Ever since TW was introduced, there was a reason not to inflate your GP. Inflating GP has the same effect on matchmaking in TW as it does in GA.
TW excludes toons below an arbitrarily-defined minimum usable level of 6k GP. GA does not. So newbie detritus and powerups in progress do not impact matchmaking in TW but they do in GA.
When inflating your GP, you will easily reach that 6k threshold. F.ex. a g7, lvl 53 / 7* magmatrooper is over 7k. A g6, lvl 59 / 7* RP is 6.9k.
When carefully managing your roster development, you will easily be able to keep toons below that threshold until you are ready to push them through it. I did this as a matter of routine before GA came along. First pro tip: don't *-up the toon until you are ready.
With that being said, i've not seen many suggestions that make matches more "fair", but also account for roster choices. I feel that way based on the assumption that players who've build focussed, lean and meta heavy rosters are better players in general.
How about this: apply a TW-style GP threshold to GA. Characters / ships below the threshold are not counted for matchmaking and are not available in the GA.
Potential refinements:
* scale the threshold by total roster GP or allow players to set their own threshold (say in 500 pt increments)
* have separate thresholds for characters vs ships
This removes the unusable portion of the roster, leaving the toons & ships the player has chosen to power up to a level that is currently viable for them.
I'm fine with a TW style GP threshold. Separate thresholds for characters and ships is also definately necessary if implemented.
However, i'm not in favour of letting players select their own threshold, i could see that having the opposite effect of what you want to accomplish (more fair matchmaking).
The 6k (i believe) that is used for TW isn't going to make that much of a difference though, atleast i think it won't. Perhaps different GP brackets should have different thresholds. All <13k toons are useless for me, but i assume they're still quite usefull for players in the lower brackets.
With that being said, i've not seen many suggestions that make matches more "fair", but also account for roster choices. I feel that way based on the assumption that players who've build focussed, lean and meta heavy rosters are better players in general.
How about this: apply a TW-style GP threshold to GA. Characters / ships below the threshold are not counted for matchmaking and are not available in the GA.
Potential refinements:
* scale the threshold by total roster GP or allow players to set their own threshold (say in 500 pt increments)
* have separate thresholds for characters vs ships
This removes the unusable portion of the roster, leaving the toons & ships the player has chosen to power up to a level that is currently viable for them.
I'm fine with a TW style GP threshold. Separate thresholds for characters and ships is also definately necessary if implemented.
However, i'm not in favour of letting players select their own threshold, i could see that having the opposite effect of what you want to accomplish (more fair matchmaking).
The 6k (i believe) that is used for TW isn't going to make that much of a difference though, atleast i think it won't. Perhaps different GP brackets should have different thresholds. All <13k toons are useless for me, but i assume they're still quite usefull for players in the lower brackets.
To tack on to the threshold suggestion, I’ve suggested an adjusted GP to minimize the disparity between ships and toons, and adjusting the GP calculator so that g12 toons are more accurately compared to g7/8.
Edit: adjusted GP = 0.75*(toon GP) + 0.25 (ship GP)
The adjustment is because ship Points earned only accounts for about 25% of total points.
Ever since TW was introduced, there was a reason not to inflate your GP. Inflating GP has the same effect on matchmaking in TW as it does in GA.
TW excludes toons below an arbitrarily-defined minimum usable level of 6k GP. GA does not. So newbie detritus and powerups in progress do not impact matchmaking in TW but they do in GA.
When inflating your GP, you will easily reach that 6k threshold. F.ex. a g7, lvl 53 / 7* magmatrooper is over 7k. A g6, lvl 59 / 7* RP is 6.9k.
When carefully managing your roster development, you will easily be able to keep toons below that threshold until you are ready to push them through it.
That's hardly inflating your GP. But apart from that, you're right.
Promoting the character is often required in TB, but a g1 / lvl 1 character will do fine.
With that being said, i've not seen many suggestions that make matches more "fair", but also account for roster choices. I feel that way based on the assumption that players who've build focussed, lean and meta heavy rosters are better players in general.
How about this: apply a TW-style GP threshold to GA. Characters / ships below the threshold are not counted for matchmaking and are not available in the GA.
