GP Matchmaking & “Fluff”

Replies

  • Tanzos
    193 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.
  • Waqui
    5829 posts Member
    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    Your theory is based on less evidence. And a system based soley on GP would still result in match-ups like we all observe. No reason to assume more complexity than we have evidence for.

    However, I know the difference between a theory and facts. I know it's a theory. I don't claim that it's a fact.

    If GP really was the only factor, we would also on some occasions see GA groups of 8 players with rosters of equal strength (all lean / all broad if you prefer those expressions) I have yet to see any reports or evidence of this. It may have happened without anybody reporting it, however, I know.
  • Waqui
    5829 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    And regarding, that CG would have said so by now, if other criteria than GP is used:

    CG have announced, that they don't reveal all details of their match-making algorithm.

    Source?

    Feel free to search for it yourself.
  • Waqui
    5829 posts Member
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.
  • Daishi
    470 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.

    It actually makes sense for CG to want the spread of rosters in GA matchups. Really at the end of the day this game is a job for them and a money stream. So all decision making must include what way could this increase revenue? If fluff was only matched against fluff, and lean vs lean, there would be no incentive to spend $ to improve. If you knew no matter how tightly you grew your roster you'd always be matched with someone equally tough, why bother trying to improve?

    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.
  • EA_Rtas
    883 posts EA Moderator
    Alright folks this is still staying too personal for my liking. Stop with the personal callouts and keep it on topic. I won't ask again
  • What is considered a fluffy roster and a lean roster? Is there some kind of criteria, percentage of unusable toon for example?
  • J0HND03
    134 posts Member
    edited March 6
    i'm curious how it will turn out, for example i'm the 'fluffy' fleet guy in my GA bracket , normaly with 100-200k more fleet gp then any other competitior, got 139 7* chars that are partly leveled to work as a modbank in the past and whatever but still i only lost 2 ga by now. one by my own mistake could have beaten the opponent if not for realy stupid errors like using veers instead of greedo in a bh team and others (don't post defense while drunk) .... in the last gp only 1 player did 100% ... the first one did nothing, the last one only defense and by gp i was again the one with the lowest char and the highest fleet score 120k gp+ on fleet for me and combined the weakest one of the competitiors .... so if they match up via char gp without fleet, will i get opponents even worse ?!?

    https://swgoh.gg/u/j0hnd03/


  • Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.

    It actually makes sense for CG to want the spread of rosters in GA matchups. Really at the end of the day this game is a job for them and a money stream. So all decision making must include what way could this increase revenue? If fluff was only matched against fluff, and lean vs lean, there would be no incentive to spend $ to improve. If you knew no matter how tightly you grew your roster you'd always be matched with someone equally tough, why bother trying to improve?

    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.

    GA has actually gotten me to stop putting gear on toons unless I know I can get them up to g11 and only if they’re not pilots. I still increase stars for toons, but it’s actually getting me to hoard more gear (and making the game less fun).

    My situation is only loosely related to the fluff argument (high ship GP), but it isn’t creating a potential for me to spend more money. It’s doing the exact opposite because I know I won’t be able to catch people I’m currently matched against.
  • J0HND03
    134 posts Member
    https://swgoh.gg/u/j0hnd03/

    fluff account i guess, love my ships and have a lot of 7* mod holders from the past :D
    get normally matched up with 100k-200k more char gp but only lost 2 matches in GA by now, but according to most people that's 4-8 g12 toons more for the oposition and utterly impossible to beat .... just makes more fun to crush them but ofc takes ~5-15m thinking about the strategy how to beat the opponents teams without wasting to much precious battle will help as well. :)
  • No_Try
    3665 posts Member
    ALS2021 wrote: »
    What is considered a fluffy roster and a lean roster? Is there some kind of criteria, percentage of unusable toon for example?

    Not really. Anything you only put on resources to gain GP and is left with halfway usability is fluff. It's not about fully raised toons that may not be that useful anymore.

