GA Matchmaking Idea

Dnoff423

So I have an idea that might make US matchmaking a bit better, which I think wouldn't need too much additional coding but I don't know I'm not coding person.

What if as part of matchmaking the algorithm took into account a person's overall GA win/loss record. This could potentially match people with players closer to their ability level and could get rid of the mismatches we are seeing, especially with Darth revan in play now. If people are playing people closer to their ability level more people might actually like GA more.

I think that could potentially solve some of the issues but again I know nothing about coding.

If this has been taken into account already, which I don't think it has, I apologize I must have missed it.

C_Augustus1

Numerous players have suggested this and there has been no acknowledgement from CG

Dnoff423

C_Augustus1 wrote: »

Numerous players have suggested this and there has been no acknowledgement from CG

Ahh. Figured someone had suggested it before. Just thought i would refresh it just in case.

Psycosaltine

Then you'll have people losing to get easy matches

Dnoff423

Psycosaltine wrote: »

Then you'll have people losing to get easy matches

Yes that would be an issue but I think the benefit of getting rid of more of the mismatches would outweigh it.

BodhiOm

It could work similar to chess rating system, where your rating is based on your win-loss record and the ratings of your opponents. I'm not sure exactly the formula that's used but basically everyone starts with a 1500 rating and your rating goes up by a certain amount for every win and goes down by a certain amount for every loss. The amount it goes up or down is based on how different your rating is to your opponent. So if you beat someone rated higher than you your rating goes up more than if you beat someone rated lower than you. Eventually the top players will rise to the top of the ratings, similar to grandmasters in chess. And as the ratings become more accurate, setting matchups based on rating will ensure equal matchups.

Dnoff423

BodhiOm wrote: »

It could work similar to chess rating system, where your rating is based on your win-loss record and the ratings of your opponents. I'm not sure exactly the formula that's used but basically everyone starts with a 1500 rating and your rating goes up by a certain amount for every win and goes down by a certain amount for every loss. The amount it goes up or down is based on how different your rating is to your opponent. So if you beat someone rated higher than you your rating goes up more than if you beat someone rated lower than you. Eventually the top players will rise to the top of the ratings, similar to grandmasters in chess. And as the ratings become more accurate, setting matchups based on rating will ensure equal matchups.

I like it.

Calbear949

Unless the reward structure is somehow tiered...I don't see any incentives to do this...why should the better GA players get punished for being better?

BodhiOm

Calbear949 wrote: »

Unless the reward structure is somehow tiered...I don't see any incentives to do this...why should the better GA players get punished for being better?

How is anyone getting punished?

Waqui

So, if you perform well, you will have stronger opponents and less rewards? (well, at least half of the well-performing players will). That's a problem.

With the current design, the better you perform the better rewards you win. There's an incentive to perform better. With OP's suggestion there will be less incentive.

Dnoff423

Waqui wrote: »

So, if you perform well, you will have stronger opponents and less rewards? (well, at least half of the well-performing players will). That's a problem.

With the current design, the better you perform the better rewards you win. There's an incentive to perform better. With OP's suggestion there will be less incentive.

And the way to fix that is to have a tiered reward system like we have in TW except instead of using GP you use a win/loss ratio or just plain wins or something to that effect. That should solve your incentive problem and create a system that would encourage people to compete.

Scuttlebutt

It sounds like the new grand arena does something like this.

Dnoff423

Scuttlebutt wrote: »

It sounds like the new grand arena does something like this.

You are correct it does sound something like that. I had not had time to read the road ahead yet before my last comment. Thank you.

Scuttlebutt

Dnoff423 wrote: »

Scuttlebutt wrote: »

It sounds like the new grand arena does something like this.

You are correct it does sound something like that. I had not had time to read the road ahead yet before my last comment. Thank you.

I assumed you weren’t the only one, so I didn’t make the comment specific to you. I’m kind of on the fence about this. Playing other games that use similar systems, I didn’t like that there was such a time commitment to be competitive. At the same time, it does lead to more fair matchups.

Also, my experience on this game is that the reward system for something like this will typically lead to more exclusivity in the game. For example, the penalty for not being in a HSTR guild at one point was very steep in arena and TW. I’m fine with Traya people having an advantage, but before Revan, chewie, and c3po, there was almost no way to beat that team.

Waqui

Dnoff423 wrote: »

Waqui wrote: »

So, if you perform well, you will have stronger opponents and less rewards? (well, at least half of the well-performing players will). That's a problem.

With the current design, the better you perform the better rewards you win. There's an incentive to perform better. With OP's suggestion there will be less incentive.

And the way to fix that is to have a tiered reward system like we have in TW except instead of using GP you use a win/loss ratio or just plain wins or something to that effect. That should solve your incentive problem and create a system that would encourage people to compete.

Maybe not exactly like TW, but yes, tiered reward system would fix it - as long as it always yields better rewards to climb a tier.

BodhiOm

I still don't see how there could be any disincentives to winning. If you continue to win, you get matched up with tougher and tougher opponents...but you've already won and collected the rewards from those victories. And if you repeatedly lose, yes you get matched up with easier opponents...but you've repeatedly lost and not collected all the rewards available to you. I just can't envision a situation where it would be advantageous to lose and sacrifice the rewards of winning.