GP Matchmaking & “Fluff”

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    matching based on GP and other factors can work fine. and if they dont have teams or counter teams built for this style of game mode, thats their fault.

    How does having leveled all toons/abilities and putting fully leveled mods on all mean I'm not cut for this game mode? I did it because I could with zero impact to how usable my properly geared toons are. I'm still sitting on a 140M credit pile after the fact.

    The problem is how the matchmaking is made, not whether I'm cut for it or not. My roster is already extremely competetive in the practically usable portion of it. It's the system that's punishing me with implementing the matchmaking purely based on GP.

    There are many alternatives such as toon gp cutoffs or gear cutoffs offered as soon as GA is announced and before it was implemented.

    It's a good time to stop drawing useless correlations and look at what the actual situation is in actual game terms.

    If you have the right toons, meaning the better defensive teams and the counters built to counter said teams, with some other good mixes built up, than you should be able to win. If this ^^ is the case and you lose, I'm not sure that is the matchmaking over user error.

    2 players can be fairly matched with GP as a consideration, and GP should be a consideration. No it should not be the only factor. But saying things like someone with revan(or X toon) should only be matched with someone else who has revan (or X toon) is a stretch.

    The way we are all matched in this game is with time (time = $$) they changed GP to exactly match " time" because it is just a value of how much investment you have put into a toon. Now if someone put that investment into CLS vs CUP, that is a players choice and they should have to deal with those consequences.

    Factors that should be considered as far as game play is concerned should follow that same line, not character specific but development specific
    I.e.

    i.e.
    - # g12 toons
    - # zetas

    Might be odd but
    - # of raids completed
    - arena wins

    Maybe some others, but IMO those are the game parameters that allow players to have "equal" development and let their choice about development help or hurt them.

    All that said, all those factors affect GP directly, which is why GP should still be a factor. Maybe not as much as they have used it, but they need to have a starting point for the grouping of players.

    I will also add, that I believe this launch is more of a soft launch of the game mode that was used to test the match making in a kind of mass open beta.

    Why not just take the simplest approach? This is an easy fix.

    If there's 3 squad battles per round, then take the top 6x5 characters GP and that's your "active GP". There's no point in adding in any GP gained from ships or from the 60th-100th character that you've unlocked, because none of that is in use.

    This system penalizes players for playing the game. It penalizes anyone who plays with ships. It penalizes anyone who activates a character or levels up a character or stars a character because they like the character and won't ever use that character in the game.

    Ships will be added in future seasons.
  • Commander_Wolffe
    172 posts Member
    edited December 7
    BrtStlnd wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    matching based on GP and other factors can work fine. and if they dont have teams or counter teams built for this style of game mode, thats their fault.

    How does having leveled all toons/abilities and putting fully leveled mods on all mean I'm not cut for this game mode? I did it because I could with zero impact to how usable my properly geared toons are. I'm still sitting on a 140M credit pile after the fact.

    The problem is how the matchmaking is made, not whether I'm cut for it or not. My roster is already extremely competetive in the practically usable portion of it. It's the system that's punishing me with implementing the matchmaking purely based on GP.

    There are many alternatives such as toon gp cutoffs or gear cutoffs offered as soon as GA is announced and before it was implemented.

    It's a good time to stop drawing useless correlations and look at what the actual situation is in actual game terms.

    If you have the right toons, meaning the better defensive teams and the counters built to counter said teams, with some other good mixes built up, than you should be able to win. If this ^^ is the case and you lose, I'm not sure that is the matchmaking over user error.

    2 players can be fairly matched with GP as a consideration, and GP should be a consideration. No it should not be the only factor. But saying things like someone with revan(or X toon) should only be matched with someone else who has revan (or X toon) is a stretch.

    The way we are all matched in this game is with time (time = $$) they changed GP to exactly match " time" because it is just a value of how much investment you have put into a toon. Now if someone put that investment into CLS vs CUP, that is a players choice and they should have to deal with those consequences.

    Factors that should be considered as far as game play is concerned should follow that same line, not character specific but development specific
    I.e.

    i.e.
    - # g12 toons
    - # zetas

    Might be odd but
    - # of raids completed
    - arena wins

    Maybe some others, but IMO those are the game parameters that allow players to have "equal" development and let their choice about development help or hurt them.

    All that said, all those factors affect GP directly, which is why GP should still be a factor. Maybe not as much as they have used it, but they need to have a starting point for the grouping of players.