Potential refinements:
* scale the threshold by total roster GP or allow players to set their own threshold (say in 500 pt increments)
* have separate thresholds for characters vs ships
This removes the unusable portion of the roster, leaving the toons & ships the player has chosen to power up to a level that is currently viable for them.
I'm fine with a TW style GP threshold. Separate thresholds for characters and ships is also definately necessary if implemented.
However, i'm not in favour of letting players select their own threshold, i could see that having the opposite effect of what you want to accomplish (more fair matchmaking).
The 6k (i believe) that is used for TW isn't going to make that much of a difference though, atleast i think it won't. Perhaps different GP brackets should have different thresholds. All <13k toons are useless for me, but i assume they're still quite usefull for players in the lower brackets.
To tack on to the threshold suggestion, I’ve suggested an adjusted GP to minimize the disparity between ships and toons, and adjusting the GP calculator so that g12 toons are more accurately compared to g7/8.
Edit: adjusted GP = 0.75*(toon GP) + 0.25 (ship GP)
The adjustment is because ship Points earned only accounts for about 25% of total points.
i'm fine with that aswell. Moreso because 1 ship can have the same amount of GP as great 3v3 team and also because fleet usually doesn't cause you to win or lose the round.
With that being said, i've not seen many suggestions that make matches more "fair", but also account for roster choices. I feel that way based on the assumption that players who've build focussed, lean and meta heavy rosters are better players in general.
How about this: apply a TW-style GP threshold to GA. Characters / ships below the threshold are not counted for matchmaking and are not available in the GA.
Potential refinements:
* scale the threshold by total roster GP or allow players to set their own threshold (say in 500 pt increments)
* have separate thresholds for characters vs ships
This removes the unusable portion of the roster, leaving the toons & ships the player has chosen to power up to a level that is currently viable for them.
I'm fine with a TW style GP threshold. Separate thresholds for characters and ships is also definately necessary if implemented.
However, i'm not in favour of letting players select their own threshold, i could see that having the opposite effect of what you want to accomplish (more fair matchmaking).
The 6k (i believe) that is used for TW isn't going to make that much of a difference though, atleast i think it won't. Perhaps different GP brackets should have different thresholds. All <13k toons are useless for me, but i assume they're still quite usefull for players in the lower brackets.
To tack on to the threshold suggestion, I’ve suggested an adjusted GP to minimize the disparity between ships and toons, and adjusting the GP calculator so that g12 toons are more accurately compared to g7/8.
Edit: adjusted GP = 0.75*(toon GP) + 0.25 (ship GP)
The adjustment is because ship Points earned only accounts for about 25% of total points.
i'm fine with that aswell. Moreso because 1 ship can have the same amount of GP as great 3v3 team and also because fleet usually doesn't cause you to win or lose the round.
Since both sides agree, when can we expect this to be rolled out
My GA participants this tournament, broken down by # of Zetas/# of Gear12:
52/52
49/46
49/26
47/54
44/42
43/30
28/18 <== me
27/23
If all of the numbers above me were subtracted by 10, then all 8 participants would have about an equal shot at placing high. As it is, me and mr./ms. 27z pretty much will be on the outside looking in fighting for 7th. If this wacky matchmaking logic is "fair," I have a beach house on Hoth for sale.
My GA participants this tournament, broken down by # of Zetas/# of Gear12:
52/52
49/46
49/26
47/54
44/42
43/30
28/18 <== me
27/23
If all of the numbers above me were subtracted by 10, then all 8 participants would have about an equal shot at placing high. As it is, me and mr./ms. 27z pretty much will be on the outside looking in fighting for 7th. If this wacky matchmaking logic is "fair," I have a beach house on Hoth for sale.
Since we all battle for the same prizes it's fair. No, it's not even - it's fair. Even and fair are two different things.
My GA participants this tournament, broken down by # of Zetas/# of Gear12:
52/52
49/46
49/26
47/54
44/42
43/30
28/18 <== me
27/23
If all of the numbers above me were subtracted by 10, then all 8 participants would have about an equal shot at placing high. As it is, me and mr./ms. 27z pretty much will be on the outside looking in fighting for 7th. If this wacky matchmaking logic is "fair," I have a beach house on Hoth for sale.
