Warhammer had very consistent and predictable contribution calculations. You just had to know what they were. Our guild farmed early city PQs for about 12 hours straight (that was back when the city siege was a 6.5 hour even) -- that's over 90 PQ resets -- with several WB configurations to determine the general rules of how it worked. The results were rather consistent and I used that information to good effect for the rest of the game.

Looking at this recently posted screenshot, the official response is wrong too

 

Voidstar Defeat Picture

 

This is so bad I have to go old school and call it an EPIC FAIL.

 

What happened is that someone who /ragequit before the end of the game scored points, just because someone quiets doesn't mean their huttball scores or caps, or bomb placement didn't happen.

 

LEARN TO ANALYZE, instead of just blindly accepting things as facts.

I will seriously bet money that it has nothing to do with kills, heals, or objectives and is in fact something stupid like whichever player entered the wz first.

This is so bad I have to go old school and call it an EPIC FAIL.

 

What happened is that someone who /ragequit before the end of the game scored points, just because someone quiets doesn't mean their huttball scores or caps, or bomb placement didn't happen.

 

LEARN TO ANALYZE, instead of just blindly accepting things as facts.

Except that when you quit a WZ, if you had any relevant contribution, it still shows you in the score screen. Thus why you can see 12-16 people in the screens sometimes (especially after a particularly bad loss).

 

LEARN TO ANALYZE, instead of just blindly accepting things as facts.

 

Especially when you don't know what you're talking about, right?

 

 

At any rate, I would still like to see a screenshot if anyone has one of a Voidstar tie match that lost whilst having higher healing. Four screenshots showed that higher healing always won; one person has claimed otherwise but hearsay is sort of irrelevant, evidence would be preferable.

Except that when you quit a WZ, if you had any relevant contribution, it still shows you in the score screen. Thus why you can see 12-16 people in the screens sometimes (especially after a particularly bad loss).

 

I'm inclined to believe that screenshot is bugged. There are 24 total deaths, but one opposing player has 20 kills? That's certainly possible, but highly unlikely, and I've seen enough endgame summaries with all 0's to doubt their overall accuracy. This one looks 'off', imo.

 

As to the OP's point, I would like to know how the 0-0 ties are broken, but I'm not sure anyone has really made a good enough case. I wonder if anyone at Bioware actually even knows? Maybe it comes down to some tiny piece of code written by some summer intern in 2010 who didn't even know what it was for? 'Scuze me, I need to go find my tinfoil hat supply...

Edited February 22, 2012 by Nigyl

I wouldn't be surprised it if just did a random roll at the end and went with that. We know it isn't objective based, we have screen shots proving that.

I will seriously bet money that it has nothing to do with kills, heals, or objectives and is in fact something stupid like whichever player entered the wz first.

 

it's probably the RNG equivalent of a coin flip, and BW's too embarrassed to admit it.

Looking at this recently posted screenshot, the official response is wrong too

 

Voidstar Defeat Picture

 

This screenshot is an f'd up match.

There are 15 deaths.

 

Can we get some other "proof"?

 

Nvm i see the other pics.

Edited February 22, 2012 by CrunchyGremlin

Gonna throw my hat into this ring.

 

Can anyone figure out my result?

 

http://i.imgur.com/s090x.jpg

 

No one in my thread could give me a concrete answer either..

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=276536

 

 

Edit: nvm derp, Objective points huh? well thats...****en dumb... considering what actually gives you objective points...

Edited February 22, 2012 by KurleyKilla

Here's a crazy one for you ... might the tiebreak work different on different servers?

 

I've never seen a tie go to the second round attackers, something I assumed was done to keep the suspense up as long as possible. It made sense - without this rule if the first attackers don't get through the first door, the second attackers could just AFK the second half of the match.

 

However, so many others seem equally convinced (and there are screen shots of) the reverse scenario - I wonder if we're really looking at the same ruleset.

I think if both teams win a round it should just be called either a win for both or a tie. This random lose BS is kinda crap.

Moral of the story - if you defended first and they did not get past the first door - DO NOT APPROACH EITHER DOOR, and camp out near the bottom of the shuttle.

 

You will win the tie because the defending team cannot get any objective points.

 

Amazing design!

 

Unless the CSR is wrong - oh wait they are since there's screenshot evidence to the contrary. Keep spinning the wheel of random responses Bioware!

Edited February 22, 2012 by EternalFinality

This screenshot is an f'd up match.

There are 15 deaths.

 

Can we get some other "proof"?

Why is it "'f'd up"? Both teams were (very defensive) premades and as you can see were guarding and healing like crazy. I can assure you, nobody died on our team and there were definitely very few deaths on theirs.