    I will also add, that I believe this launch is more of a soft launch of the game mode that was used to test the match making in a kind of mass open beta.

    Why not just take the simplest approach? This is an easy fix.

    If there's 3 squad battles per round, then take the top 6x5 characters GP and that's your "active GP". There's no point in adding in any GP gained from ships or from the 60th-100th character that you've unlocked, because none of that is in use.

    This system penalizes players for playing the game. It penalizes anyone who plays with ships. It penalizes anyone who activates a character or levels up a character or stars a character because they like the character and won't ever use that character in the game.

    Ships will be added in future seasons.


    Yes. I know, but will ships be responsible for 50% of the banners? If not, then ship GP shouldn't count for 50%. If it's like TW, then 85% of banners will be from squads and 15% from fleets - so that's how a player's GP should be weighted as well. If I can only set 1 fleet offense and 1 fleet defense, then why count my other capital ships or ships? If I can set 0 fleet, then why count fleet at all?

    I just unlocked Chimeria, so that's +GP, but I can't use 5 capital ships in GA, so that's actually me taking a loss because that means I'll be fighting someone with that much more GP invested in characters rather than fleet.
  • BrtStlnd wrote: »
    Basically what you’re saying is: “it’s not fair that I will have to fight against another player that has focused more on PvP than I have, because I like to collect differently. This content shouldn’t exist because it’s not the way I’ve built my roster.”

    Nobody... and I mean NOBODY, would believe for half a second that someone who can't achieve rank 200 in a newer shard can compete against someone who can achieve rank 19.

    What I'm saying my friend, is that if the best the matchmaking can do is create matches where the winner always is always known the second the matchup is announced then... why bother?

    Also you mention focus on PvP and collecting in as opposing approaches. Shouldn't something PvP be based only on that element? I mean isn't that the ideal here? Is this really as good as it gets?
    BrtStlnd wrote: »
    As has been said before, those players with leaner GP, more focused and top-heavy rosters are at a disadvantage in modes like TB and raids. Now, in addition to TW there’s a game mode built for players that collect in that manner as well. I’m sorry you don’t like it.

    Wait - the person with the 7* traya is at a disadvantage is raids when compared to my 10 free shards? The person with Jedi training rey (getting it next time round I hope :)) is at a disadvantage in raids when compared to me? The person with the full NS zeta'd gold team is at a disadvantage in raids compared to me?

    I don't think you realize how raids work. Or are you suggesting that with all toons unlocked at G9 I'd score more than someone with 5 G12 fully zeta'd teams?

    TB and TW are guild events, so not really comparing apples with apples here.
    BrtStlnd wrote: »
    Lastly, this is not the full GA experience. If future seasons, if you run into a PvP buzz saw in the first round you’ll be paired against another player that lost their first match. You will end up fighting a LOT of rosters similar to your own. There are TONS of players that collect the way you do.

    This ^^. This is true. In principle. In fact this is one of the main reasons for my initial optimism. Hope it works out that way.
  • Boov
    604 posts Member
    Using GP for matchmaking is not ideal for various reasons. Too many to get into and most of them have already been mentioned.
    With that said, will it be good enough for GA to be a fun experience for the players? I mean players who enjoy that sort of thing, not the players who dislike PvP in general and wouldn't like GA no matter what.
    In the grand scheme of things GP might work just fine. While not every roster with 3.5m GP is identical in strenght, i do reckon most of them are relatively close to eachother. Ofcourse some matches are already determined by the players' rosters, but given the tournament-ish style of GA it will result in a higher chance of a more equal match the next round. Certainly not every player is Arena/TW focusses, so each type of player is bound to run in to eachother sooner rather than later.
    So again, will using GP for matchmaking be good enough to serve it's purpose? Maybe it turns out the amount of matches each cycle that are pre-determined due to the match-up are only 1 in 3, which i would find acceptable, especially because some of those matches will be in my favour (winning is and will always be more fun than losing, even if it's just due to a mismatch).
  • Kyno
    17529 posts Moderator
    Jeric wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Place 2 Olympic level runners in a race, the can both have the best mile times and may even be close.

    One runs marathons and the other shorter races.

    They are equals athletically and in many respects, but one will have a clear advantage in a marathon.

    It's about how you build your roster and how you develop in the game. If you developed more competitively or not. That's the players choice.

