GA banners add up to mismatches

Prev1
So some basic math on this current GA 5v5 with ships.... if you clear all character squads you get 270 banners for the zone. If you clear the single ship zone you can max 66 banners for the win + 155 for the zone.

The ship zone is useless. 155+66=221 < 270
So because i have stronger ships and held the zone it had no correlative effect on the outcome of the match.

When match making includes ship gp and there is an imbalance in character vs. Ships it is always going to favor of the higher character gp.

Just sayin.... glad there aren't Zetas being lost on this one. Its basic arithmetic.

Replies

  • Cykodrumzz
    35 posts Member
    edited April 2019
    I cleared all squads except for revan because i don't have revan to counter. So effectively i had 1 squad unconquered.

    My opponent cleared all squads but left 1 ship fleet unconquered.

    270+16 = 286. The minimum banners earned if i had been able to clear the final squad.

    155+16= 181. The minimum banners earned by opponent if able to clear the final fleet. That's over 100 banners of difference for essentially the same outcome. 1 unfinished battle. But because the opponent had higher character gp by over 200K the opponent was in a stronger position to win the zone worth more banners. The opponent didn't even have to try to attack the fleet because the outcome was predetermined

    Or to put it in different terms. Winning character zone + defending character zone = 540 banners.

    Winning ships + defending ships = 310 banners.

    A difference of 230
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Beating 1 team should be equal to beating multiple? (Number dependent on GP)
  • Cykodrumzz
    35 posts Member
    edited April 2019
    Kyno wrote: »
    Beating 1 team should be equal to beating multiple? (Number dependent on GP)

    I don't take your meaning?

    Edited * i do understand your question but i pose a question of my own. ... when two opponents win the same number of battles. (5 each) and two opponents each have 1 battle unfinished and 1 zone unconquered.... why is the point differential 230 regardless of strength of win?

    There is an insurmountable difference in total banners. *

    My point is that the zones are preferential to character gp. So the matchmaking taking into account total gp will predominantly favor players who neglect ships
  • Cykodrumzz
    35 posts Member
    edited April 2019
    If there's only 2 zones..... a stronger character gp allows for a stronger defense and offense for the only zone that matters. My point is that ships are part of total gp. But they actually act as a handicap in the current point structure
  • I’ve made this comment on many different threads. It probably won’t get fixed.

    Ships are currently just a tie breaker for ground matches.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Beating 1 team should be equal to beating multiple? (Number dependent on GP)

    I don't take your meaning?

    Edited * i do understand your question but i pose a question of my own. ... when two opponents win the same number of battles. (5 each) and two opponents each have 1 battle unfinished and 1 zone unconquered.... why is the point differential 230 regardless of strength of win?

    There is an insurmountable difference in total banners. *

    My point is that the zones are preferential to character gp. So the matchmaking taking into account total gp will predominantly favor players who neglect ships

    Ships are weighted differently, as it should be, for many reasons.

    It's not beating the same number of teams, its winning the same number of matches. Beating teams with different scores because they are laid out differently and have various levels of investment.

    Investing in 5-7 teams using the same resources is different than 5-8 ships and characters with additional resources. To take the zone only takes one win too.

    If you face someone who neglects ships, then simply beat all his teams and his ships. If you cant beat all his toons, ships shouldnt reward you for that. They should punish people who neglect them.
  • Cykodrumzz
    35 posts Member
    edited April 2019
    If you face someone who neglects ships, then simply beat all his teams and his ships. If you cant beat all his toons, ships shouldnt reward you for that. They should punish people who neglect them.[/quote]

    Unfortunately the power creep totally negates this logic. If you dont have revan. You can't beat revan.


    Anyway the point is being avoided. If a player neglects ships their gp will be predominantly character based. The current matchmaking and the current territory structure is biased towards character gp. A balanced roster is ALWAYS at a disadvantage. I'm not saying anyways going to lose. I'm saying ALWAYS HANDICAPPED
  • @Kyno I'm not mad at you. I'm just simply using math to make a point. Math is *almost* indisputable.... but in this example I think it is indisputably biased towards characters
  • To use an extreme example... a player wholly ignores ships 99% a total gp of 3m and just barely enough to place a defense. I'm matched with PLAYER but i have 2M character and 1M ships. It's obviously a loss. There is LITERALLY no way to overcome that deficit.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Beating 1 team should be equal to beating multiple? (Number dependent on GP)

    I don't take your meaning?

