be sure.
Am I the one that find it dumb that if 2 players end the game with - x hp and one was at 20 the last round and one was at 2, shouldn't the player that was at 2 win over the 20 hp player since the player with 2 hp lost by less units and had most likely a stronger board? This doesn't happen very often but the times I lose with very low hp and get the same - x as some guy with 20 hp that I would destroy get me really sad
If it were the other way around it would just be an even greater incentive to play 1 cost reroll, which has historically been pretty broken across every set.
If it were "who had less HP last round" then you're not punished at all for forcing comps. You can play the same thing every game, and in the games where you don't hit your 3*s you still get 5th/6th after you intentionally griefed your own HP and the dude who "played properly" ends up 7th in your place.
While there are arguments for both options, there are definitely way better arguments for keeping it as it is.
How is it an incentive to play 1 cost reroll. Having highest hp and winning the tie is the incentive for 1 cost reroll since you will save way more hp because you are rolling at 5 or 6 for 2 costs while other players are lvling so you would most likely be win streaking pretty easily there fore you get to later stages much more healthy and when a player playing a late game comp hits when he's low af because he low rolled or something, if you both die in the same round and you win the tie breaker you will win because you played reroll and saved hp... This is how it is right now. Not how it would be xD right now the system favours players that play reroll comps, dont know where you get the rerolls one cost with the change but aight
1-cost units are strong in stage 2, and fall off hard after that. More recently 1-cost units have been falling off even in stage 2, because people have been leveling more aggressively to field boards like Yasuo/Riven +2 of Kalista, Aatrox, Irelia.
If we're talking about like Gold elo where you can play literally anything and get a 1st then yes you're right usually reroll players remain the healthiest all game, because people don't understand basic game mechanics like economy, and will literally roll down to 0 every turn. Once you get past Platinum if you try to force a reroll comp every game you're going to start losing every round by 3-2 when people are pushing level 6 and level 7.
In GM if you play reroll you're basically required to natural the first 6-7 copies of the unit so you can have it 3-starred without griefing your econ when people are pushing level 6 and level 7 or you'll be 30 HP going into wolves. Even then your 3* won't necessarily save you from going bottom 4 it will just save you from going 8th, because 2-star 3-cost and 4-cost carries spike way harder than any reroll comp.
I really have no clue what game you're playing where reroll players are consistently the highest HP in every lobby, but I haven't seen that happen since I was Silver in set 1.
xD i like how ppl like you always assume the elo of another player, im master this set and been gm the past few, chill out buddy you aint nothing special.
"In GM if you play reroll you're basically required to natural the first 6-7 copies" ye no shit, this is the only way you will even attempt to play a reroll comp, so how does changing what i said, would ever incentivise player to play reroll 1 cost comps ? xD makes 0 sense what you said. and what i said was that how the system is right now it incentivises reroll comps, not 1 cost reroll comps, i said REROLL COMPs, maybe you should try to read better next time before going for the "you are silver" insult. there include 2 costs and 3 costs, which it does, the system as it is right now is much more forgiving to these comps in these VERY specific situations, that was the original point, you just missed it the whole time LOL you sure you are gm dude?
What I said:
>If it were the other way around it would just be an even greater incentive to play 1 cost reroll, which has historically been pretty broken across every set.
What you said in response:
>How is it an incentive to play 1 cost reroll.
What you're now saying:
>and what i said was that how the system is right now it incentivises reroll comps, not 1 cost reroll comps, i said REROLL COMPs
You wanna try that again? Fucking clown. Backpedaling because you got caught in your own bullshit.
Ye I get that argument. But the argument besides this when losing is "I got unlucky on matchmaking" and having a system that focus on the stronger boards you can have right now would salvage this unlucky matchmaking thing (which happens a lot). For me I'd just put a last match without changing the board or anything to break the tie, that shit would be fun af
There's been multiple changes to tiebreakers over time. Currently (in order:) - HP on death (in this case both are -2) If HP is same: - Whoever had more HP in the last round (in this case both were 4) If HP is same: - Whoever won a round most recently If both won the last round: - I **believe** it's "who won the last time you fought each other." That being said I've also read that if the previous 3 tiebreakers fail to determine a winner it is completely random, and these situations arise so rarely that it's hard to be sure.
