I will say that number of zetas should be taken into consideration. It's frustrating frequently being matched into a GA in which half the players have nearly double as many zetas as you do, and all of them have more.
Why shouldn't they benefit from having more zetas?
Read my post again, and respond to what I actually posted.
This picture shows how broken is the matchmaking.The player at position 7 has 5 less zetas and 27 less G11+G12 characters combined, than place 1 player has G12 characters alone!
If you weighed your options and choose not to upgrade because there was no real benefit, i.e. - missions would have been easier but the points would not have yielded a higher star, then there is no loss to this choice.
The problem is that when Territory Battles where released there was nothing to choose from, leveling & gearing all the toons was the winning strategy without negative side effects. Now after GA introduction many players are regretting doing that, because they have no possibility to un-level & un-gear useless toons. Those players didn't make wrong choice, there was no choice at all at that moment!
the easiest fix is (STILL) to match by # of g12/11, and # of zetas. That would be a much better approx of levels, and would still reward resource management without penalizing those who actually leveled and geared toons for tb, tw, raids etc, which happened before GA was even introduced.
So, players with strong rosters will have stronger opponents (of even GP)? This will only work, if players with strong rosters also win significantly better rewards than players with weaker rosters. Otherwise, there would be no incentive to build strong rosters.
The prize payout structure can easily be manipulated to infer better rewards to players with strong rosters: TW rewards get better the higher ur Guild GP... why not GA rewards for personal GP?
I will say that number of zetas should be taken into consideration. It's frustrating frequently being matched into a GA in which half the players have nearly double as many zetas as you do, and all of them have more.
Why shouldn't they benefit from having more zetas?
In this regard they simply built a stronger roster than you. Building you roster is part of the preparation for GA.
I will say that number of zetas should be taken into consideration. It's frustrating frequently being matched into a GA in which half the players have nearly double as many zetas as you do, and all of them have more.
Why shouldn't they benefit from having more zetas?
Read my post again, and respond to what I actually posted.
the easiest fix is (STILL) to match by # of g12/11, and # of zetas. That would be a much better approx of levels, and would still reward resource management without penalizing those who actually leveled and geared toons for tb, tw, raids etc, which happened before GA was even introduced.
So, players with strong rosters will have stronger opponents (of even GP)? This will only work, if players with strong rosters also win significantly better rewards than players with weaker rosters. Otherwise, there would be no incentive to build strong rosters.
The prize payout structure can easily be manipulated to infer better rewards to players with strong rosters: TW rewards get better the higher ur Guild GP... why not GA rewards for personal GP?
But in this case we're not discussing GP brackets. Gifafi suggested suggested to sort by amount of high gear characters and zetas.
(But yes, anything is possible)
This picture shows how broken is the matchmaking.The player at position 7 has 5 less zetas and 27 less G11+G12 characters combined, than place 1 player has G12 characters alone!
Yes, they could also have the same eye color and shoe size for example - that won't make this match fair. This shows that matching players by raw GP is broken and should be reworked.Or we should get the possibility to un-level, un-gear & un-star useless characters.
Yes, they could also have the same eye color and shoe size for example - that won't make this match fair.
GP is currently the best measure of determining over all progress and how far the roster has developed. Amount of zetas, g12 characters and what not only measure how the roster was developed - not how far/much it has been developed.
Since we all battle for the same rewards, matching by GP is fair. Matching by roster strength as well is only fair, if players with strong rosters, who are matched with other players with similar rosters only also win better rewards than players with weak rosters. Players, who build strong rosters should benefit from doing so. Otherwise the incentive to build strong rosters would be eliminated.
Matching by roster strength while keeping the same prizes for all groups would be unfair. Even, yes, but unfair.
This shows that matching players by raw GP is broken and should be reworked.Or we should get the possibility to un-level, un-gear & un-star useless characters.
You have the possibly to trim your roster. Like most other things in this game it just requires time and effort.
Players, who build strong rosters should benefit from doing so. Otherwise the incentive to build strong rosters would be eliminated.
