Grand Arena matchmaking.

Prev1
I'll start by saying that I love Grand Arena as a feature and hope you guys keep running it on a frequent basis. Two a month would probably be ideal, but I'm sure that's going to be tough to balance alongside Territory Wars and Territory Battles. This is a long way of saying that even though I'm going to criticize matchmaking below, I'm not approaching this from an "I hate everything, stop doing it all" point of view.

The problem with Grand Arena is competitiveness. Your current matchmaking algorithm is working fantastically in creating matchups with similar GPs, I've never been more than 1% above or below anyone that I've fought against. So congratulations on that! Making an algorithm that works that well on the first go isn't easy. But I think that basing matchups on raw, aggregate GP is a mistake. The problem is that not all GPs are created equal, which will lead to non-competitive pods (I don't want to keep using the same words, so just to define my terms ahead of time "pool" is for the groupings of every player within a reward tier, while pods are a grouping of 8 or 5 players that are competing against one another. In short, pods are drawn from a pool of players.) and that will have the negative result of player dissatisfaction in the long run. I'll give hard data below to explain what I mean by "broad" and "narrow" rosters, but for now just assume that both have roughly similar GPs, but that the broad player can't possibly beat a narrow player.

If a player with a broad roster consistently gets paired up against players with narrow rosters, they're going to eventually stop actively participating in Grand Arena events. If I have no hope of beating my opponent then I'm not even going to try, I'll just sign up and collect my last place rewards in a couple days with no effort put into the event--hey, maybe I'll match up against someone who also doesn't put defenses and I'll win the tiebreaker so I'll get better rewards! On the other hand, if you have a narrow roster and consistently get paired up against other players with narrow rosters you're going to have a competitive pod, which will be fun a couple times--but once you find out that there are other people out there who keep getting similar or better rewards than you because they're in non-competitive pods, you're going to feel slighted. Why are you busting your butt and working harder for less than someone who just lucked into free stuff because they had opponents who either didn't care or were pushovers.

So you need to create a matchmaking system that will create pods that are more competitive if this thing is going to survive. I think there's an easy way of doing that:
1) Have the algorithm check if fleets are going to be used at all in the event. If they are, use fleet power as part of matchmaking. If they aren't, remove fleet power from the matchmaking.

2) Figure out the maximum number of characters needed to field a full defense at each tier and multiply that by some number (let's say 2.5, I'll explain why 2.5 below, but for now just bear with me) and then have the algorithm only look at the GP of that number of characters on each player's roster.

3) If fleets are used, then do the same for fleets and add their GP to the GP in part 2.

This GP, drawn from parts 2 and 3, is your Refined Galactic Power (a term I'm making up to show that it's different from the current matchmaking, which uses raw aggregate galactic power). Create pods using this Refined GP. This should ensure that every pod is competitive--it won't mean no one ever tanks just to get the lowest reward with zero effort, there will always be people looking for the free ride, but for people who actually play the event there will always be hope that they stand a chance to win at least a couple matches.

Alright, so:
Why 2.5?
Above I said use 2.5 as the multiplier for determining the number of characters to use when calculating Refined GP. I used that number as a starting place because you need to use SOMETHING, right? I picked it because you need at least as many characters on offense as you do on defense, which would mean 2x, right? So if there are 6 defensive teams, you need 6 of your own to beat them. That means 12 teams total, see? But it's not realistic to expect all attacks to work on the first shot, and a lower multiplier would overly-reward broad rosters because it would mean excluding more of their characters from the calculation. So 2.5 gives a little more leeway. The actual multiplier should be rigorously researched and adjusted upward or downward regularly to keep things as competitive as possible. But, for the purposes of this post, let's just assume 2.5.

What's a Narrow or Broad roster?
Simply put, a narrow roster is a player who only puts gear on their best characters and leaves characters they're not actively using at as low power as possible. They probably still farm characters so that they can have a 7* g1, level 1 character to deploy in Territory Battle platoons, but otherwise they don't actually invest in a character unless they're actively using them for something--raids, legendary events, etc. This leads to a roster with a lot of very, very high GP characters and a lot of very, very low GP characters.