I'm inclined to believe that screenshot is bugged. There are 24 total deaths, but one opposing player has 20 kills? That's certainly possible, but highly unlikely, and I've seen enough endgame summaries with all 0's to doubt their overall accuracy. This one looks 'off', imo.

Kills count for all opponents in a small area, hence why there'll alwaysThe Jedit when attacking were constantly focussing on one door, hence the majority of the kills were in a fairly small area.

 

Gonna throw my hat into this ring.

 

Can anyone figure out my result?

 

http://i.imgur.com/s090x.jpg

 

No one in my thread could give me a concrete answer either..

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=276536

 

 

Edit: nvm derp, Objective points huh? well thats...****en dumb... considering what actually gives you objective points...

Well that's the 'most healing done wins' theory debunked then, which leaves rng or something so obscure it may as well be rng. Edited February 22, 2012 by Khabarach

It is ridiculous that there is a warzone for which NO ONE (including BW employees apparently) knows ALL of the winning conditions.

 

EDIT: 9 pages and still no one knows.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Rehash

As I said on the last thread, we lost a game that we clearly won because both teams reached the core, we attacked 2nd and had 11 seconds left when we capped.

 

When we raised the ticket we were told this was a "new" issue and they'd look into it.

 

If it can give the wrong result when probably the 2nd most important win condition has been met (1st being the "points" you get for each door/bridge) then I have no confidence that there is decent code determining who wins when even more conditions are tied...

Maybe... it remembers things from match to match that are not displayed on the end result...

 

Pulling it out of my *** here.

this picture..

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5961/screenshot2012021623204.jpg

 

round 2: defender has no ojective points.

so that means that all the objective points were scored in round 1.

In round 2 the attackers never tried to plant.

attackers LOSE for lack of trying for objectives.

 

in this one the winners have more objective points.

http://i.imgur.com/s090x.jpg

 

My stab at this is this.

round 2 determines the winner. ties are given to the defender.

objective points are only generated by the defenders.

victory points are only generated by the attacker.

Its possible that the objectives points are averaged over all players on a team.

 

Is it possible that getting objective points makes you lose?

someone said this earlier sort of.

 

on a first foor tie the round2 defender has to score more objectives than the round1 defender for the *round 2* attacker to win?

The effect is that the objective points can not be milked.

Edited February 22, 2012 by CrunchyGremlin

I just came here to say that I find it hilarious that we even have to GUESS what the deciding factor in winning or losing is. Instead of Bioware just telling us. That leads me to believe they don't even know the answer themselves. Or the answer is too embarrassing to make public.

 

I can live with the idea that Voidstar draws are randomly decided by no apparent system. It's not all that important to me. But Bioware does look really bad in this regard.

You know, I kind of just want to coordinate with the Imperials on our server, get on after prime time hours (when queues hardly pop), then have both sides queue premades at the same time....then have both sides afk through the whole WZ.

 

Wonder if it'd just randomly pick a winner if no one did anything?

it's entirely possible the check goes something like this:

 

if (team1.score > team2.score)
  team1 wins
else
  team2 wins
end

... which would mean that in the event of a tie, team2 would always win, and whatever logic is employed to assign 'team1' and 'team2' would effectively determine the outcome of a tie before the match even starts

 

from here, it's not too far fetched that team1 and team2 might be assigned based on something purely arbitrary, such as first to enter warzone, or something equally stupid

 

no, i have no data of any kind to back this up, just speculating

You know, I kind of just want to coordinate with the Imperials on our server, get on after prime time hours (when queues hardly pop), then have both sides queue premades at the same time....then have both sides afk through the whole WZ.

 

Wonder if it'd just randomly pick a winner if no one did anything?

 

this is really the only way we will know.

would be usefull to see what is worth objective points by attacker or defender and how much.

 

I imagine once we know that we would find that all of the WZ's use the same idea.

 

The big difference in VS is taht its two rounds with a time to beat.

Its also possible that the extra players are screwing up the scoring math.

I figured it out!!!! In this situation whichever side I am not on, gets the win.

 

Seems legit..

Hi folks,

 

Unfortunately, it seems that our CS droids were in error when they responded to Ashania's original tickets and for that, we apologize.

 

Currently, in the event of a tie on Voidstar, the winner is randomly chosen. We are going to be improving this with 1.2, but in the meantime, that is how winners are currently chosen for ties on Voidstar.

 

Again, I apologize for any confusion and thank you for letting us know about this.

Wow.

Thanks!

 

Id say these guys are pretty forth coming with information in comparison to say DAOC and some other games.