Here we go again. Years ago I was leveling my characters without knowing that this will be a problem much later. As an old player I'm in worse situation than new players, who didn't level Jawas for mod challenges, Teebo for Rancor raid, and many other characters who were viable in arena, but now are close to useless. This is like players in StarCraft 2 would have to fight against stronger opponents just because they have more unit skins and sprays.
The full GP matching would make sense if all roster would be used in combat, so I would lose few battles of my G11 vs his G12, but would win few battles of my level 50 trash vs his level 1 trash. But currently 2/3 of roster are practically excluded from fight, but still are counted towards GP.
If you weighed your options and choose not to upgrade because there was no real benefit, i.e. - missions would have been easier but the points would not have yielded a higher star, then there is no loss to this choice.
The problem is that when Territory Battles where released there was nothing to choose from, leveling & gearing all the toons was the winning strategy without negative side effects. Now after GA introduction many players are regretting doing that, because they have no possibility to un-level & un-gear useless toons. Those players didn't make wrong choice, there was no choice at all at that moment!
Even when TB was introduced we had choices. Pushing GP up blindly to some extent was helpful, but only to a point. Each TB also has useful toons needed for special missions and character restricted nodes. Then TW came about and again, the idea that you should focus a roster on useful toons comes about.
It's not the wrong choice but just like in life if you dont practice moderation, even things that are beneficial at one time can get out of hand.
There is a difference between developing a roster and blindly pushing up GP, with no goal other than a larger number. There has only been some initial points where blind GP pushing was helpful and after that it was wasted resources. We all did it, but that doesn't mean you cant weigh your options and make choices when the benefit is lost, it's all about managing your resources.
If you weighed your options and choose not to upgrade because there was no real benefit, i.e. - missions would have been easier but the points would not have yielded a higher star, then there is no loss to this choice.
The problem is that when Territory Battles where released there was nothing to choose from, leveling & gearing all the toons was the winning strategy without negative side effects. Now after GA introduction many players are regretting doing that, because they have no possibility to un-level & un-gear useless toons. Those players didn't make wrong choice, there was no choice at all at that moment!
Even when TB was introduced we had choices. Pushing GP up blindly to some extent was helpful, but only to a point. Each TB also has useful toons needed for special missions and character restricted nodes. Then TW came about and again, the idea that you should focus a roster on useful toons comes about.
It's not the wrong choice but just like in life if you dont practice moderation, even things that are beneficial at one time can get out of hand.
There is a difference between developing a roster and blindly pushing up GP, with no goal other than a larger number. There has only been some initial points where blind GP pushing was helpful and after that it was wasted resources. We all did it, but that doesn't mean you cant weigh your options and make choices when the benefit is lost, it's all about managing your resources.
A major difference in TW and GA is that TW consists of a full guild (up to 50 people). If one guy in your guild is so fluffy that it becomes problematic, you can remove that person from the guild. You don’t have that same removal option in GA. All you can do is suffer a disadvantage for months and eventually make your roster less fluffy (or not activate/star up new characters).
I would agree that blindly pushing up GP is problematic in many areas, but if everyone did it then it would be a non-issue. The problem is that not everyone did it, so now those people have an advantage that will always persist.
Players, who build strong rosters should benefit from doing so. Otherwise the incentive to build strong rosters would be eliminated.
Here we go again. Years ago I was leveling my characters without knowing that this will be a problem much later. As an old player I'm in worse situation than new players, who didn't level Jawas for mod challenges, Teebo for Rancor raid, and many other characters who were viable in arena, but now are close to useless. This is like players in StarCraft 2 would have to fight against stronger opponents just because they have more unit skins and sprays.
The full GP matching would make sense if all roster would be used in combat, so I would lose few battles of my G11 vs his G12, but would win few battles of my level 50 trash vs his level 1 trash. But currently 2/3 of roster are practically excluded from fight, but still are counted towards GP.
