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.
0
Replies
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
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 currently just a tie breaker for ground matches.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's get back to basics here. This is the only comment that bears weight
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.
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.
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.
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
Yet you blame it on game design.
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.
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.
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.