    So keeping with that metaphor they should consider two versions of Grand Arena. One for the sprinters and one for the marathon runners. A few key changes to matchmaking and character bonus parameters would give an edge to those with greater breadth of a roster.

    I’m currently matched with someone with 200k higher GP but no Revan, Bastila, Traya, or Chewie. He is at a huge disadvantage from go. The challenge is significantly reduced for me which makes this less enjoyable if he has no chance of taking me out.



    No.

    If I call for a race and invite all runners to "The Kyno classic" and give no details on the race. I will get a random assortment of runners.

    Then I group them by mile time, a decent but not hyper accurate measure of a runner. Just like GP. I ignore the specifics of that persons development and just focus on a single factor common to "all".

    Then i place them in a series of 3 races.

    If all 3 are longer races we will see a certain style of racer taking top positions.

    This is what GA is doing.

    GP is a points system based in development. This means the Dev team is not judging characters or specific development strategies, which is the right move IMO.

    They are saying you have used X number of points and matching you at some level against a player who has also used X number of points.

    Player 1 zeta CLS and player 2 leveled a bunch of toons to equal that same point value. That is a player choice and should not be judged by the dev team.

    Ships since they are not being used (at least this round) are fluff that should not be considered. Everything else is how a player chose to develop using the points they have gained.
  • If everybody got a persistent Elo rating that went up and down based on wins and losses, the initial matchmaking wouldn’t be such a big problem. After some initial turbulence, we’d all settle into regions of the distribution where we’d get mostly competitive matchups. I’d be fine with that.

    My understanding is that that is NOT the plan. First of all, because the format of future AGs is intended to be dynamic, using a single Elo rating wouldn’t pair people fairly in future runs of the event—say, when ships are part of it, or when they try 3-on-3 squads. Secondly, all of the devs’ posts indicate that the initial groupings are GP-based, not based on your actual performance in previous runs of the event.
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • Kyno wrote: »


    Ships since they are not being used (at least this round) are fluff that should not be considered. Everything else is how a player chose to develop using the points they have gained.

    For once, we agree on something.

    However, for your "race" comparison, please stop using sprinting and marathon running. A better example would be putting a biathlon athlete vs a 100m sprinter. Sure both are athletes, both know how to run, but if the race is a sprint then it's obvious who's going to win, if it's a multi-event race then you also know who's going to win. You're confusing people because you make the game sound like the same thing (running) but at different distances/paces - there's multiple 'modes' within this game to include both squad and fleet. There's some overlap (crew) but just like with biathlon vs sprinting the overlap (biathlon running) is weaker than the specialist.
  • HSTR completion should be factored in one way or another. Not only for the obvious Traya vs no Traya matchups (the boat I’m in) but because of the vast gear and mod differences that come with it also. My opponent has a completely maxed Traya- I don’t even have her unlocked yet. So they’ve clearly stockpiled a wealth a gear that I don’t even have access to yet. They have twice as many G12 toons to show this. As well as Rightside G12 slots filled, which again, I don’t have access to.
    And this isn’t a reflection on the choices that I’ve made for my collection. This is a matter of their guild performs better as a whole than mine. And now I’m being penalized for that. They have a maxed Revan (3 zetas, all G12 slots filled), I don’t. They deserve that advantage because they actively persued it, and I get that. But there are a lot of advantages to having HSTR on farm that make PvP matchups unjustly imbalanced that aren’t the fault of the individual.
    HSTR raid points or something of that nature should be weighed in. Here’s a snapshot of my opponent that has clearly been farming HSTR for a while. I don’t stand a chance against those gear levels that can only be acheived via HSTR.

    g77196w74fqt.jpeg
  • Kyno
    17529 posts Moderator
    Perdogie wrote: »
    HSTR completion should be factored in one way or another. Not only for the obvious Traya vs no Traya matchups (the boat I’m in) but because of the vast gear and mod differences that come with it also. My opponent has a completely maxed Traya- I don’t even have her unlocked yet. So they’ve clearly stockpiled a wealth a gear that I don’t even have access to yet. They have twice as many G12 toons to show this. As well as Rightside G12 slots filled, which again, I don’t have access to.
    And this isn’t a reflection on the choices that I’ve made for my collection. This is a matter of their guild performs better as a whole than mine. And now I’m being penalized for that. They have a maxed Revan (3 zetas, all G12 slots filled), I don’t. They deserve that advantage because they actively persued it, and I get that. But there are a lot of advantages to having HSTR on farm that make PvP matchups unjustly imbalanced that aren’t the fault of the individual.
    HSTR raid points or something of that nature should be weighed in. Here’s a snapshot of my opponent that has clearly been farming HSTR for a while. I don’t stand a chance against those gear levels that can only be acheived via HSTR.

    g77196w74fqt.jpeg

    Raid completion maybe, but just a general g12/g11 count would cover that and more scenarios to make matching a little more even.