I would love the idea of many more defensive teams in GA. Almost all of my matches involve full clears for both sides. In my case, I typically have many toons (a lot of g12s) left over after I’ve cleared the board.
It is a little messed up that our current system uses our full rosters to determine who has the best top end rosters.
Players, who build strong rosters should benefit from doing so. Otherwise the incentive to build strong rosters would be eliminated.
Here we go again. Years ago I was leveling my characters without knowing that this will be a problem much later. As an old player I'm in worse situation than new players, who didn't level Jawas for mod challenges, Teebo for Rancor raid, and many other characters who were viable in arena, but now are close to useless.
I leveled those too. They helped me earn more gear, mods and other rewards to further develop my roster. I don't regret it.
If you are matched against players, who didn't play for as long as you did and didn't need Teebo, jawa etc. then they seem to somehow have developed their roster faster than you and caught up to you (since you have even GP). Either they were fast or you slowed down. Let them benefit. It's fine with me.
The full GP matching would make sense if all roster would be used in combat, so I would lose few battles of my G11 vs his G12, but would win few battles of my level 50 trash vs his level 1 trash. But currently 2/3 of roster are practically excluded from fight, but still are counted towards GP.
You can use any character you want. One of my strategies in certain scenarios is to set a weak character defense, to have all strong and mediocre characters available for offense. Excluding the weak characters' GP wouldn't make sense to me.
You can use any character you want. One of my strategies in certain scenarios is to set a weak character defense, to have all strong and mediocre characters available for offense. Excluding the weak characters' GP wouldn't make sense to me.
The comment you’re responding to was about increasing the number of defensive spots to allow the use of more units on the roster. It wasn’t about excluding weak characters’ GP.
I think @Kanzi comment makes sense. If your whole roster is going into the algorithm for matching people then the whole roster should be made available for practical use. I’ve yet to encounter a situation where I needed to use my level 1 toons on defense because I knew I would run out of geared toons on offense.
If your lean roster prevents using full g12 teams on both offense and defensive then broaden the roster or mix g12s with weak guys. Some toons, like CLS, when maxed are capable of soloing an entire team.
Many TWs, I’ve used my entire available roster to beat or whittle down opponents. For GAs, I’ve yet to dip into my g8 toons. I sometimes have g12 guys that never get used.
we should be able to dis-activate units, and downgrade units ; removing their gear, removing their level, removing their stars. like you can already do with mods.
This GA I’ve been up against people at a slighter higher GP (2 million) but they have 2 zetas on when I have much more than that. It’s not matchmaking. It’s poor decision making and choosing to gear up toons for the sake of it, not matchmaking. Even back when TB was the sole thing and a higher GP meant possibly helping your guild get better rewards, I fail to see how spending credits to level up crap toons would’ve worked out in the long run.
I will say that number of zetas should be taken into consideration. It's frustrating frequently being matched into a GA in which half the players have nearly double as many zetas as you do, and all of them have more.
Why shouldn't they benefit from having more zetas?
In this regard they simply built a stronger roster than you. Building you roster is part of the preparation for GA.
So a team with 50 gold-medal Olympic athletes is evenly matched with a team that has 20, as long as the overall rosters are the same size? O.o
I will say that number of zetas should be taken into consideration. It's frustrating frequently being matched into a GA in which half the players have nearly double as many zetas as you do, and all of them have more.
Why shouldn't they benefit from having more zetas?
In this regard they simply built a stronger roster than you. Building you roster is part of the preparation for GA.
So a team with 50 gold-medal Olympic athletes is evenly matched with a team that has 20, as long as the overall rosters are the same size? O.o
More like 50 Olympians vs 200 amateurs. Must be fair because they cost the same, right?!
I will say that number of zetas should be taken into consideration. It's frustrating frequently being matched into a GA in which half the players have nearly double as many zetas as you do, and all of them have more.
Why shouldn't they benefit from having more zetas?
In this regard they simply built a stronger roster than you. Building you roster is part of the preparation for GA.
