The entire mode is a flawed concept and there will be 7 losers for every winner in each little tournament. IE 87.5 % of plays will loose. So set your expectation down a notch this mode was designed for people who enjoy loosing.
if they really want semi balanced / fair match ups they could calculate based of much more data than GP, like mod speeds of top characters.
Step 1: take the number of defense teams x 12 amount of characters. So if you placed 6 defense teams that's 72 characters.
Step 2: Add up the speed gained from mods on the top number of characters from step 1.
Step 3: Create matchups with teams that have similar GP and Speed.
Step 4: Track win/loss of prior GAs and try to put winners together and losers together when there are enough players in the same brackets of GP and speed.
This will get closer to fair matches, but I would argue that this matching system and any system that uses your current statistics is also flawed because where is the incentive to improve my GP or Speed if it just means I will only face more difficult opponents? Again it really doesn't matter when 87.5% of players will loose in this mode anyway no matter what you do.
Currently the best strategy is to keep your GP down and your speed up...good luck holo-table warriors!
The system proposed doesn't guarantee a 50% chance of winning though. The 95/5% is also a example out of thin air. Comparing the absolute worst in the current system to the absolute best in the proposed system is not saying much.
I’m not asking for a guarantee of a 50/50 chance of winning. That’s probably impossible. What I’m asking for are pairings that generally are competetive. True that the 95/5 example is out of thin air, but it’s by no means the “absolute worst in the current system.” Some of the mismatches people have reported would have been literally impossible for the weaker player to win, unless the better player just forgot to play.
Point being that it's just an assumption that in the proposed system players will be more equally matched. Who's to say that there won't be 100/0% matches in the lowest, or highest tier players can choose? For all we know the 100/0% won't even occur that much in the current system. So you're just comparing 2 possibilities to eachother that are made up to make a point.
I still find it odd that you’re pegging your expectations to your “GP region.” GP is a really bad and arbitrary measure of competetiveness in this game mode. I thought we all agreed on that. So suppose I tell you that over time you will get equal rewards for either (1) winning 75% of your matches against players in your GP region, or (2) winning 50% of your matches against players in your true “competetiveness” region. Same distribution of rewards over time to everybody, but more competetive matches in which the players’ on-the-board choices, not the matchmaking, are decisive. Do you still truly prefer the less competetive system?
What do you consider my "true competetiveness region" though? equal roster, equal skill or both equal roster and skill?
There are plenty noobs with amazing rosters and vice versa.
I would assume that skill would be the deciding factor. How well you mod, choose your team, choose your opponent, and play your match. That's how it should be anyway.
That rarely happens currently, due to gp matching. If we had exact rosters, or even the same number of geared toons (Say top3 gear tiers owned) tho it would be a more accurate demonstration of who is the better player
What do you consider my "true competetiveness region" though? equal roster, equal skill or both equal roster and skill?
That’s a good question. I’d define my “true competetiveness” theoretically as the probability that I (taking into account both my roster and skill) would win a GA match against another GA-eligible player chosen at random (taking into account both their roster and skill). You could also think of it as the percentage of matches I would win in a hypothetical round-robin tournament of all GA-eligible players.
Obviously that’s a computationally insoluble problem. But I think an Elo rating system would give you a sufficiently precise estimate after a few runs of the GA event.
Maybe add the condition that in order to select Intermediate, you have to have won a Beginner GA event. And in order to select Advanced, you have to have won an intermediate GA event.
And further maybe limit each player to selecting one of the top 2 brackets they’re eligible for.
And maybe add more brackets, say a total of 8, so everybody is able to eventually settle into a level of competition where they have interesting matchups.
It’s kludgy, and it only approximates what you’d get in a true Elo system, and can probably be gamed if you are determined enough. But I’ve come to expect kludgy, gameable solutions to simple problems in this game, so maybe this is the best we can hope for.
So in order to fix un-equal matchups which lead to a specific type of player having a really hard time winning you'll change the system in such a way that the same specific type of player always plays for lower rewards?