    Edited * i do understand your question but i pose a question of my own. ... when two opponents win the same number of battles. (5 each) and two opponents each have 1 battle unfinished and 1 zone unconquered.... why is the point differential 230 regardless of strength of win?

    There is an insurmountable difference in total banners. *

    My point is that the zones are preferential to character gp. So the matchmaking taking into account total gp will predominantly favor players who neglect ships

    Ships are weighted differently, as it should be, for many reasons.

    It's not beating the same number of teams, its winning the same number of matches. Beating teams with different scores because they are laid out differently and have various levels of investment.

    Investing in 5-7 teams using the same resources is different than 5-8 ships and characters with additional resources. To take the zone only takes one win too.

    If you face someone who neglects ships, then simply beat all his teams and his ships. If you cant beat all his toons, ships shouldnt reward you for that. They should punish people who neglect them.

    It looks like the OP beat 4 teams on the ground (20 players) and 1 fleet (8+ players) vs the opposition beating 5 ground teams (25 players). On the surface, it looks like OP invested in more players to win fewer points.

    Maybe they could balance ship points with matchmaking.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    To use an extreme example... a player wholly ignores ships 99% a total gp of 3m and just barely enough to place a defense. I'm matched with PLAYER but i have 2M character and 1M ships. It's obviously a loss. There is LITERALLY no way to overcome that deficit.

    That is not true. At 20k per toon GP, 70 toons for a match roughly, that's 1.4M GP. Them 18 ships, an additional 400K character GP, so 1.8M

    Even in your extreme example that 2M GP could be built to do exactly what it needs to do in GA. This is an extreme example too, but it fits and has a little wiggle room for 10 more toons at max GP.

    The point is, ships is not meant to be a main focus of GA, meaning it will never be a tipping point.

    Winning 1 ships match shouldnt be equal to winning 1 character match.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    The point is, ships is not meant to be a main focus of GA, meaning it will never be a tipping point.

    Winning 1 ships match shouldnt be equal to winning 1 character match.

    If it's being included in matchmaking it should be balanced. That's the only point. Even 200K difference in characters is HUGE. That's 10 characters at your 20k argument. That's 2 full teams at max gp.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    The point is, ships is not meant to be a main focus of GA, meaning it will never be a tipping point.
    Says who? Is there an official statement to that effect or is it just your personal opinion?
    Kyno wrote: »
    Winning 1 ships match shouldnt be equal to winning 1 character match.
    No, it should be worth more. Matchmaking is by GP and a fully powered up ship is valued at over 2x the GP of a fully powered up character.
  • Cykodrumzz wrote: »

    The ship zone is useless. 155+66=221 < 270
    So because i have stronger ships and held the zone it had no correlative effect on the outcome of the match.
    .

    Let's get back to basics here. This is the only comment that bears weight
  • Math. Basic arithmetic. Thank you for caring @Rath_Tarr
  • @Kyno no disrespect. I know you have a job to do but saying that 3 ducks and 10 horses weigh the same as 3 horses and 10 ducks is kinda wierd right?
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    Kyno no disrespect. I know you have a job to do but saying that 3 ducks and 10 horses weigh the same as 3 horses and 10 ducks is kinda wierd right?

    This is not me doing my job.

    I do not believe that a player should be able to win 1 fleet(clearing that zone) and X character battles( not clearing character zone) and call that the same as winning X+1 character battles(winning character zone), but not clearing ships.

    it is much more of an investment to win all the character battles and place a defense good enough to not allow for a full clear.
  • Then perhaps the 2 zone layout is the greater dilemma.
  • The bottom line i want cg/ea to acknowledge is that the current setup is inherently biased.
  • Cykodrumzz
    35 posts Member
    edited April 2019
    There is literally no benefit to having ships in this current ga. The math is blatantly obvious. It's completely rigged against players who invest in ships
  • Why even include ships if .... "The point is, ships is not meant to be a main focus of GA, meaning it will never be a tipping point."
  • Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    Then perhaps the 2 zone layout is the greater dilemma.