So a team with 50 gold-medal Olympic athletes is evenly matched with a team that has 20, as long as the overall rosters are the same size? O.o
No, that's Obviously not an even match. What's your point?
However, in a tournament the team with 50 could have a match with team with only 20. Why would that be unfair?
In the FIFA WC initial group play, the teams are seeded. Every group cpntaibs one team from each seeding levels/layers. Seems fair to me.
You can use any character you want. One of my strategies in certain scenarios is to set a weak character defense, to have all strong and mediocre characters available for offense. Excluding the weak characters' GP wouldn't make sense to me.
The comment you’re responding to was about increasing the number of defensive spots to allow the use of more units on the roster.
Not the comment I quoted, which was the one I responded to. Do you have a point with your (false) statement?
You can use any character you want. One of my strategies in certain scenarios is to set a weak character defense, to have all strong and mediocre characters available for offense. Excluding the weak characters' GP wouldn't make sense to me.
I think @Kanzi comment makes sense. If your whole roster is going into the algorithm for matching people then the whole roster should be made available for practical use.
It already is.
I’ve yet to encounter a situation where I needed to use my level 1 toons on defense because I knew I would run out of geared toons on offense.
From our previous/past discussions you know, that I found a use for those low level toons when applying a certain strategy in a particular scenario.
@Kyno is it really your contention that encouraging people to not activating characters is healthy and within the spirit of the game? Additionally why should I be at a permanent disadvantage for choices made well before the actual game mode? Last I checked, a specific reason given by CG for changing paper zombie was that players shouldn't be encourage to NOT build toons. Additionally they specifically said that players do NOT have the option to UNgear.
I just want CG to be consistent.
This complaining is getting dull, I have every character In the game (except Darth revan) , nearly all of them are at least purple gear bar maybe 10 or so, I'm F2P, have gone up Agaisnt more powerful rosters and have only lost GA a grand total of 2 TIMES.
In the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln -" GET GUD"
You can use any character you want. One of my strategies in certain scenarios is to set a weak character defense, to have all strong and mediocre characters available for offense. Excluding the weak characters' GP wouldn't make sense to me.
The comment you’re responding to was about increasing the number of defensive spots to allow the use of more units on the roster.
Not the comment I quoted, which was the one I responded to. Do you have a point with your (false) statement?
Did you actually read the comment? Or is this your game of only addressing a piece of someone’s comment while ignore major points to make it look like you’ve beaten their entire argument?
You can use any character you want. One of my strategies in certain scenarios is to set a weak character defense, to have all strong and mediocre characters available for offense. Excluding the weak characters' GP wouldn't make sense to me.
I think @Kanzi comment makes sense. If your whole roster is going into the algorithm for matching people then the whole roster should be made available for practical use.
It already is.
I’ve yet to encounter a situation where I needed to use my level 1 toons on defense because I knew I would run out of geared toons on offense.
From our previous/past discussions you know, that I found a use for those low level toons when applying a certain strategy in a particial scenario.
You’re actually using level 1 toons? Are you using them in place of geared toons? Are you running out of geared toons on offense?
Kyno is it really your contention that encouraging people to not activating characters is healthy and within the spirit of the game? Additionally why should I be at a permanent disadvantage for choices made well before the actual game mode? Last I checked, a specific reason given by CG for changing paper zombie was that players shouldn't be encourage to NOT build toons. Additionally they specifically said that players do NOT have the option to UNgear.
I just want CG to be consistent.
not at all. if a player chooses to activate and unlock a character a player is not going to use, that is their choice, but is in no way a permanent disadvantage. there are only 70 or so toons that really make up a solid TW/GA strategy. those extra toons serve no purpose but dont hurt you if you are in a good standing there.
if a player is not in a good standing for their TW/GA strategy, then why waste the resources if they want to be more competitive in GA/TW. as always, they should have laser focus on whats important to them.
if a player started putting resources into their roster like many of us did when TB launched, nothing forced us to go beyond the point of reason. wasting resources is never a good idea, and there were more than enough toons that were needed and are useful to keep most players focused and involved.
not gearing toons doesn't make winning any easier. if a player doesnt have key toons developed thats on the player and is a better use of resources than pure GP, but we all make the choices we do for the reasons we choose. There is no need to go back, just focus on the future, less than half of a roster is needed in good standing to make a good strategy.
all i am proposing is developing with intent vs pure GP if a player feels they are not in the place they want to be.