Yes exactly. I think that’s a feature, not a bug. If you’re locked into a matchup that you have a 5% chance of winning, the decisions you make have very little impact on your rewards. There’s a 95% chance you get the lower rewards anyway. If you have about a 50% chance of winning, then your strategic decisions can make a big impact on your rewards. Even if you’re playing for lower rewards, you’re having more fun because your performance in the competition is actually going to have an impact on your winnings.
I rather take my chances with the random opponent who has roughly the same amount of GP.
That’s an odd preference, I think, but I suppose I believe you. To me, that’s like saying that an advanced club player should prefer to show up at a chess match and be paired with Magnus Carlsen because they’ve both been playing for roughly the same amount of time, and the rewards for the winner of that match are better than the rewards for the winner of the 1800-2000 Elo grouping. The entire assumption in most strategy games is that the players will prefer to be matched with competitors who are roughly as good at the game as they are. The best players get the best rewards, and play against the best competition. It’s hard for me to imagine that anybody would prefer for it to be otherwise.
In the games you’re talking about, there’s an objective measure of who is better. The problem here is that the people who are getting outmatched in GA *don’t believe* that their opponents are better at the game than they are. They think the opponent has played longer or spent money or focused differently or whatever reason there might be for why their roster is better suited to this game mode... but they fully believe that they should have an equal opportunity to win the same rewards as that person, because that person isn’t truly “better.”
I’m still thinking about this, and I want to supplement my earlier response.
There is a novelty-bias at work here (in the conversation generally, not in your argument in particular). People are reacting to this new game mode by either saying (1) that it proves how “the game” was always meant to be played, or (2) that it destroys the way that “the game” has always been played. People only think about it this way because it is a new game mode—they don’t think this way about legacy game modes, specifically, the arena.
It is true that collector-types don’t generally think that PVP-types are better at “the game” (meaning SW:GOH generally) than they are. But collector-types DO think and accept that PVP-types are better at Arena than they are, and are relatively happy to concede that people with those rosters should get better rewards from Arena.
I think, over time, the same thing will prove to be true about GA. Some players will prioritize GA, and gradually work their way up to earning better rewards. Others will decide they don’t care that much, and play for lower rewards, or not at all. Those are both fine ways to play “the game.” To people with rosters that are not optimized for this game mode, recognize that it’s jus another mode, like Arena, that they can engage with as much or as little as they like.
But for all of us who choose to engage with the mode, whether we have a PVP or collector’s focus, the devs’ goal should be to maximize the enjoyment we’re getting out of it, so that we’re encouraged to put resources toward developing our rosters. Maximizing fun means ensuring that most matchups are decided by the players’ actions after matchmaking occurs. It’s no fun to see the pairing and immediately know the result.
I would assume that skill would be the deciding factor. How well you mod, choose your team, choose your opponent, and play your match. That's how it should be anyway.
That rarely happens currently, due to gp matching. If we had exact rosters, or even the same number of geared toons (Say top3 gear tiers owned) tho it would be a more accurate demonstration of who is the better player
Right, i do agree with that to a certain extent.
I do believe roster choices should matter though. For example, hypothetically if you've got all the meta toons maxed and i've got all the toons in gw/arena/cantina store maxed, but we've got roughly/exactly the same amount of zeta's, g12's, g11's and g10s so we could be matched with eachother. Don't you think you deserve the win? I definately think you do in that scenario. I'm not taking skill out of the equation, i just think it's an unsurmountable difference in roster.
What do you consider my "true competetiveness region" though? equal roster, equal skill or both equal roster and skill?
That’s a good question. I’d define my “true competetiveness” theoretically as the probability that I (taking into account both my roster and skill) would win a GA match against another GA-eligible player chosen at random (taking into account both their roster and skill). You could also think of it as the percentage of matches I would win in a hypothetical round-robin tournament of all GA-eligible players.
Obviously that’s a computationally insoluble problem. But I think an Elo rating system would give you a sufficiently precise estimate after a few runs of the GA event.
i only googled it quickly, i'm too lazy to familiarize myself with the elo rating system. From what i can gather quickly it's just a system that awards/takes away points for beating/losing vs others, eventually players with the same amount of points will be roughly equally matched.