    Even though this discussion makes it seem we are divided into strictly two, the truth is purely lean rosters are really rare (whom put up a self determined rule to not ever throw anything in if they are not gonna use the toon), rest are on the spectrum.
  • Waqui
    5829 posts Member
    ALS2021 wrote: »
    What is considered a fluffy roster and a lean roster? Is there some kind of criteria, percentage of unusable toon for example?

    I have no exact definition for you, I'm afraid. You may say, that the terms themselves are somewhat fluffy ;-).

    In regards to this discussion, the relevant thing is, wether your roster is more or less fluffy relative to your opponents in your group of 8. An exact criteria/definition/threshold is less relevant.
  • Tanzos
    193 posts Member
    edited March 6
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.

    It actually makes sense for CG to want the spread of rosters in GA matchups. Really at the end of the day this game is a job for them and a money stream. So all decision making must include what way could this increase revenue? If fluff was only matched against fluff, and lean vs lean, there would be no incentive to spend $ to improve. If you knew no matter how tightly you grew your roster you'd always be matched with someone equally tough, why bother trying to improve?

    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.

    If you were matched against players who had significantly less high gear characters and Zetas, why would you want to improve your roster if you're already on top?

    GA is not about roster, it's about "The Ultimate Test of Skill" as stated in their release post.
  • Tanzos wrote: »
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.

    It actually makes sense for CG to want the spread of rosters in GA matchups. Really at the end of the day this game is a job for them and a money stream. So all decision making must include what way could this increase revenue? If fluff was only matched against fluff, and lean vs lean, there would be no incentive to spend $ to improve. If you knew no matter how tightly you grew your roster you'd always be matched with someone equally tough, why bother trying to improve?

    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.

    If you were matched against players who had significantly less high gear characters and Zetas, why would you want to improve your roster if you're already on top?

    GA is not about roster, it's about "The Ultimate Test of Skill" as stated in their release post.

    I don’t know if this has been stated yet, but I’ve actually had a lot more fun in TW when both guilds are scrambling in the last 30 minutes to get points (win or lose). The TW matches where we devastate the other team (or get destroyed) are incredibly boring.

    I can’t believe so many people prefer GA mismatches where it’s easy to walk all over the opponent. If that’s really what people want, we could ask CG to replace GA with a weekly reward program. Once a week, you get the GA reward that you’re most likely to get from the event. This would be based on your ratio of g12s and zetas to others in your GP pool.

    :)
  • A fluff player cannot become a lean player. There is no way to reduce any of your your levels, abilities or gear, that at some point or time were good to increase for other aspects of the game. The only way is up.

    A lean player can easily become a fluff player, simply by spending all of those shards, credits and gear and what-not that they are hoarding for no good reason.

    That means the progression of the roster is set - you are supposed to increase it - or fluff it.

    Having a lean roster is only a result of being lucky in picking the right toons that turned out to be useful right now. There is no skill there, or strategy. Just luck. The strategy of the game would be knowing which teams to use against other teams, and ultimately having access to all toons so that you can always make the best choice against your opponent. That means those of you who claim to be strategists, should welcome a more balanced match up, and a large roster of choices, rather than falsely claiming that you somehow are good because you were just lucky when picking your lean roster.

    So fluff should be rewarded, not penalized. Unless they make it so we can strip toons down so that we are all at a lean level playing field. That would be an insane choice though, just to placate a group of players who are playing the game 'wrong'.
  • Waqui
    5829 posts Member
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.

    It actually makes sense for CG to want the spread of rosters in GA matchups. Really at the end of the day this game is a job for them and a money stream. So all decision making must include what way could this increase revenue? If fluff was only matched against fluff, and lean vs lean, there would be no incentive to spend $ to improve. If you knew no matter how tightly you grew your roster you'd always be matched with someone equally tough, why bother trying to improve?

    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.

    If you were matched against players who had significantly less high gear characters and Zetas, why would you want to improve your roster if you're already on top?