    It’s not just the 2 zone layout. For my GA bracket, ships account for about 25% of the total possible points earned. Even with 4 zones, ships are still roughly 25%. The problem is not weighting ship GP for matchmaking. The GP system was never set up for comparing ship GP to character GP...mostly because there wasn’t much of a reason to before this.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    There is literally no benefit to having ships in this current ga. The math is blatantly obvious. It's completely rigged against players who invest in ships

    I won round 1 because the other player lost to my ships.

    I love ships. I am generally good for 1 defense and 2 offensive wins in TW (not that great because most D is junk but still). I am very invested in ships and it has won me rounds in GA many times.
  • qoa6fevypuvz.jpg
    Here. I failed in my strategy to save my strongest characters to beat revan. Because unless you have revan or God mods you can't beat revan. But the disparity is obvious.

    Let's do some more math. My character gp = 58.5% of my total gp so my ship gp is 41.5%. This is like 2nd grade division here....

    My opponent has 65.9% character and 34.1% ship gp.


    Follow me along this journey because it gets really easy here........ maximum win is 811 banners offense. 270 for zone + 64 ea per squad. Max character banners = 590. That's 72.7% weight.

    It's inherently biased towards characters. This is basic math. When the variance from ship to character can fluctuate by at least 10% and the outcome is already weighted at a 3:1 ratio the more balanced a players portfolio the more of a disadvantage they face
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    qoa6fevypuvz.jpg
    Here. I failed in my strategy to save my strongest characters to beat revan.

    Yet you blame it on game design.
  • leef
    13458 posts Member
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    qoa6fevypuvz.jpg
    Here. I failed in my strategy to save my strongest characters to beat revan. Because unless you have revan or God mods you can't beat revan. But the disparity is obvious.

    Let's do some more math. My character gp = 58.5% of my total gp so my ship gp is 41.5%. This is like 2nd grade division here....

    My opponent has 65.9% character and 34.1% ship gp.


    Follow me along this journey because it gets really easy here........ maximum win is 811 banners offense. 270 for zone + 64 ea per squad. Max character banners = 590. That's 72.7% weight.

    It's inherently biased towards characters. This is basic math. When the variance from ship to character can fluctuate by at least 10% and the outcome is already weighted at a 3:1 ratio the more balanced a players portfolio the more of a disadvantage they face

    So because your fleet GP accounts for x% of your total GP, the fleet portion of GA should account for rougly the same percantage of total banners?
    Personally i don't see the logic in that.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • How about developers take into account in the design of the map the potential disparity in character vs ship gp. .... that's all. We have 4 zone 5v5 without ships. How about a 4 zone 5v5 with ships? The 2 zone layout with ships is skewed towards characters. If you invest in ships you get screwed with the current layout.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Cykodrumzz wrote: »
    How about developers take into account in the design of the map the potential disparity in character vs ship gp. .... that's all. We have 4 zone 5v5 without ships. How about a 4 zone 5v5 with ships? The 2 zone layout with ships is skewed towards characters. If you invest in ships you get screwed with the current layout.

    If you can defend your fleet zone like you did, you have the advantage. All you need to do is to save all your strongest teams for offense to make sure that you clear the board. Don't waste strong teams on defense in this scenario. You have the advantage here.
  • leef wrote: »
    so because your fleet GP accounts for x% of your total GP, the fleet portion of GA should account for rougly the same percantage of total banners?
    Personally i don't see the logic in that.

    I was just presenting an example case. If the banners are skewed towards characters at a 3:1 ratio then its inherently biased towards character gp. Players who neglect ships have a clear and present advantage in a GA that uses total GP for match making. They have more and/or stronger characters to defend a zone worth more banners and attack a zone worth more banners.
Sign In or Register to comment.