A broad roster is a player who puts gear on anyone who needs it when they need it. Maybe they're doing it because they're a collector who wants every character to be as good as they can be, or maybe they're doing it because they just don't like seeing unsightly green crosses and red numbers yelling at them saying there's something they can upgrade. But, for whatever reason, they have a roster with a much more even distribution of high and medium invested characters.

To be clear, neither of these is inherently "bad" or "wrong." Play the way you want to play. But, currently, a Narrow roster clearly beats a Broad roster, which makes having a broad roster "bad" and "wrong" for the time-being. Before now, you could argue that either was viable because a narrow roster would be good at what it does, but inflexible and bad at reacting to new stuff--got to farm Pao up from nothing if you want to make Chex Mix, for example--while a broad roster wouldn't be as good at specific things (Arena, for example, because while you've got a couple teams on par with a narrow roster, you're not constantly investing in them the same way) you'd have more to contribute in Territory Battles and Wars and be a little more flexible when the game changes to make certain characters necessary (BB-8 gets released and all the narrow folks are mad because now they have to farm First Order from hard nodes, but broad rosters are laughing all the way to the bank because they already did that, for example--a real thing that happened to me). But now there *is* a definite answer because in every other mode of the game it's a matter of preference, but here in Grand Arena you have that answer: Go narrow or go home.

Some Hard Data:
"Go narrow or go home" seems like a hyperbolic claim and you might think I'm just a sore loser (Nah, man, I'm a great loser--plenty of experience at it ;) ) or hopelessly defeatist because I said a broad roster will never beat a narrow roster. So let me give you the hard data from my current Grand Arena opponent. (My ally code is 843-944-478, in case a dev wants to take a look and verify this, or take a deeper look at things I didn't even think to look at)
My GP: 3,925,484
Opponent's GP: 3,957,501
Raw GP differential: 32,017 (So raw GPs are within 99.19% of one another)

My G12s: 22
My G11s: 24
His G12s: 57
His G11s: 37
Total "high gear" characters: 46 to 94

(6 defensive teams at my tier, multiplied by 2.5 as per above)
Power of my top 75 characters: 1,308,096
Power of his top 75 characters: 1,449,831
Refined GP differential: 141,735 (So refined GPs are within 90.22% of one another)

Not only does my opponent have double the number of high gear characters, he also has nearly 10% more GP than me where it counts. I say "where it counts" because I have a lot of g8 and g9 characters, but they're realistically not going to do a whole lot against his teams. So while on paper we have roughly equal GPs within 1% of one another, in reality he grossly outclasses me.

How does such a mismatch happen? Here's an interesting number set:
Power of my BOTTOM 75 characters: 834,411 (Average GP of the bottom end of my roster: 11,125)
Power of his BOTTOM 75 characters: 665,475 (Average GP of the bottom end of his roster: 8,873)

Interestingly, he has 13 characters with under 6k power. The point isn't to say that the bottom of my roster would beat up the bottom of his roster (although that's kind of an interesting idea for a future Grand Arena, only allowing you to use the weakest characters on your roster--oh MAN would narrow folks be mad at that!) but rather to point out that the bottom of his roster, the characters that will never see the light of day in a Grand Arena, are keeping his Raw GP artificially low, while the bottom of my roster is inflating my Raw GP. This is the source of mismatches--a disparity between total GP and useful GP. If we only counted the useful characters, I would be facing someone with nearly a full 10% more GP than myself.

So, please, when you inevitably look at the data for the first couple Grand Arenas and look at how to improve matchmaking (And I know you guys will... As I said, I really like this new mode and I'm not coming her to dump on it. You guys take your job seriously and put out a quality product. I know that the initial matchmaking was put together with an eye towards refining it in future iterations.) please consider a Refined Galactic Power over Raw Galactic Power. I think that'll create much more competitive matchups going forward which will lead to a very popular mode of play, and encourage people to invest resources into characters--and any time people are spending resources they're going to be more likely to eventually spend money.

Thanks for reading this far.
Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.

Replies

  • You want them to write code that analyzes each players toons? Very doubtful. Even if possible, players who made poor gear choices don't get penalized and players who make good gear choices do get penalized. I've been telling my guild members for a long time not to artificially raise their GP with moderate junk. I thought everyone knew that.
  • I like your suggestions. And a very well written post.
  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    edited January 10
    Why should players with 'narrow' rosters be matched with other players with 'narrow' rosters only? Why shouldn't they enjoy the benefits of developing their roster this way and also battle players with 'wide' rosters? Why should players with 'wide' rosters have an easier match and only battle other players with 'wide' rosters?

