Grand Arena with Galactic Power based rewards

The main problem with Matchmaking in grand arena, is that there is no incentive to have a large Galactic Power. Players are rewarded with weaker opponents if they have a lower GP. One solution is to give a flat reward based on GP. An example with the current grand arena is to give an extra stun cuff salvage to each participant for every 50 or 100k of Galactic Power they have. In addition there should be bonus rewards tied to the number of defensive squads required(GP Bracket), to compensate players for the extra time required. This extra reward structure should incentivize players, to join Grand arena with their true GP, which will make for more competitive and fair matches.

Replies

  • The main problem with Matchmaking in grand arena, is that there is no incentive to have a large Galactic Power. Players are rewarded with weaker opponents if they have a lower GP.

    Actually players are competing with others who have near identical GP. Squad composition and gear levels will most likely be key element to winning matches.

    The large Galactic power comes into play in other areas of the game. Being able to complete all mythics (I can't yet), qualifying for new max out events (C3PO, I'll get you next time) and deploying huge amounts of guild GP in TB's.

    So conversely, you could say the real benefit to having a wide roster is that you get to play in every event that is on the schedule, while those with laser focused developed squads miss out on a variety of events.
  • TheNewTheory
    4 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    Yes you are right, you do compete against similar GP combatants. However if you remove the mods from the lower half of your roster you can drop your GP by nearly 500k, (over estimated) which will match you against weaker players who are less likely to have Traya and/or Revan.

    Players also have the opportunity to not unlock or level the toons they have. Players can hoard gear all year waiting for events. All of this will hurt there guild during TB, costing them stars.

    All and all players should be incenivized to grow their GP. This aligns with the developers reasoning against "paper zombie"

    Post edited by TheNewTheory on
  • Nobody is dropping 500k by removing mods. Someone on the "other" SWGOH forum mention it cost them ~100,000 credits, and it dropped them 100k in GP. If you're short on mod storage space, it causes other problems. Plus, you'll have to put it all back because TB starts today.

    And everyone is growing their GP. Some chose to do it a squad at a time, others prefer to bring everyone up at the same time.
  • Dumping mods gets you about 1k per character. Even the most bloated of rosters (like mine) only has about 40 characters that are not used in any area of the game (new marquee characters, Jawas, Tuskens, bad Jedi, bad Rebels, bad Scoundrels, etc.). There are a few more that have very infrequent use (Hoth Rebel Scout for instance), but it's barely worth micromanaging to save another 10-20k.

    As part of a guild effort to stay in a certain TW bracket it might make sense but it's not going to effectively alter GA matchmaking much at all.
  • BeralCator wrote: »
    Dumping mods gets you about 1k per character..
    True my original estimate might have been a bit inflated.

    However coming from a guild in the highest TW bracket, soon to have all stars in both TB. There needs to be incentive to keep growing GP, otherwise players should only gear their arena squads; then hoard all their gear, shards, credits and mods till a particular event unlocks or the meta shifts. Also I'm not against a little bit of hoarding, but you should still be incenivized to keep growing.

    For me GA requires 6 defensive teams that means I only need to use 60 toons for offence and defense. That means, I have 106 toons acting as dead weight. If each of these toons is level 85, gear 6, with level 3 abilities and 6 mods (easy to do, as all required resources should be in excess of 1000+ to spare). That's about 5k per toon adding up to a total of 530k wasted.

    That 530k is great when trying to get the last star on dstb however, after that it is a waste.
    yrchltrbapuq.jpg

  • NoobSaibot12321
    191 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    They can solve all this by just adding more defense slots. Instead of 2-3 per territory allow people to place 5-6.

    This will shorten the gap between wide and tall.
  • Liath
    3734 posts Member
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Dumping mods gets you about 1k per character..
    True my original estimate might have been a bit inflated.

    However coming from a guild in the highest TW bracket, soon to have all stars in both TB. There needs to be incentive to keep growing GP, otherwise players should only gear their arena squads; then hoard all their gear, shards, credits and mods till a particular event unlocks or the meta shifts. Also I'm not against a little bit of hoarding, but you should still be incenivized to keep growing.

    For me GA requires 6 defensive teams that means I only need to use 60 toons for offence and defense. That means, I have 106 toons acting as dead weight. If each of these toons is level 85, gear 6, with level 3 abilities and 6 mods (easy to do, as all required resources should be in excess of 1000+ to spare). That's about 5k per toon adding up to a total of 530k wasted.