I don't see how that would work. You're basically winning to eventually start losing, not because the other players are getting better skillwise, but because the difference in roster can't be overcome by skill alone.
I certainly don't want such a system.
The entire mode is a flawed concept and there will be 7 losers for every winner in each little tournament. IE 87.5 % of plays will loose. So set your expectation down a notch this mode was designed for people who enjoy loosing.
"Losing."
That's true of most any tournament.
And I'd hardly consider the cuffs and slicing they hand out for 2-4 to be losing.
I’ve seen a lot of uproar over the matching algorithm put on here. A simple solution would be to let users set the difficulty to low medium or hard. You could scale the rewards to each tier and people would naturally select a tier they have a better chance at winning.
Essentially the GA is a modified TW. So doing so, while doable, would require swinging a hammer and knocking it all down, and starting over. As is, it is already showing stress fractures with the bugs popping up.
Maybe add the condition that in order to select Intermediate, you have to have won a Beginner GA event. And in order to select Advanced, you have to have won an intermediate GA event.
And further maybe limit each player to selecting one of the top 2 brackets they’re eligible for.
And maybe add more brackets, say a total of 8, so everybody is able to eventually settle into a level of competition where they have interesting matchups.
It’s kludgy, and it only approximates what you’d get in a true Elo system, and can probably be gamed if you are determined enough. But I’ve come to expect kludgy, gameable solutions to simple problems in this game, so maybe this is the best we can hope for.
So in order to fix un-equal matchups which lead to a specific type of player having a really hard time winning you'll change the system in such a way that the same specific type of player always plays for lower rewards?
Yes exactly. I think that’s a feature, not a bug. If you’re locked into a matchup that you have a 5% chance of winning, the decisions you make have very little impact on your rewards. There’s a 95% chance you get the lower rewards anyway. If you have about a 50% chance of winning, then your strategic decisions can make a big impact on your rewards. Even if you’re playing for lower rewards, you’re having more fun because your performance in the competition is actually going to have an impact on your winnings.
I rather take my chances with the random opponent who has roughly the same amount of GP.
That’s an odd preference, I think, but I suppose I believe you. To me, that’s like saying that an advanced club player should prefer to show up at a chess match and be paired with Magnus Carlsen because they’ve both been playing for roughly the same amount of time, and the rewards for the winner of that match are better than the rewards for the winner of the 1800-2000 Elo grouping. The entire assumption in most strategy games is that the players will prefer to be matched with competitors who are roughly as good at the game as they are. The best players get the best rewards, and play against the best competition. It’s hard for me to imagine that anybody would prefer for it to be otherwise.
In the games you’re talking about, there’s an objective measure of who is better. The problem here is that the people who are getting outmatched in GA *don’t believe* that their opponents are better at the game than they are. They think the opponent has played longer or spent money or focused differently or whatever reason there might be for why their roster is better suited to this game mode... but they fully believe that they should have an equal opportunity to win the same rewards as that person, because that person isn’t truly “better.”
I’m still thinking about this, and I want to supplement my earlier response.
There is a novelty-bias at work here (in the conversation generally, not in your argument in particular). People are reacting to this new game mode by either saying (1) that it proves how “the game” was always meant to be played, or (2) that it destroys the way that “the game” has always been played. People only think about it this way because it is a new game mode—they don’t think this way about legacy game modes, specifically, the arena.
It is true that collector-types don’t generally think that PVP-types are better at “the game” (meaning SW:GOH generally) than they are. But collector-types DO think and accept that PVP-types are better at Arena than they are, and are relatively happy to concede that people with those rosters should get better rewards from Arena.
I think, over time, the same thing will prove to be true about GA. Some players will prioritize GA, and gradually work their way up to earning better rewards. Others will decide they don’t care that much, and play for lower rewards, or not at all. Those are both fine ways to play “the game.” To people with rosters that are not optimized for this game mode, recognize that it’s jus another mode, like Arena, that they can engage with as much or as little as they like.