    With the current design players with 'narrow' rosters are mixed with players with 'wide rosters' in the pods of 8 in GA and I'm perfectly fine with this. Players with stronger rosters are more likely to win better rewards. I see nothing to fix here.

    (No, my own roster is not particularly 'narrow' (3.7 million GP, with a total of 70 g12 and g11characters) , but I enjoy GA and the challenge)
  • Easier than all this. Have seasons and use a ladder system within GP groupings. So if you win you get say 20 points, 2-5 get 10 points, 6-9 gets 5 points, 10 gets 0. These points along with GP determine your position and who you'll be up against in your next set of matches.
  • Matchmaking based on GP is not so balanced but at least it has a sense... Meanwhile everytime I get a GA matchmaking 3vs3 (in which you use no ships) I got matched with my TOTAL GP. Having a big ships GP this means I always start with -250/300k character GP compared to my opponent. Now, someone please explain to me how am I supposed to win against someone who has something like 7/8 g12 teams (3 chars) more than me.
    Thank you in advance.
  • The ONLY way this sort of matchmaking made sense is if the prizes were tiered as well. So, the 3.0M GP player with Revan / Traya / NS / CLS+3PO, etc. that finished 8th in their bracket still received better rewards than the 3.0M GP player that has three G12s and an army of G10s that finished first in theirs.

    Why should eight players that narrowly focused their rosters be forced to compete for the same prizes that eight players that took a broad approach can receive? It's a form of welfare that we haven't seen out of the game.

    But how do you define those tiers? The "fairness" switch flips - so that "narrow rostered" players are potentially paired with players with much higher "Raw GP", which you could argue in and of itself is fine, but only if the GA character pool is limited to those characters on which the "Refined GP" calculation was used. However, now your removing the ability for players to use characters they've developed, and we all saw how well that was received. In this model, there's a potentially massive advantage for longer term players with gobs of G10 players that can whittle down teams to clear a zone that "more narrow" rosters wouldn't have. Raw GP matters.

    Finally, mods will still rule the day. One of the things I've seen in the plethora of "Wide vs. Narrow" roster complaints is that many of the "Wide" players think that gear is the end-all-be-all of GA, and while gear is extremely important, mods, matchups and turn order also make a big difference. Forgot to put an AoE on your CLS team, there's a 50k stealth team that can take out your 100k team multi-zeta team. Didn't stack enough potency on your zEP team? High tenacity Nest would like a word. Etc. etc.

    I do understand the point about Ship GP vs. Character GP, but my understanding form the initial announcement of the game mode was that matchmaking takes W/L record into account. Over time, that Ship GP advantage could become a differentiator (think of how the forums would burn if 2 defensive fleets were required!!). We're still in early days.

    Worst case scenario, you get 18 Mk2 mod salvage for just showing up. Nothing wrong with that.
  • I love the current match making. Ive won every match so far and looks like I'll win this tourny too.
    That seems perfectly fine to me :smiley:
  • The issue has a simple solution:

    Add more slots so that players with deep rosters rather than top-heavy ones can compete.

    The added bonus will be to incentivize more play to gain points. Why not even put the whole of a players roster up against the whole of another’s? Depth will certainly matter then.

    Issue 1: time

    I suggest adding the option of simulation for these battles. Perhaps even the option to simulate all at once as with Galactic War nodes.

    Setting teams is fast if you have them saved. It’s the battling that is time consuming. And leaving the option of manually battling adds the ability to take a long time in play if so desired. It didn’t work for Galactic War nodes because you are playing the computer. It will for this.

    Bonus for EA: This would encourage players to power up ALL characters and listen the need to release new characters so often to keep the money flowing.

    Concentrate on reworks.

    PS...send me a check when all this cash starts rolling in. 😉
  • Completely appreciate the advice and well thought-out post. Today was the final day for me in terms of my patience with Grand Arena. I have (1) G12 character, (3) G11 characters, (2) G10 characters, and everyone else is G9 or below. I have three viable teams about 60k power but have a somewhat deep roster. This causes me to get consistently paired with players that have a far more focused roster.