My GA participants this tournament, broken down by # of Zetas/# of Gear12:
52/52
49/46
49/26
47/54
44/42
43/30
28/18 <== me
27/23
If all of the numbers above me were subtracted by 10, then all 8 participants would have about an equal shot at placing high. As it is, me and mr./ms. 27z pretty much will be on the outside looking in fighting for 7th. If this wacky matchmaking logic is "fair," I have a beach house on Hoth for sale.
For 2.3 million character GP, that seems like a lot of fluff and not a lot of g12s or zetas.
Sure, the matchmaker has issues but you really aren't doing yourself any favors there.
I think you're misremembering being at that GP range? I've placed 1 nearly every day in ship and squad arena for a year now and I only have 31 zetas and 27 G12 at 2.4mil GP. The roster you linked is not that bloated.
My GA participants this tournament, broken down by # of Zetas/# of Gear12:
52/52
49/46
49/26
47/54
44/42
43/30
28/18 <== me
27/23
If all of the numbers above me were subtracted by 10, then all 8 participants would have about an equal shot at placing high. As it is, me and mr./ms. 27z pretty much will be on the outside looking in fighting for 7th. If this wacky matchmaking logic is "fair," I have a beach house on Hoth for sale.
For 2.3 million character GP, that seems like a lot of fluff and not a lot of g12s or zetas.
Sure, the matchmaker has issues but you really aren't doing yourself any favors there.
I think you're misremembering being at that GP range? I've placed 1 nearly every day in ship and squad arena for a year now and I only have 31 zetas and 27 G12 at 2.4mil GP. The roster you linked is not that bloated.
But still, it's obviously not unusual to have significantly more g12 characters and zetas at that level of GP.
My GA participants this tournament, broken down by # of Zetas/# of Gear12:
52/52
49/46
49/26
47/54
44/42
43/30
28/18 <== me
27/23
If all of the numbers above me were subtracted by 10, then all 8 participants would have about an equal shot at placing high. As it is, me and mr./ms. 27z pretty much will be on the outside looking in fighting for 7th. If this wacky matchmaking logic is "fair," I have a beach house on Hoth for sale.
For 2.3 million character GP, that seems like a lot of fluff and not a lot of g12s or zetas.
Sure, the matchmaker has issues but you really aren't doing yourself any favors there.
I think you're misremembering being at that GP range? I've placed 1 nearly every day in ship and squad arena for a year now and I only have 31 zetas and 27 G12 at 2.4mil GP. The roster you linked is not that bloated.
But still, it's obviously not unusual to have significantly more g12 characters and zetas at that level of GP.
Yeah sorry I didn't notice that it was 2.4mil *character* GP, I thought it was a 2.4mil *total* GP roster.
Worst game mode ever created.... nothing is balanced...... but hey, great job on creating a game mode where pay to play players have a place to exploit the game.........
For 2.3 million character GP, that seems like a lot of fluff and not a lot of g12s or zetas.
Sure, the matchmaker has issues but you really aren't doing yourself any favors there.
That's me.
I guess in those terms, "fluff" should be matched with fluff and "sandbaggers" should be matched with sandbaggers.
So, players with fluffy/weaker rosters should have easier opponents and easier access to the exact same rewards as players with lean/stronger rosters? Where would the incentive to build strong rosters be then?
Since we all battle for the same prizes it's fair. No, it's not even - it's fair. Even and fair are two different things.
Why bother any GP matchmaking then? Just throw everybody into one basket, this will be fun, I guarantee it! (not)
GP is a measure of how developed our rosters are. It seems fair to match players with rosters of similar level of development.
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.
Since we all battle for the same prizes it's fair. No, it's not even - it's fair. Even and fair are two different things.
Why bother any GP matchmaking then? Just throw everybody into one basket, this will be fun, I guarantee it! (not)
GP is a measure of how developed our rosters are. It seems fair to match players with rosters of similar level of development.
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.
It's still the best measure we have. Counting amount of g12 characters, zetas and what not is just a measures of how players chose to develop their rosters - not how far they are in their development.
So, players with fluffy/weaker rosters should have easier opponents and easier access to the exact same rewards as players with lean/stronger rosters?
More like: Players who are similar should be matched with players who are similar. That way within each set of 8, everyone has a fair chance to do well. Plus there would be more overall participation, as it would decrease the frequency of mismatched people not bothering to participate since the mismatch gives them no incentive to participate.
Where would the incentive to build strong rosters be then?