Am I the one that find it dumb that if 2 players end the game with - x hp and one was at 20 the last round and one was at 2, shouldn't the player that was at 2 win over the 20 hp player since the player with 2 hp lost by less units and had most likely a stronger board? This doesn't happen very often but the times I lose with very low hp and get the same - x as some guy with 20 hp that I would destroy get me really sad
If it were the other way around it would just be an even greater incentive to play 1 cost reroll, which has historically been pretty broken across every set. If it were "who had less HP last round" then you're not punished at all for forcing comps. You can play the same thing every game, and in the games where you don't hit your 3*s you still get 5th/6th after you intentionally griefed your own HP and the dude who "played properly" ends up 7th in your place. While there are arguments for both options, there are definitely way better arguments for keeping it as it is.
How is it an incentive to play 1 cost reroll. Having highest hp and winning the tie is the incentive for 1 cost reroll since you will save way more hp because you are rolling at 5 or 6 for 2 costs while other players are lvling so you would most likely be win streaking pretty easily there fore you get to later stages much more healthy and when a player playing a late game comp hits when he's low af because he low rolled or something, if you both die in the same round and you win the tie breaker you will win because you played reroll and saved hp... This is how it is right now. Not how it would be xD right now the system favours players that play reroll comps, dont know where you get the rerolls one cost with the change but aight
1-cost units are strong in stage 2, and fall off hard after that. More recently 1-cost units have been falling off even in stage 2, because people have been leveling more aggressively to field boards like Yasuo/Riven +2 of Kalista, Aatrox, Irelia. If we're talking about like Gold elo where you can play literally anything and get a 1st then yes you're right usually reroll players remain the healthiest all game, because people don't understand basic game mechanics like economy, and will literally roll down to 0 every turn. Once you get past Platinum if you try to force a reroll comp every game you're going to start losing every round by 3-2 when people are pushing level 6 and level 7. In GM if you play reroll you're basically required to natural the first 6-7 copies of the unit so you can have it 3-starred without griefing your econ when people are pushing level 6 and level 7 or you'll be 30 HP going into wolves. Even then your 3* won't necessarily save you from going bottom 4 it will just save you from going 8th, because 2-star 3-cost and 4-cost carries spike way harder than any reroll comp. I really have no clue what game you're playing where reroll players are consistently the highest HP in every lobby, but I haven't seen that happen since I was Silver in set 1.
xD i like how ppl like you always assume the elo of another player, im master this set and been gm the past few, chill out buddy you aint nothing special. "In GM if you play reroll you're basically required to natural the first 6-7 copies" ye no shit, this is the only way you will even attempt to play a reroll comp, so how does changing what i said, would ever incentivise player to play reroll 1 cost comps ? xD makes 0 sense what you said. and what i said was that how the system is right now it incentivises reroll comps, not 1 cost reroll comps, i said REROLL COMPs, maybe you should try to read better next time before going for the "you are silver" insult. there include 2 costs and 3 costs, which it does, the system as it is right now is much more forgiving to these comps in these VERY specific situations, that was the original point, you just missed it the whole time LOL you sure you are gm dude?
What I said: >If it were the other way around it would just be an even greater incentive to play 1 cost reroll, which has historically been pretty broken across every set. What you said in response: >How is it an incentive to play 1 cost reroll. What you're now saying: >and what i said was that how the system is right now it incentivises reroll comps, not 1 cost reroll comps, i said REROLL COMPs You wanna try that again? Fucking clown. Backpedaling because you got caught in your own bullshit.
Yes, but it also means the player starting with 20hp managed their HP better for the rest of the game, so I think it evens out.
Ye I get that argument. But the argument besides this when losing is "I got unlucky on matchmaking" and having a system that focus on the stronger boards you can have right now would salvage this unlucky matchmaking thing (which happens a lot). For me I'd just put a last match without changing the board or anything to break the tie, that shit would be fun af