    As an example, I faced a player today with every single squad on defense at lvl 85 with G9-G11 squads. I can beat one of those with my revan lead (my only G12 but was G11 when I locked). That's it. His Jango lead BH squad? Killed all but Jango/Dengar. I can't compete so what's the point? My defenses? Oh they were gone within the first hour. So since I'm going to get crappy rewards regardless, may as well not even try.

    And that mentality that I arrived at is 100% the problem. The mentality of "I know that there is absolutely no way that I can even compete or have a chance of winning" is the inevitability for people matched up against really good players that can easily stomp them. It can be fixed and it should be fixed. I'm not asking for an easy win, just a chance, a glimmer of hope that I can make it there through skill or luck. But when I'm faced with all 85 and G9-G11 squads? Yeah, no hope or glimmer there.

    My thoughts are to balance the GA matchmaking the same way that GW was balanced, off of your highest squad arena ranking. Sure some newer players won't play SA purely to troll the system, but that's the fairest way that I can think of. I WANT to like GA, I really do, but I just can't in its current form.
  • To the person who has no issues because they've constantly won, congrats you don't see a problem because you aren't looking. Where's the dog saying it's fine in a burning room meme when you need it?

    Speaking to the topic of well-fare, we see it all the time in different forms. Whether it's the starter quests that now give newer players a leg up or the fact that newer players will never gear 10 or 11 Lando because he's no longer the king of AoE. So giving more rewards to a narrow 4 million GP over wider 4 million GP seems a little petty and over complicated at the end of the day.

    But to the original poster's thought, it's a great idea but has a few major flaws. Some pointed out earlier. Mods and Meta's play a huge role in determining the chance one player has against another. Without taking into account both of these things in a matchmaking system you'll still end up back at square one.

    A player who plays the mod game every day will run circles around players who don't. It's a painfully RNG convoluted system, but it's super powerful when played diligently.

    A player who plays for Fleets is always going to stick out regardless of fleets being present. Maxing out Imperial Super Commando just isn't as great for a ground combat only GA as it is for a GA that features Fleets, and even now... well nothing matters if you have the Falcon on deck.

    Lastly, Meta matters. A g12 Lando is in no way equal to a g12 Revan... not in GP and not in terms of viability in squads. And at one point he was in the metas, so a player who played during them is going to suffer that bloat for quite some time even if you cut the GP measurement down to a smaller section of that roster.

    I don't know there is a great equation for as complex as this game has become, it'd be nice to see though. Especially when people want this sort of game mode where one side gets the high of being the TW king and the other half get the experience of setting defenses for GW because they have no shot at winning and if they don't set something the other kid throws a tantrum about getting a free win not being good enough. So I'm hopeful maybe we can get to an equation that handles this nightmare better, or at least makes GA less of something I want to turn off.
  • My suggestions are really simple and effective to "fix" the matchmaking which can currently make unfair matches:

    - Same fleet suggestion as OP, either they are there, or not, subtract the GP if not, no brainer CG

    - GP as it is, to determine initial grouping is great for ONE logical parameter.

    - Next how many toons are over 210 speed, group people within +/- 8 of this number.

    - Next how many G12 toons does a player have, have players grouped within +/- 5, again combined with the above

    - Finally and importantly, Arena(s) need to be compared, someone in spot 10 shouldn't be grouped with someone in spot 500, come on now. Yes this could be sandbagged, to avoid that simply look at the average over the last 5 - 10 days.

    - There is one more that should probably be considered too, does the player have Revan, people that do grouped together.

    This is probably ~ 50 lines of code and really shouldn't take a good programmer long at all, and would make a HUGE difference in the fairness of match-ups. @CG_SBCrumb
  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    edited February 27
    Your suggestions would make match-making more unfair, @jayjonbeach. The matches would be more even, yes, but less fair. Your suggestions wouldn't 'fix' the algorithm - they would break it. Even and fair are two different things.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Your suggestions would make match-making more unfair, @jayjonbeach. The matches would be more even, yes, but less fair. Your suggestions wouldn't 'fix' the algorithm - they would break it. Even and fair are two different things.