    That 530k is great when trying to get the last star on dstb however, after that it is a waste.
    yrchltrbapuq.jpg

    Only if you can win every battle on the first try every time, no matter what compositions you happen to face. If you can do that, I doubt a little fluff is really hurting you.
  • They can solve all this by just adding more defense slots. Instead of 2-3 per territory allow people to place 5-6.

    This will shorten the gap between wide and tall.

    I'll admit, that would be a fun version where you have to place 18, 5 character teams on defense with my 2.5 million roster. I'm not sure where I'd end up, but that would create some offence/defense decisions. Ships are kind of limited with only 4 capital available(now).
  • NoobSaibot12321
    191 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    FolsomTony wrote: »
    They can solve all this by just adding more defense slots. Instead of 2-3 per territory allow people to place 5-6.

    This will shorten the gap between wide and tall.

    I'll admit, that would be a fun version where you have to place 18, 5 character teams on defense with my 2.5 million roster. I'm not sure where I'd end up, but that would create some offence/defense decisions. Ships are kind of limited with only 4 capital available(now).

    Yup... maybe 5-6 isn't the right number but there is a right number and the simplest solution would be that. Ships yeah unfortunately ar limited by 4 cap ships. So Max for that zone could only be 2 defense fleets. But even at 2 it would force people to use there entire fleet.
  • Bottom line is that GP is a poor measure of equality. Someone wrote a discord bot that compares you and your opponent. My opponent has the same GP but has 10 more zetas, 21 more g12s, 32 more 6 dot mods, and 59 more mods with +10 speed. He obviously went deep but not wide, and great for him, but it’s not an equal match. It’s not like all my G10 toons can beat his elite G12s.
  • Why are we having to provide solutions to problems the Devs make? They do this for a living, and have failed to provide any sense of fairness: this is how they want it to be.
  • Kameleonic wrote: »
    Why are we having to provide solutions to problems the Devs make? They do this for a living, and have failed to provide any sense of fairness: this is how they want it to be.

    Or they can't fix it without expending lots of resources, so they can't be bothered to try. As such, I'm going to volunteer my free labour here.

    GP is a nonsense metric that doesn't translate into competitiveness in anything more than a weak correlated way. It only works well at very select scenarios:
    Comparing unmodded identical characters without zetas.
    Comparing identical ships and identical fleets.

    For everything else, the values given to mods, abilities, zetas, gear level, stars, and character level appear to have been poorly (or ignorantly) chosen when the metric was created.
    Mods are undervalued, and there's no GP distinction between a speed secondary of 0 and 24.
    Points for gear level appears to scale linearly, even though utility (and resource expenditure) rises exponentially. Zetas are worth a lot of GP, but the utility ranges from game-breaking (Finn) to pointless (Veteran Smuggler Chewbacca).
    Characters with simple kits like First Order Executioner are undervalued while Bounty Hunters are overvalued because of the contract mechanic.
    Functionally, players only have Lvl 1 and Lvl 85 (or level cap) characters at end-game, as credits aren't scarce.
    Star Level *appears* to be overvalued in a PvP context, although the ability to use higher star levels in PvE content may offset that.

    To be fair, some of this stuff was not to be realistically anticipated. At the time at GP was introduced the game was much simpler, and there were no game modes that used it as a measure for competitive purposes (i.e. matchmaking in TW or Grand Arena); it was just a handy way to eyeball teams in the arena and to measure contributions to TBs.

    If the devs insist on using it to pair players into "fair" match-ups, they really need to invest some time into analyzing the value of all the items that go into the calculation. Ideally they'd hire someone with a statistics or systems analyst type background, but even without there are plenty of logical thought experiments to improve the equation currently in use.

    Here are some suggestions:
    If any of the parameters are Lvl 1 (stars, gear, or character level), the character should have no GP at all, as the character has no utility. Set the multiplier for these levels at 0.

    The practical value of characters below G7 is negligible, but each gear level beyond that improves the character by 25-50%. Use an exponential function to calculate GP for higher levels of gear. A G8 character should probably only be worth about 25-33% of a G12 one.

    Use a more sophisticated algorithm for mod value that weights the primary and secondary stats in a meaningful way. This is a turn-based game, so speed is obviously of more value than defense.