But for all of us who choose to engage with the mode, whether we have a PVP or collector’s focus, the devs’ goal should be to maximize the enjoyment we’re getting out of it, so that we’re encouraged to put resources toward developing our rosters. Maximizing fun means ensuring that most matchups are decided by the players’ actions after matchmaking occurs. It’s no fun to see the pairing and immediately know the result.
People certainly reduce complaints as they get used to the fact that a thing isn’t going to change, but I’m not sure they are happy with it. There is still a vocal subset of players that will insist that f2p can’t compete in arena, for example. Others complain that the top is dominated by shard chat members and have all sorts of nasty words for that. If you polled the player base as to whether the current squad arena system is fair, I’m not sure the positive response would be that great.
The issue about maximizing enjoyment (with respect to what the devs do or should want) harkens back to our prior conversation. Unfortunately for the mobile player base, and as much many people would like to believe otherwise, it seems that maximizing enjoyment and maximizing revenue are not all that well aligned in this industry. The frustration-based business model works.
I’ve seen a lot of uproar over the matching algorithm put on here. A simple solution would be to let users set the difficulty to low medium or hard. You could scale the rewards to each tier and people would naturally select a tier they have a better chance at winning.
Essentially the GA is a modified TW. So doing so, while doable, would require swinging a hammer and knocking it all down, and starting over. As is, it is already showing stress fractures with the bugs popping up.
This isn't my take on it at all, I'm not seeing stress fractures. Bugs are another matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make one more "right" than the other. Without having completed one full event, people have already determined it's going to be perceived as unfair for some players based on how they developed the squads, or added GP for an advantage in other parts of the game. Not all game elements treat every player the same, so of course people will feel this way.
In TW, most seem to be of the opinion that a 40 player roster with the same active GP as a 50 player roster, is somehow equal in terms of strength and chances to win, and should be considered a fair match. Even if the average GP of the guild with 40 players is 500,000 per player higher. Here, if GP is the only measurement (and we're only guessing on this point) that equal active GP (1 vs 1) is now no longer fair. I say it is more than fair.
I don't see how that would work. You're basically winning to eventually start losing...
“Winning to start losing” (and losing to start winning) is exactly how your rank is determined in the existing Arena. You rise to the point where you’re competetive, or you fall to the point where you’re competitive. I don’t understand why GA should be different in that respect. If anything, GA would be better than Arena, because the pairings are temporary and it’s truly zero-sum—there’s not much incentive or opportunity to coordinate in a shard chat, for example.
...not because the other players are getting better skillwise, but because the difference in roster can't be overcome by skill alone.
True, but every player, at every level of competition would face the same challenge, on what is essentially the same treadmill. You make gains in GA by improving your GA roster faster than your competition is improving theirs. You fall behind by improving your roster more slowly. In what game mode is this not true?
Unfortunately for the mobile player base, and as much many people would like to believe otherwise, it seems that maximizing enjoyment and maximizing revenue are not all that well aligned in this industry. The frustration-based business model works.
I hope you’re wrong about this, but you may very well be right. I think that the consumer model I’m envisioning is that most players have a roughly fixed monthly budget that they’re willing to spend on the game—the incentives created by the devs can substantially affect on what resources the playerbase spends that budget, but in general won’t dramatically alter the total amount that each player is willing to spend.
I think the model you’re proposing is that a new game mode creates a spike in player spending, as players attempt to become more competetive right now in the new game mode, rather than by investing long-term in a wel-rounded PVP roster. The new game mode creates a state of exception in which players are much more likely to bust their budgets. Even more so if they are getting owned in their matchups, or have a reasonable suspicion that they might be soon. Hence the bad matchmaking.
If your model is right (it’s more cynical, so it probably is), then the devs maximize revenue not by encouraging steady spending over the long-term, but by inducing regular artificial spikes in spending. That’s a bummer.
I don't see how that would work. You're basically winning to eventually start losing...
“Winning to start losing” (and losing to start winning) is exactly how your rank is determined in the existing Arena. You rise to the point where you’re competetive, or you fall to the point where you’re competitive. I don’t understand why GA should be different in that respect. If anything, GA would be better than Arena, because the pairings are temporary and it’s truly zero-sum—there’s not much incentive or opportunity to coordinate in a shard chat, for example.
major difference between the two is that due to the relatively small pool of players on a leaderboard compared to players participating in GA, alot of players can win to keep winning.