    Why not explain how you think it is going to be unfair, in even match-ups as I proposed, especially compared to the SAD state of how match-ups are determined now, with a single parameter resulting in VERY lop-sided match ups @Waqui

  • jayjonbeach
    633 posts Member
    edited February 27
    NicWester wrote: »
    If a player with a broad roster consistently gets paired up against players with narrow rosters, they're going to eventually stop actively participating in Grand Arena events. If I have no hope of beating my opponent then I'm not even going to try, I'll just sign up and collect my last place rewards in a couple days with no effort put into the event

    This x 100. Just happened to me twice in a row. I built broad, have great teams and works well for most of the game, less Grand Arena, and especially 3vs3 it seems. Opponent has no depth at all in his roster, just 5 or 6 toons G12 Zeta'd etc built to the nines, and, that is all he needs to win, he sticks his 2 brick walls on Def and done. Silly really, you outlined the main issue here to a T

  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    edited February 27
    Waqui wrote: »
    Your suggestions would make match-making more unfair, @jayjonbeach. The matches would be more even, yes, but less fair. Your suggestions wouldn't 'fix' the algorithm - they would break it. Even and fair are two different things.

    Why not explain how you think it is going to be unfair, in even match-ups as I proposed, especially compared to the SAD state of how match-ups are determined now, with a single parameter resulting in VERY lop-sided match ups @Waqui

    Even match-ups will give players, who developed a weaker roster, an easier path to winning high rank rewards in GA and give players, who developed a strong roster (same GP as the weaker ones), a harder path to winning the same high rank rewards. I don't see this as fair. A believe, that mixing stronger and weaker rosters (even GP) in the groups of 8 is far more fair.

    Furthermore, I don't believe, the match-making algorithm only considers one parameter currently. It's just your assumption, that it does.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Your suggestions would make match-making more unfair, @jayjonbeach. The matches would be more even, yes, but less fair. Your suggestions wouldn't 'fix' the algorithm - they would break it. Even and fair are two different things.

    Why not explain how you think it is going to be unfair, in even match-ups as I proposed, especially compared to the SAD state of how match-ups are determined now, with a single parameter resulting in VERY lop-sided match ups @Waqui

    Even match-ups will give players, who developed a weaker roster, an easier path to winning high rank rewards in GA and give players, who developed a strong roster (same GP as the weaker ones), a harder path to winning the same high rank rewards. I don't see this as fair. A believe, that mixing stronger and weaker rosters (even GP) in the groups of 8 is far more fair.

    Furthermore, I don't believe, the match-making algorithm only considers one parameter currently. It's just your assumption, that it does.

    We agree to disagree then, the current algo is trash, I fully agree with the OP
  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Your suggestions would make match-making more unfair, @jayjonbeach. The matches would be more even, yes, but less fair. Your suggestions wouldn't 'fix' the algorithm - they would break it. Even and fair are two different things.

    Why not explain how you think it is going to be unfair, in even match-ups as I proposed, especially compared to the SAD state of how match-ups are determined now, with a single parameter resulting in VERY lop-sided match ups @Waqui

    Even match-ups will give players, who developed a weaker roster, an easier path to winning high rank rewards in GA and give players, who developed a strong roster (same GP as the weaker ones), a harder path to winning the same high rank rewards. I don't see this as fair. A believe, that mixing stronger and weaker rosters (even GP) in the groups of 8 is far more fair.

    Furthermore, I don't believe, the match-making algorithm only considers one parameter currently. It's just your assumption, that it does.

    We agree to disagree then, the current algo is trash, I fully agree with the OP

    Agreed. We disagree.

    On a side note:
    If weakly developed rosters can win 1st rank rewards, what would the incentive be for them to develop a stronger roster?
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Your suggestions would make match-making more unfair, @jayjonbeach. The matches would be more even, yes, but less fair. Your suggestions wouldn't 'fix' the algorithm - they would break it. Even and fair are two different things.