    This question is like asking a player, who ranks 1st in squad arena, why he would want to farm the next META character/team. The answer is quite simple:

    To remain on top.
  • Waqui
    5829 posts Member
    Having a lean roster is only a result of being lucky in picking the right toons that turned out to be useful right now. There is no skill there, or strategy. Just luck. The strategy of the game would be knowing which teams to use against other teams, and ultimately having access to all toons so that you can always make the best choice against your opponent. That means those of you who claim to be strategists, should welcome a more balanced match up, and a large roster of choices, rather than falsely claiming that you somehow are good because you were just lucky when picking your lean roster.

    Luck? A super lean roster is a result of only gearing/training the character(s), which you have the most use for without spending resources on other characters leaving them at a lvl 1, gear 1. Choosing how to develop your roster and which characters to gear up is also strategy. If match-making is changed to always create even matches (in all aspects of your roster - not only GP) it would completely remove that particular strategic aspect.

  • Dk_rek
    3162 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Having a lean roster is only a result of being lucky in picking the right toons that turned out to be useful right now. There is no skill there, or strategy. Just luck. The strategy of the game would be knowing which teams to use against other teams, and ultimately having access to all toons so that you can always make the best choice against your opponent. That means those of you who claim to be strategists, should welcome a more balanced match up, and a large roster of choices, rather than falsely claiming that you somehow are good because you were just lucky when picking your lean roster.

    Luck? A super lean roster is a result of only gearing/training the character(s), which you have the most use for without spending resources on other characters leaving them at a lvl 1, gear 1. Choosing how to develop your roster and which characters to gear up is also strategy. If match-making is changed to always create even matches (in all aspects of your roster - not only GP) it would completely remove that particular strategic aspect.

    Problem is GA came after we were supposed to fluff for TB....

    Now im punished i would say the heck with TB now if ga came out first and never unlock or level or gear anything....

    Keep the gear let me reset my toons to lvl1

    Not realistic but i would snap do it instead of finishing last every GA because the algorithm is horrible
  • Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Personally I don't think it's intentional, but they do see the match ups and the results. So if they haven't taken corrective action, they're basically OK'ing this being the result. Every GA I've been in there is a competitor that's ultra lean and one that is very broad OR has high ships GP. I've been able to accurately predict who will come in last place 100% of the time, and only predicted wrong who would finish first once.

    It seems odd, considering the breadth of players in the game, that there wouldn't be a tighter match up between opponents in at least 1 of the GAs I've been involved.
  • ALS2021
    10 posts Member
    A fluff player cannot become a lean player. There is no way to reduce any of your your levels, abilities or gear, that at some point or time were good to increase for other aspects of the game. The only way is up.

    A lean player can easily become a fluff player, simply by spending all of those shards, credits and gear and what-not that they are hoarding for no good reason.

    That means the progression of the roster is set - you are supposed to increase it - or fluff it.

    Having a lean roster is only a result of being lucky in picking the right toons that turned out to be useful right now. There is no skill there, or strategy. Just luck. The strategy of the game would be knowing which teams to use against other teams, and ultimately having access to all toons so that you can always make the best choice against your opponent. That means those of you who claim to be strategists, should welcome a more balanced match up, and a large roster of choices, rather than falsely claiming that you somehow are good because you were just lucky when picking your lean roster.

    So fluff should be rewarded, not penalized. Unless they make it so we can strip toons down so that we are all at a lean level playing field. That would be an insane choice though, just to placate a group of players who are playing the game 'wrong'.

    A fluff roster can most definitely become a lean roster.
    As a couple of guys here have said there is no criteria that determines what is a fluff roster and what’s a lean roster. It is determined by ur roster relative to ur GA matchups.

    If you have a fluffy roster and want a leaner more GA competitive roster, See how your GA winners squads are compared to yours. You can focus on getting those G12s, the right mods, the zetas, etc. Obviously it will raise your own GP to match you with better opponents, but you close the gap until it becomes negligible.