True, but every player, at every level of competition would face the same challenge, on what is essentially the same treadmill. You make gains in GA by improving your GA roster faster than your competition is improving theirs. You fall behind by improving your roster more slowly. In what game mode is this not true?
It's endless though. Improving your roster won't increase your chance of winning. Unless you're at the very top, but if you haven't been playing for 3 years or spend boat loads you don't even have a chance of reaching the top.
While it's also true that in the current system improving your roster (gaining GP) won't necessarily increase your chances of winning, arguably it even decreases your chances of winning assuming that the more GP players have, the more skillfull they are. However, the current system allows for me to improve my roster which would also improve my chance of winning. Obviously that's going to lead to "mismatches", but at the end of the day you can't really blame the system for your own choices.
GP is still an iffy parameter to base matchmaking on though, but i've got a feeling it will suffice. Some players will lose 3 straight rounds in the GA that's now live, but that's to be expected.
It's endless though. Improving your roster won't increase your chance of winning.
Not exactly. Suppose you have an GA Elo rating of 1601, and your placed in a bracket of player in the range from 1600-1800. At the outset, you’ll be expected to win approximately 1/3 of your matches. But you put the effort into your roster, and your rating rises until it’s 1800. Now you’ll be expected to win 2/3 of your matches in the 1600-1800 range. So you’ve made substantial progress.
Now it’s true that when you cross over to an 1801 rating, and land in the 1801-2000 bracket, you’re back where you started in some sense. You’re back to having the expectation of winning only 1/3 of your matches. But that will be offset by better rewards. And you can continue to invest and improve your roster.
If I say I want an easy matchup then am I getting paired against somebody with a weaker roster who said he wanted a hard matchup? What about the guy who wants an easy matchup and has a bad roster?
This doesn’t sound simple at all.
If I understand correctly, OP is essentially saying you get to choose your bracket: maybe better than easy, medium, hard, you could call the brackets “beginner,” “intermediate,” and “advanced.” If you say you’re a beginner, you get paired with other people who said they were beginners, and play for low rewards. If you say you’re advanced, you get paired with other people who said they were advanced, and play for higher rewards.
This guy has it. We aren't throwing away the original algorithm, just adding user input and scaling the rewards based off that input. You would still match against similar gp/rosters but you can determine how competitive of a group you want to be in. Better top rewards for the tougher brackets vs better bottom rewards for the lower.
Just as a side note I say this as a member who will flatten anybody in my GP bracket. In my first war I cleared all 6 squads in under 10 minutes only losing protection on 11 toons while my opponent couldn't clear a zone. So I'm not just fishing for easy battles I just need to be placed against other opponents that have over 250 plus 10 speed mods in the 6 squad bracket
Just as a side note I say this as a member who will flatten anybody in my GP bracket. In my first war I cleared all 6 squads in under 10 minutes only losing protection on 11 toons while my opponent couldn't clear a zone. So I'm not just fishing for easy battles I just need to be placed against other opponents that have over 250 plus 10 speed mods in the 6 squad bracket
Speaking specifically to the matching algorithm, it seems to have worked pretty well after all. 2 that have better rosters than I do, 2 that are pretty close development wise, and 3 that seem to have spread resources across many squads, but never really developed any really tough teams.
Should be a fun event, provided everyone actually plays.
Speaking specifically to the matching algorithm, it seems to have worked pretty well after all. 2 that have better rosters than I do, 2 that are pretty close development wise, and 3 that seem to have spread resources across many squads, but never really developed any really tough teams.
Should be a fun event, provided everyone actually plays.
Yep. I had two way easy matchups in the first two, but this group of 8 looks more on my level.
Speaking specifically to the matching algorithm, it seems to have worked pretty well after all. 2 that have better rosters than I do, 2 that are pretty close development wise, and 3 that seem to have spread resources across many squads, but never really developed any really tough teams.
Should be a fun event, provided everyone actually plays.