    Overall that can be covered by GP, but it's a hard argument to say that a players guild choice should hurt them or help them in GA, it really needs to be development focused, which is why adding the g12/g11 count is probably more accurate and fair.
  • The person I am facing has G12, 7 star zetad Revan and Traya. I have neither. We have a very close GP because I have been farming and gearing the other toons because I can't get either of those right now. My opponent also has a number of toons above 250 speed. We'll see how this goes. Hopefully I can find a way to win. It would be nice if some of the matchmaking factors could include things like whether or not the opponents have these extremely difficult to get toons.
  • Imo. Best way to do this is to have players place defence and offensive teams before the matchmaking. Once that is complete the game would then run the matchmaking algorithms

    Problem solved.
  • Boov
    604 posts Member
    Obi1_son wrote: »
    Imo. Best way to do this is to have players place defence and offensive teams before the matchmaking. Once that is complete the game would then run the matchmaking algorithms

    Problem solved.

    What problem would that solve and how exactly?

  • There are many posts expressing sentiments along the line of:
    Kyno wrote: »
    [...]
    ...they have built for different game modes. collecting vs being competitive in various degrees. someone who has built a wide collection may not be able to compete against someone who has built up for TW.

    This is not wrong, but it is also missing the main issue of matching equal GPs. Ultimately, this is a resource management game. This means that spending resources always comes at an opportunity cost. If I spend my resources on building my arena team, I cannot spend the same resources improving my TB requirements. This is fine and as it should be.

    The problem is that by matching players by GP, galactic power itself is being turned into a resource. GP for GP high gear characters are much more powerfull than many low gear characters if the same total GP. This would be fine if GP was more or less proportional to the amount of actual game resources spent. However, it is not. To build 2M GP roster consisting solely of gear 12 characters takes much more (orders of magnitude) game resources, then building a 2M GP roster build solely of gear 8 characters. Consequently, by matching the two (extreme examples) you are matching players with vastly different total resource investments, which seems (to me) against the spirit of the matchmaking.

    GP is intended as a manner of keeping score. It should therefore not suddenly be used as a resource. This is completely against the spirit underlying the notion of GP. Increasing your GP should never be a bad thing. If two ways of spending your resources in game equally improve your effectiness for say GA, but way A increases your GP by more than way B, this should not count against way A. If anything, if ways A and B are otherwise equal, the nature of GP suggests the player should prefer A. Equal GP matchmaking does the opposite.
  • Obi1_son wrote: »
    Imo. Best way to do this is to have players place defence and offensive teams before the matchmaking. Once that is complete the game would then run the matchmaking algorithms

    Problem solved.

    This would just encourage players to set really weak defenses with the hope of getting weaker opponents.

    Problem created.
  • Kyno
    17529 posts Moderator
    Obi1_son wrote: »
    Imo. Best way to do this is to have players place defence and offensive teams before the matchmaking. Once that is complete the game would then run the matchmaking algorithms

    Problem solved.

    The dev team should not be involved in matching our development. I also dont feel like this would work out in any good way.

    We need a universal way to match players based on development and let the players choices speak for themselves. Matching people based on specific characters takes the grand competition out of it.
  • Just stating this as fact - no subtext.

    My GP is 3.53M. My opponent is 3.52M.

    I have 45 G12 and 44 zetas.

    My opponent has 23 G12 and 25 zetas.
  • The assumption behind this discussion is that CG intends it to be fair. No, CG wants us to have to develop both the depth and breadth of our rosters.

    When they created TB, they pushed us to focus on the breadth of our rosters. It is fully intentional that they didn't tell us that, later, TW would put broadly developed rosters at a disadvantage.

    They don't care that GP is a poor metric. They want to push people to gear up toons to be competitive. Fair matchups mean people don't have to change anything.

    It would be easy for them to come up with algorithms for closer matches, although it will never be perfect. But what's the incentive?