    Why not explain how you think it is going to be unfair, in even match-ups as I proposed, especially compared to the SAD state of how match-ups are determined now, with a single parameter resulting in VERY lop-sided match ups @Waqui

    Even match-ups will give players, who developed a weaker roster, an easier path to winning high rank rewards in GA and give players, who developed a strong roster (same GP as the weaker ones), a harder path to winning the same high rank rewards. I don't see this as fair. A believe, that mixing stronger and weaker rosters (even GP) in the groups of 8 is far more fair.

    Furthermore, I don't believe, the match-making algorithm only considers one parameter currently. It's just your assumption, that it does.

    We agree to disagree then, the current algo is trash, I fully agree with the OP

    Agreed. We disagree.

    On a side note:
    If weakly developed rosters can win 1st rank rewards, what would the incentive be for them to develop a stronger roster?

    I really think you are confused on the issue. The OP and myself are talking about even matches, which is a point you seem to understand. Then you seem to assume that in an even match-up, someone is going to be much weaker, this is where you go off the rails.

    The whole point being made here is this is what is happening now, people who built deep rosters instead of very narrow but strong ones are at a huge disadvantage in this event. If the match-ups were done either by how the OP described, or how I described, this would no longer happen. Now you would have more even teams in the grouping, as in, there ARE NO WEAK teams, see. All 8 are fairly even, and have a FAIRLY EVEN chance of winning, so will then have to work for the win.

    If you still don't see this, I really can't help further.
  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Your suggestions would make match-making more unfair, @jayjonbeach. The matches would be more even, yes, but less fair. Your suggestions wouldn't 'fix' the algorithm - they would break it. Even and fair are two different things.

    Why not explain how you think it is going to be unfair, in even match-ups as I proposed, especially compared to the SAD state of how match-ups are determined now, with a single parameter resulting in VERY lop-sided match ups @Waqui

    Even match-ups will give players, who developed a weaker roster, an easier path to winning high rank rewards in GA and give players, who developed a strong roster (same GP as the weaker ones), a harder path to winning the same high rank rewards. I don't see this as fair. A believe, that mixing stronger and weaker rosters (even GP) in the groups of 8 is far more fair.

    Furthermore, I don't believe, the match-making algorithm only considers one parameter currently. It's just your assumption, that it does.

    We agree to disagree then, the current algo is trash, I fully agree with the OP

    Agreed. We disagree.

    On a side note:
    If weakly developed rosters can win 1st rank rewards, what would the incentive be for them to develop a stronger roster?

    I really think you are confused on the issue. The OP and myself are talking about even matches, which is a point you seem to understand.

    Yes. And furthermore, the OP talks about matching players with even GP is great. As I understand it, both of you want more parameters than GP to be considered during match-making (which I believe is already the case) and you want match-ups to be even, considering the strength of the rosters and not just GP.
    Then you seem to assume that in an even match-up, someone is going to be much weaker, this is where you go off the rails.

    Please explain what makes you believe this? In which comment did I state this? Please throw me a quote or two. I believe your assumption here, is off the rails - but please explain

    This is what I really assume:
    Even match-ups are even. By (my) definition, nobodie's roster would be (significantly) stronger or weaker than their opponent's in an even match-up, when considering all relevant parameters (unlocked characters, ranks, levels, gear levels, ability levels, mods etc.).
    The whole point being made here is this is what is happening now, people who built deep rosters instead of very narrow but strong ones are at a huge disadvantage in this event. If the match-ups were done either by how the OP described, or how I described, this would no longer happen. Now you would have more even teams in the grouping, as in, there ARE NO WEAK teams, see. All 8 are fairly even, and have a FAIRLY EVEN chance of winning, so will then have to work for the win.

    If you still don't see this, I really can't help further.

    I've understood this all the time. What are you on about?

    My point is:

    When considering 16 players with even GP, if the 8 eight players with weaker rosters are grouped together, while the 8 players with stronger rosters are grouped together, the players with weaker rosters would have a higher chance of winning, than if they were mixed with the players with stronger rosters. The player, who loses in the group of players with stronger rosters, has a stronger roster than the player who wins the group of players with weaker rosters. I believe this is unfair. The match-up would be (more) even, yes, but less fair. I believe that the players with stronger rosters should benefit and have a higher chance of winning better rewards.

    You seem to not have understood this. If you don't understand by now, I really can't help you further.
  • If I remember well there were a dev. post if no fleet in GA, then only the the squad GP will be used in the matchmaking. Obviusly it is no live yet(avg. 200k less my squad GP than my opponents).
    Do we know when this will happen?