    It’s definitely possible as a couple of guild mates have done the same since GA first came out and now really do well as opposed to their initial few last places. So do not give up hope!
  • Daishi
    470 posts Member
    I think the current matchmaking does OK, it's not perfect but in each GA I usually have 1 easy match, 1 moderate match, and the final (if I win the moderate match) is a tough fight that I've only one 1/3 times. I think it does a nice job of getting a range of accounts in each match. The lean ones will end up fighting each other eventually, but the fluffy will as well.
  • Waqui
    5829 posts Member
    You can never remove the gear, levels etc. from a g8/lvl.53 Rose or CUP, but you can stop producing more fluff and as time goes by, your roster will transition to a more lean roster. As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.
  • Tanzos
    193 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.

    It actually makes sense for CG to want the spread of rosters in GA matchups. Really at the end of the day this game is a job for them and a money stream. So all decision making must include what way could this increase revenue? If fluff was only matched against fluff, and lean vs lean, there would be no incentive to spend $ to improve. If you knew no matter how tightly you grew your roster you'd always be matched with someone equally tough, why bother trying to improve?

    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.

    If you were matched against players who had significantly less high gear characters and Zetas, why would you want to improve your roster if you're already on top?

    This question is like asking a player, who ranks 1st in squad arena, why he would want to farm the next META character/team. The answer is quite simple:

    To remain on top.

    But if don't add any more gear or characters, you stay in the exact same GP match. You're still the top in your GP matches. It doesn't make a difference. If you're on top and never increase your GP, you're still going to be on top because the players you face next GA will be just like the ones in your previous GA. There's no growth if the goal posts move with you.

    It's like getting 10 yards to get a first down but the end zone just moved 10 yards away. Because as you continue to gear up, your GP goes up along with it, putting you against players who also just did the same amount if gearing.

    There's no end goal in GA.

    What's the end game in GA?

    In Raids, it's to solo it.
    Arena, to maintain your rank.
    TW, to get to the last reward tier and win.
    TB, acheive all the stars.

    Again, TW has a similar issue, but with it being a Guild vs Guild game mode the motivations are slightly different.

    GA, you could in theory NEVER add a single piece of gear to your already lean roster, and ALWAYS have the advantage. Until a brand new Uber character comes around and you need it.
  • Tanzos
    193 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.

    It actually makes sense for CG to want the spread of rosters in GA matchups. Really at the end of the day this game is a job for them and a money stream. So all decision making must include what way could this increase revenue? If fluff was only matched against fluff, and lean vs lean, there would be no incentive to spend $ to improve. If you knew no matter how tightly you grew your roster you'd always be matched with someone equally tough, why bother trying to improve?

    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.

    If you were matched against players who had significantly less high gear characters and Zetas, why would you want to improve your roster if you're already on top?

    This question is like asking a player, who ranks 1st in squad arena, why he would want to farm the next META character/team. The answer is quite simple:

    To remain on top.

    Also, it's entirely not the same.

    You do realize Arena is constantly changing. It's a LIVE event that goes on 24/7. When a new meta character drops, those people will start farming him to stay on top.

    But if there's no new META character, what's your motivation?

    Like right now. If you're in 1st with your Revan squad, why would you farm anything else? Obviously to anticipate the next Meta (Darth Revan).

    However, if that Darth Revan carrot is not there, what motivation would any of them have if Revan is clearly good enough to maintain 1st? There is none. Not for Arena. Not now.

    It's definitely not the same.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

  • CG have shot themselves in the foot with GA matching.

    It's now encouraged players to hoard and only selectively gear chars/ships when required.

    Players are far better equipped to manage panic farms and avoid having to spend crystals or cash to get crystals to urgently gear an individual char/ship or entire faction if required because they have a stash of gear ready to deploy.

  • Daishi
    470 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Most often those with lean rosters have those lean rosters because they already excel at the game, with resource management being part of it. Take my alt account for example. It has very slow growth because I only play it as a size project and spend no money. But I have won every GA with it because as an experienced player I have a tighter roster and better mods than others in the 800k GP range. I've invested in the right characters and zeta the best leaders and havent had an even slightly difficult match yet.

    SWGOH is a resource management game and those who properly managed their resources are at an advantage.
  • No_Try
    3665 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?
  • No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?
Sign In or Register to comment.