    Maybe CG will listen if we continue to show the unfairness of it, but ultimately they will look at whether people are spending to compete this way.
  • kalidor
    1278 posts Member
    A good addition to the Grand Arena would be the ability to exclude units during the preview phase. This would allow a player to effectively bench certain units so that their GP is excluded from matchmaking, but of course they are not available to place on defense or use in offense during that Grand Arena match. I suspect this would have to be limited to a % of your total GP to prevent gaming the system (maybe 20% of your overall GP).

    As a 3 year player, I have quite a few units which have passed into obsolescence. I geared up jawas, IGD, and ugnaught for Tank before it was released (doh). I have Luminara and Sideous at g11 from a time when they were somewhat useful. And I have some pilots geared which would be pretty useless in a character-only fight. I'd love to be able to bench them instead of them counting as dead weight. Even players that aren't in my boat would be able to strategize a bit more by narrowing down their rosters.
    xSWCr - Nov '15 shard - swgoh.gg kalidor-m
  • Glurp wrote: »
    The assumption behind this discussion is that CG intends it to be fair. No, CG wants us to have to develop both the depth and breadth of our rosters.

    When they created TB, they pushed us to focus on the breadth of our rosters. It is fully intentional that they didn't tell us that, later, TW would put broadly developed rosters at a disadvantage.

    They don't care that GP is a poor metric. They want to push people to gear up toons to be competitive. Fair matchups mean people don't have to change anything.

    It would be easy for them to come up with algorithms for closer matches, although it will never be perfect. But what's the incentive?

    Maybe CG will listen if we continue to show the unfairness of it, but ultimately they will look at whether people are spending to compete this way.

    True that CG hasn’t said that fairness is one of the priorities of the matchmaking process, but they have said that fun is one of the priorities. So showing that unfair matchups are unfun for both winners and losers SHOULD cause them to reevaluate the pairing algorithm. It probably won’t though.
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • Glurp wrote: »
    They want to push people to gear up toons to be competitive. Fair matchups mean people don't have to change anything.

    On first reading, I kind of automatically agreed with you on this, but giving it more thought, I’m not so sure.

    Depending on the player’s motivation, there’s still a reason to gear up their toons: to progress through the ranks and fight it out in GA for better rewards at higher levels. Frankly, it doesn;t bother me a bit of somebody with a top-heavy roster gets better rewards in GA than I do. I just think they should be fighting it out with people who pose a fair challenge to them, and I should be fighting it out with people who,pose a fair challenge for me.
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • Kyno
    17529 posts Moderator
    Glurp wrote: »
    The assumption behind this discussion is that CG intends it to be fair. No, CG wants us to have to develop both the depth and breadth of our rosters.

    When they created TB, they pushed us to focus on the breadth of our rosters. It is fully intentional that they didn't tell us that, later, TW would put broadly developed rosters at a disadvantage.

    They don't care that GP is a poor metric. They want to push people to gear up toons to be competitive. Fair matchups mean people don't have to change anything.

    It would be easy for them to come up with algorithms for closer matches, although it will never be perfect. But what's the incentive?

    Maybe CG will listen if we continue to show the unfairness of it, but ultimately they will look at whether people are spending to compete this way.

    To be fair GP is not that bad of a overall matching, there is a max number, so if we converted it to a %, you could be matched against someone who has made the 30% (just a random value) of the development choices in their time here and how you developed up to that point is up to you.

    I would really think that is what we all want, a scaling system that let's our choices speak for themselves. Then on top of that to make it more fair add some development choices to help balance it, like number if g12/11 characters. This would be the part that we are not really sure they will ever focus on, but they should.

    Not to say it needs to be hand holdingly fair, but general fairness should be there. Players will lose I yerest in the game mode if it's always a blow out, so it doesnt help them to grow development (make $$) if people dont wsnt to even play the game mode.
  • Glurp wrote: »
    The assumption behind this discussion is that CG intends it to be fair. No, CG wants us to have to develop both the depth and breadth of our rosters.

    When they created TB, they pushed us to focus on the breadth of our rosters. It is fully intentional that they didn't tell us that, later, TW would put broadly developed rosters at a disadvantage.

    They don't care that GP is a poor metric. They want to push people to gear up toons to be competitive. Fair matchups mean people don't have to change anything.

    It would be easy for them to come up with algorithms for closer matches, although it will never be perfect. But what's the incentive?

    Maybe CG will listen if we continue to show the unfairness of it, but ultimately they will look at whether people are spending to compete this way.