    Perhaps introduce real-time adaptive algorithms to measure intrinsic value of characters and zetas using data from PvP game modes where players have a choice in the characters they use. If a character is never used, the player base has deemed it to not be of value. Obsolete characters that fall from favor will naturally lose value while ones that are reworked or rediscovered will rise.

    Eliminate the equivalency of ship and character power. You're allowed to use more than one variable when comparing rosters. There's math for that.

    tl;dr - As long as GP is an equation someone wrote on a cocktail napkin 2 years ago to use for quick and dirty comparisons, we're gonna have bad matchmaking. Garbage in, garbage out.
  • Yes you are right, you do compete against similar GP combatants. However if you remove the mods from the lower half of your roster you can drop your GP by nearly 500k, which will match you against weaker players who are less likely to have Traya and/or Revan.

    Players also have the opportunity to not unlock or level the toons they have. Players can hoard gear all year waiting for events. All of this will hurt there guild during TB, costing them stars.

    All and all players should be incenivized to grow their GP. This aligns with the developers reasoning against "paper zombie"

    Its not 500K. I dropped mods from about 70 characters and it only dropped 100K
  • Or the developers could just count a tie as a win for both players since the system of measurement was designed to be as basic as possible. This tie-breaker nonsense they have is infuriating as Galactic Power has ZERO to do with Grand Arena in terms of the actual PVP measurment.
  • Liath
    3734 posts Member
    Or the developers could just count a tie as a win for both players since the system of measurement was designed to be as basic as possible. This tie-breaker nonsense they have is infuriating as Galactic Power has ZERO to do with Grand Arena in terms of the actual PVP measurment.

    Then people would just agree with their opponents to tie on purpose so everybody gets max rewards. There’s a reason that in TW a tie is equal to a loss for both guilds.
  • Liath wrote: »

    Then people would just agree with their opponents to tie on purpose so everybody gets max rewards. There’s a reason that in TW a tie is equal to a loss for both guilds.

    A fair point actually, how about instead have your opponents based on your highest achieved squad/fleet arena rank (whichever is higher)? Similar to how your GW opponents are based? I've even seen a lot of suggestions to setting it up the same way that E-Sports does it with ladder ranks.

    I'll give you an example on why, as of yesterday, I completely gave up on Grand Arena. While I am maxed at 85, I don't have a large amount of squads for both defense and offense. I'm actually looking for a larger guild for that so that I can a, get more guild rewards for shards/gear and b, start doing hardcore raids for legendary characters. At any rate, I set my defenses as best I could while saving all of my zeta and high gear characters to take on my opponent's defenses. When I checked the app last night, all of my defenses were defeated and I was facing squads with G12 characters. Let me mention one thing, I don't have a single G12 character, G11 is the highest I've got.

    So with that, I realized I had a 0% chance of a come-back. That's not enjoyable in the slightest. I love playing a close-match until the end but if I start a game knowing that I've not a single inkling of a chance, I'm not going to even bother. That's my issue with Galactic Power being the current measuring stick. It pits you against players that you'll either crush with no resistance or against a player whose worst defensive team with no synergy could wipe you without a second thought.
  • Liath
    3734 posts Member
    Personally I think the tiebreaker should be unused GP. If you have more left over after getting the same score, you achieved it more efficiently and deserve to win.
  • Indominable_J
    1563 posts Member
    edited January 4
    A fair point actually, how about instead have your opponents based on your highest achieved squad/fleet arena rank (whichever is higher)? Similar to how your GW opponents are based? I've even seen a lot of suggestions to setting it up the same way that E-Sports does it with ladder ranks.

    1) There would still need to be a GP component. Just because I can hit first in my squad arena, which measures the strength of a single squad of mine, doesn't mean I can compete with a 5m gp account that also hits first in squad arena. Additionally, there is always someone in first at all gp levels, once arena unlocks (level 28 I think?). Someone who just unlocked arena a week ago, and is in first, shouldn't be competing against someone who unlocked arena a month ago, let alone someone who unlocked it 3 years ago.Edit: GA doesn't unlock until level 85, so someone who just unlocked arena wouldn't be playing. But the point still stands -- someone who just hit level 85 shouldn't be stuck competing against someone who hit level 85 two+ years ago.

    2) If you do that kind of ladder ranks, the expectation is that the people who are higher ranked get better rewards at that level of the competition (both winning and losing rewards). So the people who are already at the top of the arena would get better rewards than someone rank 100 in arena, which would widen the divide between them going forward.
    Post edited by Indominable_J on
Sign In or Register to comment.