If the complaint stems from the perception that then "weak" people would have access to "strong"-people rewards, that's an issue with the reward system, which is a separate (and valid) issue. I would be okay with a group of 8 "fluffier" people competing for fluffier rewards, and a group of 8 "leaner" people competing for strong-people rewards. As long as like is matched with like.
GP is a measure of how developed our rosters are. It seems fair to match players with rosters of similar level of development.
GP is a bad measure of actual player power.
GP states that this Ima-Gun Di (under-leveled, under-geared without a single mod equipped) is more than half power of this close-to-max General Kenobi (10k vs 18.6k). In reality such undergeared characters are worth almost nothing in TB or GA, but do add ridiculously many points to total player GP.
I have nothing against GP matchmaking itself, I'm against really bad GP calculations we have currently.
If GP calculation gets improved to represent real character power better, then the problem of level 60 trash characters will disappear.
So, players with fluffy/weaker rosters should have easier opponents and easier access to the exact same rewards as players with lean/stronger rosters?
More like: Players who are similar should be matched with players who are similar. That way within each set of 8, everyone has a fair chance to do well.
This way players who developed a weak roster, would get easier opponents and easier access to winning the exact same rewards as players who developed strong rosters. Hence the incentive to build strong rosters is gone in GA.
In arenas you are matched with players who performed at you own level (more or less same rank). This is fair since players, who perform better also win better rewards. What you are suggesting would be like letting the player ranking 9th, 81st and 801st win the exact same prizes as the player ranked 1st in arena. I'm sure you would see a lot more activity at lower ranks as well this way, but that rewards system would obviously be flawed - as is your suggestion.
To make your suggestion fair there would need to be a significant difference in rewards. A player with 0/3 wins matched with players with strong rosters only should win better rewards than a player with 3/3 wins matched with players with weak rosters only.
Here are some unique ideas that have never ever been suggested: increase the rewards per tier. Add a global ladder system. Have a gp minimum same as TW.
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.
SO glad that this thread actually picked up steam. I'm not the only one suffering. So the idea of wasting resources is a sham. Been an active player for a long time, All unlocked Toons activated and level 85, yes most low gear level but activated and 85. Now i am still sitting on 28 million credits i have absolutely no use for, and 15 million fleet credits, you guessed it no use for those either. Every refresh I am looking in the mod store, the one and only place to spend these worthless credits and buying mods when ever they are worth while, but alas you can only have so many mods. So of the decent mods that may one day be of use i need to store them on these Toons i will never use. Sell off the ones i never will use but in the process of hiding/storing mods I have again raised my GP meaning next go around I will again get schooled by an over powered smaller roster which in turn gives them 3 more zeta mats. So while it is true to say don't WASTE RESOURCES it is to late for some of us. While I grind away for the 10,000,000 stun guns I need to gear up my toons I will just keep giving away zeta mats. All I ask is for a fix that does not break the game even more.
Replies
I'm fine with a TW style GP threshold. Separate thresholds for characters and ships is also definately necessary if implemented.
However, i'm not in favour of letting players select their own threshold, i could see that having the opposite effect of what you want to accomplish (more fair matchmaking).
The 6k (i believe) that is used for TW isn't going to make that much of a difference though, atleast i think it won't. Perhaps different GP brackets should have different thresholds. All <13k toons are useless for me, but i assume they're still quite usefull for players in the lower brackets.
To tack on to the threshold suggestion, I’ve suggested an adjusted GP to minimize the disparity between ships and toons, and adjusting the GP calculator so that g12 toons are more accurately compared to g7/8.
Edit: adjusted GP = 0.75*(toon GP) + 0.25 (ship GP)
The adjustment is because ship Points earned only accounts for about 25% of total points.
That's hardly inflating your GP. But apart from that, you're right.
Promoting the character is often required in TB, but a g1 / lvl 1 character will do fine.
i'm fine with that aswell. Moreso because 1 ship can have the same amount of GP as great 3v3 team and also because fleet usually doesn't cause you to win or lose the round.
Since both sides agree, when can we expect this to be rolled out
If all of the numbers above me were subtracted by 10, then all 8 participants would have about an equal shot at placing high. As it is, me and mr./ms. 27z pretty much will be on the outside looking in fighting for 7th. If this wacky matchmaking logic is "fair," I have a beach house on Hoth for sale.