Speaking specifically to the matching algorithm, it seems to have worked pretty well after all. 2 that have better rosters than I do, 2 that are pretty close development wise, and 3 that seem to have spread resources across many squads, but never really developed any really tough teams.
Should be a fun event, provided everyone actually plays.
Same here. Half the people are equally strong or more and it seems I have the advantage against the other half but its very closely developed roster so it can go either way
Why do people with poor rosters think they should just be given matches against other people with poor rosters so they can get better rewards? How about start working your roster up to the point where you can hold your own. Why do those who put the most work into it, have to only play against the best of the best. Really those who worked hard for TW rosters are set up to excel here, those that just let themselves be carried by their guilds in TW probably aren't going to fair too well. But that was their choice...
The easiest solution is to not come up with a roster-based algorithm at all. Have both the matchmaking and the reward tiers be based on the players’ actual prior performance in GA events. Everybody is making this harder than it needs to be.
Then you get people tanking their ranking so they can go on winning streaks. That's just as bad.
Idk what they will do, but something needs to be done. I am SEVERELY underpowered. I looked at my competitors and 4 of them have g12 Revan with 300 plus speed with the top 20 characters all g12. I only have 7 maybe 8 g12 characters. But all of my lower characters are geared to g 5 and lvl 50 while all theirs are g1 and level 1. I worked all my characters for TB and now I'm being punished and it's complete bull.
The easiest solution is to not come up with a roster-based algorithm at all. Have both the matchmaking and the reward tiers be based on the players’ actual prior performance in GA events. Everybody is making this harder than it needs to be.
Then you get people tanking their ranking so they can go on winning streaks. That's just as bad.
If you notice, ppl on the forums count the number of their highest 2-3 gear tiers and their zetas to see how they match up to opponents. They could easily Match with that.
Or.. counting all characters over a certain gp (Like 6k power like TW) seems like it could also work, but with a smaller player pool, it would need to be higher, like over 10k power (roughly g8).
Idk what they will do, but something needs to be done. I am SEVERELY underpowered. I looked at my competitors and 4 of them have g12 Revan with 300 plus speed with the top 20 characters all g12. I only have 7 maybe 8 g12 characters. But all of my lower characters are geared to g 5 and lvl 50 while all theirs are g1 and level 1. I worked all my characters for TB and now I'm being punished and it's complete bull.
Just start working on improving different squads. A lot of people have inflated their GP. Especially once you get higher up, it won't really matter.
The easiest solution is to not come up with a roster-based algorithm at all. Have both the matchmaking and the reward tiers be based on the players’ actual prior performance in GA events. Everybody is making this harder than it needs to be.
Then you get people tanking their ranking so they can go on winning streaks. That's just as bad.
That can be addressed by a carefully tailored reward structure. You just have to make sure the rewards are better for winning 50% of matches in the bracket where you’re competitive than winning, say, 75% of your matches in the next lower brackets. That’s not an insurmountable problem by any means.
Replies
if they really want semi balanced / fair match ups they could calculate based of much more data than GP, like mod speeds of top characters.
Step 1: take the number of defense teams x 12 amount of characters. So if you placed 6 defense teams that's 72 characters.
Step 2: Add up the speed gained from mods on the top number of characters from step 1.
Step 3: Create matchups with teams that have similar GP and Speed.
Step 4: Track win/loss of prior GAs and try to put winners together and losers together when there are enough players in the same brackets of GP and speed.
This will get closer to fair matches, but I would argue that this matching system and any system that uses your current statistics is also flawed because where is the incentive to improve my GP or Speed if it just means I will only face more difficult opponents? Again it really doesn't matter when 87.5% of players will loose in this mode anyway no matter what you do.
Currently the best strategy is to keep your GP down and your speed up...good luck holo-table warriors!
I would assume that skill would be the deciding factor. How well you mod, choose your team, choose your opponent, and play your match. That's how it should be anyway.