    True that CG hasn’t said that fairness is one of the priorities of the matchmaking process, but they have said that fun is one of the priorities. So showing that unfair matchups are unfun for both winners and losers SHOULD cause them to reevaluate the pairing algorithm. It probably won’t though.

    Good point. But I also think appealing to people's competitiveness is an even higher priority than making it fun. They can get people to spend simply so that they will be competitive. People immediately jumped on the sith raid train to get gear and Traya despite complaints about the fact that it wasn't fun. In fact, when they designed the sith raid, they thought a whole lot more about creating a challenge than making it fun.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Jeric wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Place 2 Olympic level runners in a race, the can both have the best mile times and may even be close.

    One runs marathons and the other shorter races.

    They are equals athletically and in many respects, but one will have a clear advantage in a marathon.

    It's about how you build your roster and how you develop in the game. If you developed more competitively or not. That's the players choice.

    So keeping with that metaphor they should consider two versions of Grand Arena. One for the sprinters and one for the marathon runners. A few key changes to matchmaking and character bonus parameters would give an edge to those with greater breadth of a roster.

    I’m currently matched with someone with 200k higher GP but no Revan, Bastila, Traya, or Chewie. He is at a huge disadvantage from go. The challenge is significantly reduced for me which makes this less enjoyable if he has no chance of taking me out.



    No.

    If I call for a race and invite all runners to "The Kyno classic" and give no details on the race. I will get a random assortment of runners.

    Then I group them by mile time, a decent but not hyper accurate measure of a runner. Just like GP. I ignore the specifics of that persons development and just focus on a single factor common to "all".

    Then i place them in a series of 3 races.

    If all 3 are longer races we will see a certain style of racer taking top positions.

    This is what GA is doing.

    GP is a points system based in development. This means the Dev team is not judging characters or specific development strategies, which is the right move IMO.

    They are saying you have used X number of points and matching you at some level against a player who has also used X number of points.

    Player 1 zeta CLS and player 2 leveled a bunch of toons to equal that same point value. That is a player choice and should not be judged by the dev team.

    Ships since they are not being used (at least this round) are fluff that should not be considered. Everything else is how a player chose to develop using the points they have gained.

    Ok, if there intended purpose wasnt to use and level up all your toons. paper zombie, seems to go directly against that. As you say people with trim and lean rosters, ie not leveling and gearing toons, have the advantage, Doesn't that go directly against their stated purpose? Thats what i dont understand, we want you to use and level all your toons, except if you do, we will create a new game mode that punishes you for doing what the game was designed for. So you can keep talking about the different runners , but if they stated they wanted you to run marathons then changed the race later on to sprints , would that still hold?
  • Gair wrote: »
    Factors that should have been included.

    - Average arena rank
    - Numerical number of G12s
    - Quality of mods (15/20+ speeds)

    If you base it off GP , then you end up with someone who has 10x G12s vs someone who has none but similar power due to just leveling trash toons.

    I’d have to disagree on the ‘average arena rank’. Some people’s arena shards are more competitive than others depending on the server they’re on. I hold an average 50-150 arena rank and 200-300 ship arena rank. Yet there’s members in my guild that are far weaker than I in their arena squad yet they hold top 50, 25 or even 10. Same goes for ship arena too.
  • FalenXLacer
    252 posts Member
    edited December 7
    I’ve talked myself into it. Despite the problems, I think matchmaking should be based on Elo ratings, like in chess tournaments. Your rating goes up with a win, down with a loss, and you are grouped with players who have similar ratings.

    Within a rating group, differences in rewards between winners and losers should be relatively modest; but reward differences between different rating groups should be substantial. That way competetive players have a reason to keep improving their rosters and ratings, but more casual/collector players continue to get relatively fair matchups, but settle for lower rewards in general.

    I feel like this would solve almost every problem with the pairings in the long run. There would be no need for CG to crunch numbers on individual rosters to figure out how much each zeta or G12 is worth. Your rating just emerges naturally out of your actual performance in prior events.
    Post edited by FalenXLacer on
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.

  • matching based on GP and other factors can work fine. and if they dont have teams or counter teams built for this style of game mode, thats their fault. [/quote]

    This says it all. If you want to play in pvp then come prepared. If not, then take your L and move on.
  • Liath
    2467 posts Member
    BrtStlnd wrote: »
    Why do I get the feeling that there’s a lot of overlap between people complaining about the new PvP game mode and the players I see on Reddit with 300+ zeta mats saved.