Let’s see if I can copy and paste this correctly from Ultra’s post on the General page:
QUESTION: Minowara] Hello!! Can you provide any clarity on why a more complex TW pairing method is superior to simply matching closely on GP of participating members? Shouldn't GP capture additional factors like # of G12, rosters, etc...?
Spoiler
[CVG] GP while intended to reflect the overall power of characters doesn't always capture the nuance of good synergies and so while it can be a benchmark for overall power - it is actually not sufficient for something as intricate as matchmaking. Nightsisters are good example of where the GP doesn't reflect the power of the squad.
Replies
Read my post again, and respond to what I actually posted.
This picture shows how broken is the matchmaking.The player at position 7 has 5 less zetas and 27 less G11+G12 characters combined, than place 1 player has G12 characters alone!
The problem is that when Territory Battles where released there was nothing to choose from, leveling & gearing all the toons was the winning strategy without negative side effects. Now after GA introduction many players are regretting doing that, because they have no possibility to un-level & un-gear useless toons. Those players didn't make wrong choice, there was no choice at all at that moment!
The prize payout structure can easily be manipulated to infer better rewards to players with strong rosters: TW rewards get better the higher ur Guild GP... why not GA rewards for personal GP?
Why shouldn't they benefit from having more zetas?
In this regard they simply built a stronger roster than you. Building you roster is part of the preparation for GA.
Check the quote. Those are your own words.
But in this case we're not discussing GP brackets. Gifafi suggested suggested to sort by amount of high gear characters and zetas.
(But yes, anything is possible)
But they have an even (character) GP.
GP is currently the best measure of determining over all progress and how far the roster has developed. Amount of zetas, g12 characters and what not only measure how the roster was developed - not how far/much it has been developed.
Since we all battle for the same rewards, matching by GP is fair. Matching by roster strength as well is only fair, if players with strong rosters, who are matched with other players with similar rosters only also win better rewards than players with weak rosters. Players, who build strong rosters should benefit from doing so. Otherwise the incentive to build strong rosters would be eliminated.
Matching by roster strength while keeping the same prizes for all groups would be unfair. Even, yes, but unfair.
You have the possibly to trim your roster. Like most other things in this game it just requires time and effort.
The full GP matching would make sense if all roster would be used in combat, so I would lose few battles of my G11 vs his G12, but would win few battles of my level 50 trash vs his level 1 trash. But currently 2/3 of roster are practically excluded from fight, but still are counted towards GP.
Even when TB was introduced we had choices. Pushing GP up blindly to some extent was helpful, but only to a point. Each TB also has useful toons needed for special missions and character restricted nodes. Then TW came about and again, the idea that you should focus a roster on useful toons comes about.
It's not the wrong choice but just like in life if you dont practice moderation, even things that are beneficial at one time can get out of hand.
There is a difference between developing a roster and blindly pushing up GP, with no goal other than a larger number. There has only been some initial points where blind GP pushing was helpful and after that it was wasted resources. We all did it, but that doesn't mean you cant weigh your options and make choices when the benefit is lost, it's all about managing your resources.
A major difference in TW and GA is that TW consists of a full guild (up to 50 people). If one guy in your guild is so fluffy that it becomes problematic, you can remove that person from the guild. You don’t have that same removal option in GA. All you can do is suffer a disadvantage for months and eventually make your roster less fluffy (or not activate/star up new characters).
I would agree that blindly pushing up GP is problematic in many areas, but if everyone did it then it would be a non-issue. The problem is that not everyone did it, so now those people have an advantage that will always persist.