That rarely happens currently, due to gp matching. If we had exact rosters, or even the same number of geared toons (Say top3 gear tiers owned) tho it would be a more accurate demonstration of who is the better player
That’s a good question. I’d define my “true competetiveness” theoretically as the probability that I (taking into account both my roster and skill) would win a GA match against another GA-eligible player chosen at random (taking into account both their roster and skill). You could also think of it as the percentage of matches I would win in a hypothetical round-robin tournament of all GA-eligible players.
Obviously that’s a computationally insoluble problem. But I think an Elo rating system would give you a sufficiently precise estimate after a few runs of the GA event.
I’m still thinking about this, and I want to supplement my earlier response.
There is a novelty-bias at work here (in the conversation generally, not in your argument in particular). People are reacting to this new game mode by either saying (1) that it proves how “the game” was always meant to be played, or (2) that it destroys the way that “the game” has always been played. People only think about it this way because it is a new game mode—they don’t think this way about legacy game modes, specifically, the arena.
It is true that collector-types don’t generally think that PVP-types are better at “the game” (meaning SW:GOH generally) than they are. But collector-types DO think and accept that PVP-types are better at Arena than they are, and are relatively happy to concede that people with those rosters should get better rewards from Arena.
I think, over time, the same thing will prove to be true about GA. Some players will prioritize GA, and gradually work their way up to earning better rewards. Others will decide they don’t care that much, and play for lower rewards, or not at all. Those are both fine ways to play “the game.” To people with rosters that are not optimized for this game mode, recognize that it’s jus another mode, like Arena, that they can engage with as much or as little as they like.
But for all of us who choose to engage with the mode, whether we have a PVP or collector’s focus, the devs’ goal should be to maximize the enjoyment we’re getting out of it, so that we’re encouraged to put resources toward developing our rosters. Maximizing fun means ensuring that most matchups are decided by the players’ actions after matchmaking occurs. It’s no fun to see the pairing and immediately know the result.
Right, i do agree with that to a certain extent.
I do believe roster choices should matter though. For example, hypothetically if you've got all the meta toons maxed and i've got all the toons in gw/arena/cantina store maxed, but we've got roughly/exactly the same amount of zeta's, g12's, g11's and g10s so we could be matched with eachother. Don't you think you deserve the win? I definately think you do in that scenario. I'm not taking skill out of the equation, i just think it's an unsurmountable difference in roster.
i only googled it quickly, i'm too lazy to familiarize myself with the elo rating system. From what i can gather quickly it's just a system that awards/takes away points for beating/losing vs others, eventually players with the same amount of points will be roughly equally matched.
I don't see how that would work. You're basically winning to eventually start losing, not because the other players are getting better skillwise, but because the difference in roster can't be overcome by skill alone.
I certainly don't want such a system.
"Losing."
That's true of most any tournament.
And I'd hardly consider the cuffs and slicing they hand out for 2-4 to be losing.
Essentially the GA is a modified TW. So doing so, while doable, would require swinging a hammer and knocking it all down, and starting over. As is, it is already showing stress fractures with the bugs popping up.
People certainly reduce complaints as they get used to the fact that a thing isn’t going to change, but I’m not sure they are happy with it. There is still a vocal subset of players that will insist that f2p can’t compete in arena, for example. Others complain that the top is dominated by shard chat members and have all sorts of nasty words for that. If you polled the player base as to whether the current squad arena system is fair, I’m not sure the positive response would be that great.
The issue about maximizing enjoyment (with respect to what the devs do or should want) harkens back to our prior conversation. Unfortunately for the mobile player base, and as much many people would like to believe otherwise, it seems that maximizing enjoyment and maximizing revenue are not all that well aligned in this industry. The frustration-based business model works.
This isn't my take on it at all, I'm not seeing stress fractures. Bugs are another matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make one more "right" than the other. Without having completed one full event, people have already determined it's going to be perceived as unfair for some players based on how they developed the squads, or added GP for an advantage in other parts of the game. Not all game elements treat every player the same, so of course people will feel this way.
In TW, most seem to be of the opinion that a 40 player roster with the same active GP as a 50 player roster, is somehow equal in terms of strength and chances to win, and should be considered a fair match. Even if the average GP of the guild with 40 players is 500,000 per player higher. Here, if GP is the only measurement (and we're only guessing on this point) that equal active GP (1 vs 1) is now no longer fair. I say it is more than fair.