    (P.S.: My rooster is fleet heavy, but until now only lost two of my GA matches, so do not matters a lot)
  • Completely appreciate the advice and well thought-out post. Today was the final day for me in terms of my patience with Grand Arena. I have (1) G12 character, (3) G11 characters, (2) G10 characters, and everyone else is G9 or below. I have three viable teams about 60k power but have a somewhat deep roster. This causes me to get consistently paired with players that have a far more focused roster.

    As an example, I faced a player today with every single squad on defense at lvl 85 with G9-G11 squads. I can beat one of those with my revan lead (my only G12 but was G11 when I locked). That's it. His Jango lead BH squad? Killed all but Jango/Dengar. I can't compete so what's the point? My defenses? Oh they were gone within the first hour. So since I'm going to get crappy rewards regardless, may as well not even try.

    And that mentality that I arrived at is 100% the problem. The mentality of "I know that there is absolutely no way that I can even compete or have a chance of winning" is the inevitability for people matched up against really good players that can easily stomp them. It can be fixed and it should be fixed. I'm not asking for an easy win, just a chance, a glimmer of hope that I can make it there through skill or luck. But when I'm faced with all 85 and G9-G11 squads? Yeah, no hope or glimmer there.

    My thoughts are to balance the GA matchmaking the same way that GW was balanced, off of your highest squad arena ranking. Sure some newer players won't play SA purely to troll the system, but that's the fairest way that I can think of. I WANT to like GA, I really do, but I just can't in its current form.

    This 100% is correct and why it happens if they fixed the matching it would drop so much. But let's face it all cg want to change is units to protect their silly heroic sith raid no time to fix problems with the rest of the game
  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    Fürkész wrote: »
    If I remember well there were a dev. post if no fleet in GA, then only the the squad GP will be used in the matchmaking. Obviusly it is no live yet(avg. 200k less my squad GP than my opponents).
    Do we know when this will happen?

    (P.S.: My rooster is fleet heavy, but until now only lost two of my GA matches, so do not matters a lot)

    It was in the road ahead. We will just have to be patient.
  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member

    [...]

    And that mentality that I arrived at is 100% the problem. The mentality of "I know that there is absolutely no way that I can even compete or have a chance of winning" is the inevitability for people matched up against really good players that can easily stomp them. It can be fixed and it should be fixed.

    [...]

    Agreed. F.ex. some players could change their mentality from : "My opponent developed a strong roster for GA - the game needs to be changed" to : "My opponent developed a strong roster for GA - I need to improve my roster." That would fix the "problem".

    While waiting/hoping for CG to change the game, I would suggest to start improving rosters as well.

  • Then you seem to assume that in an even match-up, someone is going to be much weaker, this is where you go off the rails.
    Waqui wrote: »
    Please explain what makes you believe this?

    LOL you want me to quote what is just above you in the thread really? Now you just look like a troll, you basically said it all over again in your new message.
    Waqui wrote: »
    Even match-ups will give players, who developed a weaker roster, an easier path to winning high rank rewards in GA and give players, who developed a strong roster (same GP as the weaker ones), a harder path to winning the same high rank rewards. I don't see this as fair. A believe, that mixing stronger and weaker rosters (even GP) in the groups of 8 is far more fair.
    Waqui wrote: »
    My point is: When considering 16 players with even GP, if the 8 eight players with weaker rosters are grouped together, while the 8 players with stronger rosters are grouped together, the players with weaker rosters would have a higher chance of winning

    You keep going on about "weaker rosters" in a scenario designed to make sure there are none.

    ONLY in the CURRENT system are there "weaker" rosters to consider, which is why it is NOT a fair system.

    What you seem to want, is exactly that, you want uneven match-ups so stronger rosters, can walk over weaker ones, so they DON"T have a chance, you don't want the weaker rosters to have more of a chance. And you think that is more fair than what the OP and I are suggesting?

    Ok, I really have no more time for that line of thinking



  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    Then you seem to assume that in an even match-up, someone is going to be much weaker, this is where you go off the rails.
    Waqui wrote: »
    Please explain what makes you believe this?