I would love the idea of many more defensive teams in GA. Almost all of my matches involve full clears for both sides. In my case, I typically have many toons (a lot of g12s) left over after I’ve cleared the board.
It is a little messed up that our current system uses our full rosters to determine who has the best top end rosters.
I leveled those too. They helped me earn more gear, mods and other rewards to further develop my roster. I don't regret it.
If you are matched against players, who didn't play for as long as you did and didn't need Teebo, jawa etc. then they seem to somehow have developed their roster faster than you and caught up to you (since you have even GP). Either they were fast or you slowed down. Let them benefit. It's fine with me.
You can use any character you want. One of my strategies in certain scenarios is to set a weak character defense, to have all strong and mediocre characters available for offense. Excluding the weak characters' GP wouldn't make sense to me.
The comment you’re responding to was about increasing the number of defensive spots to allow the use of more units on the roster. It wasn’t about excluding weak characters’ GP.
I think @Kanzi comment makes sense. If your whole roster is going into the algorithm for matching people then the whole roster should be made available for practical use. I’ve yet to encounter a situation where I needed to use my level 1 toons on defense because I knew I would run out of geared toons on offense.
If your lean roster prevents using full g12 teams on both offense and defensive then broaden the roster or mix g12s with weak guys. Some toons, like CLS, when maxed are capable of soloing an entire team.
Many TWs, I’ve used my entire available roster to beat or whittle down opponents. For GAs, I’ve yet to dip into my g8 toons. I sometimes have g12 guys that never get used.
So a team with 50 gold-medal Olympic athletes is evenly matched with a team that has 20, as long as the overall rosters are the same size? O.o
No, that's Obviously not an even match. What's your point?
However, in a tournament the team with 50 could have a match with team with only 20. Why would that be unfair?
In the FIFA WC initial group play, the teams are seeded. Every group cpntaibs one team from each seeding levels/layers. Seems fair to me.
Not the comment I quoted, which was the one I responded to. Do you have a point with your (false) statement?
It already is.
From our previous/past discussions you know, that I found a use for those low level toons when applying a certain strategy in a particular scenario.
I just want CG to be consistent.
In the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln -" GET GUD"
Did you actually read the comment? Or is this your game of only addressing a piece of someone’s comment while ignore major points to make it look like you’ve beaten their entire argument?
You’re actually using level 1 toons? Are you using them in place of geared toons? Are you running out of geared toons on offense?
not at all. if a player chooses to activate and unlock a character a player is not going to use, that is their choice, but is in no way a permanent disadvantage. there are only 70 or so toons that really make up a solid TW/GA strategy. those extra toons serve no purpose but dont hurt you if you are in a good standing there.
if a player is not in a good standing for their TW/GA strategy, then why waste the resources if they want to be more competitive in GA/TW. as always, they should have laser focus on whats important to them.
if a player started putting resources into their roster like many of us did when TB launched, nothing forced us to go beyond the point of reason. wasting resources is never a good idea, and there were more than enough toons that were needed and are useful to keep most players focused and involved.
not gearing toons doesn't make winning any easier. if a player doesnt have key toons developed thats on the player and is a better use of resources than pure GP, but we all make the choices we do for the reasons we choose. There is no need to go back, just focus on the future, less than half of a roster is needed in good standing to make a good strategy.
all i am proposing is developing with intent vs pure GP if a player feels they are not in the place they want to be.
QUESTION: Minowara] Hello!! Can you provide any clarity on why a more complex TW pairing method is superior to simply matching closely on GP of participating members? Shouldn't GP capture additional factors like # of G12, rosters, etc...?
Spoiler
[CVG] GP while intended to reflect the overall power of characters doesn't always capture the nuance of good synergies and so while it can be a benchmark for overall power - it is actually not sufficient for something as intricate as matchmaking. Nightsisters are good example of where the GP doesn't reflect the power of the squad.
Zerg rush!!