    I think the opposite. Those that hoard resources until they have an important use don’t have a lot of fluff GP. The guy that says “I have 20 zetas burning a hole in my pocket, guess I will throw it on Lumi because why not”? That guy is going to have a problem.
  • Glurp wrote: »
    Glurp wrote: »
    The assumption behind this discussion is that CG intends it to be fair. No, CG wants us to have to develop both the depth and breadth of our rosters.

    When they created TB, they pushed us to focus on the breadth of our rosters. It is fully intentional that they didn't tell us that, later, TW would put broadly developed rosters at a disadvantage.

    They don't care that GP is a poor metric. They want to push people to gear up toons to be competitive. Fair matchups mean people don't have to change anything.

    It would be easy for them to come up with algorithms for closer matches, although it will never be perfect. But what's the incentive?

    Maybe CG will listen if we continue to show the unfairness of it, but ultimately they will look at whether people are spending to compete this way.

    True that CG hasn’t said that fairness is one of the priorities of the matchmaking process, but they have said that fun is one of the priorities. So showing that unfair matchups are unfun for both winners and losers SHOULD cause them to reevaluate the pairing algorithm. It probably won’t though.

    Good point. But I also think appealing to people's competitiveness is an even higher priority than making it fun. They can get people to spend simply so that they will be competitive. People immediately jumped on the sith raid train to get gear and Traya despite complaints about the fact that it wasn't fun. In fact, when they designed the sith raid, they thought a whole lot more about creating a challenge than making it fun.

    However, direct gp matching discourages spending on things that do not provide an immediate competitive advantage (e.g. because someone is a fan of the character)
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Jeric wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Place 2 Olympic level runners in a race, the can both have the best mile times and may even be close.

    One runs marathons and the other shorter races.

    They are equals athletically and in many respects, but one will have a clear advantage in a marathon.

    It's about how you build your roster and how you develop in the game. If you developed more competitively or not. That's the players choice.

    So keeping with that metaphor they should consider two versions of Grand Arena. One for the sprinters and one for the marathon runners. A few key changes to matchmaking and character bonus parameters would give an edge to those with greater breadth of a roster.

    I’m currently matched with someone with 200k higher GP but no Revan, Bastila, Traya, or Chewie. He is at a huge disadvantage from go. The challenge is significantly reduced for me which makes this less enjoyable if he has no chance of taking me out.



    No.

    If I call for a race and invite all runners to "The Kyno classic" and give no details on the race. I will get a random assortment of runners.

    Then I group them by mile time, a decent but not hyper accurate measure of a runner. Just like GP. I ignore the specifics of that persons development and just focus on a single factor common to "all".

    Then i place them in a series of 3 races.

    If all 3 are longer races we will see a certain style of racer taking top positions.

    This is what GA is doing.

    GP is a points system based in development. This means the Dev team is not judging characters or specific development strategies, which is the right move IMO.

    They are saying you have used X number of points and matching you at some level against a player who has also used X number of points.

    Player 1 zeta CLS and player 2 leveled a bunch of toons to equal that same point value. That is a player choice and should not be judged by the dev team.

    Ships since they are not being used (at least this round) are fluff that should not be considered. Everything else is how a player chose to develop using the points they have gained.

    Ok, if there intended purpose wasnt to use and level up all your toons. paper zombie, seems to go directly against that. As you say people with trim and lean rosters, ie not leveling and gearing toons, have the advantage, Doesn't that go directly against their stated purpose? Thats what i dont understand, we want you to use and level all your toons, except if you do, we will create a new game mode that punishes you for doing what the game was designed for. So you can keep talking about the different runners , but if they stated they wanted you to run marathons then changed the race later on to sprints , would that still hold?

    Paper zombie fix had nothing to do with making you level up ALL your toons.... It had everything to do with ensuring toons performed better when geared...

    The simple fact is that this is a resource management game first and foremost, but it is also a collector's game.....

    Each and every player has the choice to either build strong teams one at a time to be competitive in game modes, or collect a bunch of weak, undergeared toons....

    If you choose to build weak undergeared toons and don't have the patience to build solid g12 teams, then don't expect to be rewarded with an easy matchup that compensates for your lack of management. As I see it, the whole.purpose of these matches is to put your lineup against a similar GP player and let the best player win based on how well they have learned the game and allocated their resources.... Seems fair to me.....
Sign In or Register to comment.