Since we all battle for the same prizes it's fair. No, it's not even - it's fair. Even and fair are two different things.
https://swgoh.gg/p/931892171/characters/
For 2.3 million character GP, that seems like a lot of fluff and not a lot of g12s or zetas.
Sure, the matchmaker has issues but you really aren't doing yourself any favors there.
I think you're misremembering being at that GP range? I've placed 1 nearly every day in ship and squad arena for a year now and I only have 31 zetas and 27 G12 at 2.4mil GP. The roster you linked is not that bloated.
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
But still, it's obviously not unusual to have significantly more g12 characters and zetas at that level of GP.
Yeah sorry I didn't notice that it was 2.4mil *character* GP, I thought it was a 2.4mil *total* GP roster.
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
That's me.
I guess in those terms, "fluff" should be matched with fluff and "sandbaggers" should be matched with sandbaggers.
So, players with fluffy/weaker rosters should have easier opponents and easier access to the exact same rewards as players with lean/stronger rosters? Where would the incentive to build strong rosters be then?
GP is a measure of how developed our rosters are. It seems fair to match players with rosters of similar level of development.
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.
It's still the best measure we have. Counting amount of g12 characters, zetas and what not is just a measures of how players chose to develop their rosters - not how far they are in their development.
Which would lead to 2 players who have made similar investments, and thier choices being represented in the power and usefulness of thier roster.
More like: Players who are similar should be matched with players who are similar. That way within each set of 8, everyone has a fair chance to do well. Plus there would be more overall participation, as it would decrease the frequency of mismatched people not bothering to participate since the mismatch gives them no incentive to participate.
If the complaint stems from the perception that then "weak" people would have access to "strong"-people rewards, that's an issue with the reward system, which is a separate (and valid) issue. I would be okay with a group of 8 "fluffier" people competing for fluffier rewards, and a group of 8 "leaner" people competing for strong-people rewards. As long as like is matched with like.
I've only been playing for like 15 months. I'm guessing that many of the super-elites have been playing since the beginning.
GP is a bad measure of actual player power.
GP states that this Ima-Gun Di (under-leveled, under-geared without a single mod equipped) is more than half power of this close-to-max General Kenobi (10k vs 18.6k). In reality such undergeared characters are worth almost nothing in TB or GA, but do add ridiculously many points to total player GP.
I have nothing against GP matchmaking itself, I'm against really bad GP calculations we have currently.
If GP calculation gets improved to represent real character power better, then the problem of level 60 trash characters will disappear.
This way players who developed a weak roster, would get easier opponents and easier access to winning the exact same rewards as players who developed strong rosters. Hence the incentive to build strong rosters is gone in GA.
In arenas you are matched with players who performed at you own level (more or less same rank). This is fair since players, who perform better also win better rewards. What you are suggesting would be like letting the player ranking 9th, 81st and 801st win the exact same prizes as the player ranked 1st in arena. I'm sure you would see a lot more activity at lower ranks as well this way, but that rewards system would obviously be flawed - as is your suggestion.
To make your suggestion fair there would need to be a significant difference in rewards. A player with 0/3 wins matched with players with strong rosters only should win better rewards than a player with 3/3 wins matched with players with weak rosters only.
I never claimed that it was a measure of player power.
I never claimed that it was a good measure.
SO glad that this thread actually picked up steam. I'm not the only one suffering. So the idea of wasting resources is a sham. Been an active player for a long time, All unlocked Toons activated and level 85, yes most low gear level but activated and 85. Now i am still sitting on 28 million credits i have absolutely no use for, and 15 million fleet credits, you guessed it no use for those either. Every refresh I am looking in the mod store, the one and only place to spend these worthless credits and buying mods when ever they are worth while, but alas you can only have so many mods. So of the decent mods that may one day be of use i need to store them on these Toons i will never use. Sell off the ones i never will use but in the process of hiding/storing mods I have again raised my GP meaning next go around I will again get schooled by an over powered smaller roster which in turn gives them 3 more zeta mats. So while it is true to say don't WASTE RESOURCES it is to late for some of us. While I grind away for the 10,000,000 stun guns I need to gear up my toons I will just keep giving away zeta mats. All I ask is for a fix that does not break the game even more.