“Winning to start losing” (and losing to start winning) is exactly how your rank is determined in the existing Arena. You rise to the point where you’re competetive, or you fall to the point where you’re competitive. I don’t understand why GA should be different in that respect. If anything, GA would be better than Arena, because the pairings are temporary and it’s truly zero-sum—there’s not much incentive or opportunity to coordinate in a shard chat, for example.
True, but every player, at every level of competition would face the same challenge, on what is essentially the same treadmill. You make gains in GA by improving your GA roster faster than your competition is improving theirs. You fall behind by improving your roster more slowly. In what game mode is this not true?
I hope you’re wrong about this, but you may very well be right. I think that the consumer model I’m envisioning is that most players have a roughly fixed monthly budget that they’re willing to spend on the game—the incentives created by the devs can substantially affect on what resources the playerbase spends that budget, but in general won’t dramatically alter the total amount that each player is willing to spend.
I think the model you’re proposing is that a new game mode creates a spike in player spending, as players attempt to become more competetive right now in the new game mode, rather than by investing long-term in a wel-rounded PVP roster. The new game mode creates a state of exception in which players are much more likely to bust their budgets. Even more so if they are getting owned in their matchups, or have a reasonable suspicion that they might be soon. Hence the bad matchmaking.
If your model is right (it’s more cynical, so it probably is), then the devs maximize revenue not by encouraging steady spending over the long-term, but by inducing regular artificial spikes in spending. That’s a bummer.
It's endless though. Improving your roster won't increase your chance of winning. Unless you're at the very top, but if you haven't been playing for 3 years or spend boat loads you don't even have a chance of reaching the top.
While it's also true that in the current system improving your roster (gaining GP) won't necessarily increase your chances of winning, arguably it even decreases your chances of winning assuming that the more GP players have, the more skillfull they are. However, the current system allows for me to improve my roster which would also improve my chance of winning. Obviously that's going to lead to "mismatches", but at the end of the day you can't really blame the system for your own choices.
GP is still an iffy parameter to base matchmaking on though, but i've got a feeling it will suffice. Some players will lose 3 straight rounds in the GA that's now live, but that's to be expected.
Guaranteed, in fact. One for each grouping of 8.
Not exactly. Suppose you have an GA Elo rating of 1601, and your placed in a bracket of player in the range from 1600-1800. At the outset, you’ll be expected to win approximately 1/3 of your matches. But you put the effort into your roster, and your rating rises until it’s 1800. Now you’ll be expected to win 2/3 of your matches in the 1600-1800 range. So you’ve made substantial progress.
Now it’s true that when you cross over to an 1801 rating, and land in the 1801-2000 bracket, you’re back where you started in some sense. You’re back to having the expectation of winning only 1/3 of your matches. But that will be offset by better rewards. And you can continue to invest and improve your roster.
This guy has it. We aren't throwing away the original algorithm, just adding user input and scaling the rewards based off that input. You would still match against similar gp/rosters but you can determine how competitive of a group you want to be in. Better top rewards for the tougher brackets vs better bottom rewards for the lower.
Lol not-so-humble brag.
Should be a fun event, provided everyone actually plays.
Yep. I had two way easy matchups in the first two, but this group of 8 looks more on my level.
Same this looks better.
Then you get people tanking their ranking so they can go on winning streaks. That's just as bad.
If you notice, ppl on the forums count the number of their highest 2-3 gear tiers and their zetas to see how they match up to opponents. They could easily Match with that.
Or.. counting all characters over a certain gp (Like 6k power like TW) seems like it could also work, but with a smaller player pool, it would need to be higher, like over 10k power (roughly g8).
Thoughts? 👀
Just start working on improving different squads. A lot of people have inflated their GP. Especially once you get higher up, it won't really matter.
That can be addressed by a carefully tailored reward structure. You just have to make sure the rewards are better for winning 50% of matches in the bracket where you’re competitive than winning, say, 75% of your matches in the next lower brackets. That’s not an insurmountable problem by any means.