    LOL you want me to quote what is just above you in the thread really? Now you just look like a troll, you basically said it all over again in your new message.

    Your interpretation of my comments are consistently wrong. Please stop this trolling game of yours. You're wasting bandwidth.
    Waqui wrote: »
    Even match-ups will give players, who developed a weaker roster, an easier path to winning high rank rewards in GA and give players, who developed a strong roster (same GP as the weaker ones), a harder path to winning the same high rank rewards. I don't see this as fair. A believe, that mixing stronger and weaker rosters (even GP) in the groups of 8 is far more fair.
    Waqui wrote: »
    My point is: When considering 16 players with even GP, if the 8 eight players with weaker rosters are grouped together, while the 8 players with stronger rosters are grouped together, the players with weaker rosters would have a higher chance of winning

    You keep going on about "weaker rosters" in a scenario designed to make sure there are none.

    What are you on about? Of course I discuss weaker and stronger rosters. Whichever way you group those 16 (random) players (most likely) some will have stronger rosters while others will have weaker rosters. I'm sure we agree on this.

    The scenario described is : The 8 weakest rosters are grouped together while the 8 strongest rosters are grouped together in another group. You see? There are still weaker and stronger rosters.
    ONLY in the CURRENT system are there "weaker" rosters to consider, which is why it is NOT a fair system.

    What you seem to want, is exactly that, you want uneven match-ups so stronger rosters, can walk over weaker ones, so they DON"T have a chance, you don't want the weaker rosters to have more of a chance. And you think that is more fair than what the OP and I are suggesting?

    Yes, mixing players with weaker rosters with players with stronger rosters (all of even GP) is more fair than matching weak with weak and strong with strong. Why should players, who built weak rosters (for GA) have easier access to rank 1 prizes than players who built strong rosters? Do you really think that it would be fair if players with strong rosters would end up with prizes for zero wins, while players with weak rosters would end up with prizes for 3 wins? (assuming even GP, and same effort and skill). Does this line of thinking really make sense to you?

    Yes, with your (or the OP's) system, the GA matches would be more even - for some even more fun - but they would also be less fair.
  • What you seem to want, is exactly that, you want uneven match-ups so stronger rosters, can walk over weaker ones, so they DON"T have a chance, you don't want the weaker rosters to have more of a chance. And you think that is more fair than what the OP and I are suggesting?
    That is exactly what he and others who share his point of view want: easy wins.
  • @jayjonbeach

    I understand the sentiment that you wouldn't want to play if you have no chance at winning.

    There are any number of algorithms that can be proposed, but the more specific you make the algorithm (G12 number / speed / team compositions, etc.) the more likely it is the algorithm is actually picking winners. A "Black Box" algorithm takes a roster agnostic approach, which is why it's used.

    All that said, I don't particularly care what matching algorithm is used. However, if players expect an algorithm to match similar rosters and not just GP, then I really want my last place prizes in my "focused roster" bracket to exceed the first place prizes of rosters I would destroy at the same GP level.

    Otherwise how is that "fair"? How would it be fair that I get 3 omegas when someone I would easily beat with the same GP as me got 3 zetas because they were placed into a weaker bracket? The answer is obvious. It's not fair.

    So the question to you - would you be willing to get last place prize equivalents for first place in a "weaker" bracket just so you can win?
  • Waqui
    5686 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    What you seem to want, is exactly that, you want uneven match-ups so stronger rosters, can walk over weaker ones, so they DON"T have a chance, you don't want the weaker rosters to have more of a chance. And you think that is more fair than what the OP and I are suggesting?
    That is exactly what he and others who share his point of view want: easy wins.

    How ironic....
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    What you seem to want, is exactly that, you want uneven match-ups so stronger rosters, can walk over weaker ones, so they DON"T have a chance, you don't want the weaker rosters to have more of a chance. And you think that is more fair than what the OP and I are suggesting?
    That is exactly what he and others who share his point of view want: easy wins.

    How ironic....
    How so?
  • dimi4a
    1166 posts Member
    @NicWester bravo sir, very well explained and argumented! It seems odd that matchmaking counts a player's Fleet GP as part of his total GP when there are no ship battles in GA.
Sign In or Register to comment.