(I started in April 17 and I have exactly 68 myself)
Congrats on being lucky. Stay on topic please. If you want to "t", take it somewhere else.
You're the one that brought up mods. How on earth are they supposed to matchmake based on mods?
(and something tells me this isn't just a case of luck. since you brought that up too)
Mods are about the only thing I have in common with my opponent, so maybe it actually is. Otherwise I'm down 400k GP, 4 zetas, and 30 G11/12 characters.
I thought it was simple. Go by character GP when GA is just toons, and total GP when it's ships and toons.
People who had fluffed roster complained so cg change the algorithm to only account the top of you and your opponents rosters instead of all your roster. Thank the people who flooded the forum for this.
Except that's not how it seems to be working. See the post from swgohfan29 for what I mean.
I'm not defending the change, I'm stating the reason why it happened. I liked the old algorithm, but i also only lost a total of 3 close matches so I'm a little biased.
I'll type nice and slow, so you'll understand...
From the GAC match-up rework post from Crumb.... "they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them."
Now look at the bolded from the post you quoted. I'll wait. You'll see it eventually.
I wouldn't consider having the two characters that have been meta for the past 6+ months, while others have neither to be" looking like them. "
I disagree with your fundamental complaint that the characters should be the same or similar. But even we accept that as a flaw, how does it make it worse than it was before? The matchmaking process has never factored that in. The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
First off, the fact that you disagree with what CG has clearly stated the intent of the matchmaking GAC rework was to accomplish is irrelevant.
And no one has indentified anything. There are a few theories that don't seem consistent when applied across the larger number of cases.
To this point, CG has maintained radio silence as to what the issue is....or if they even think there is one.
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I'll type nice and slow, so you'll understand...
From the GAC match-up rework post from Crumb.... "they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them."
Now look at the bolded from the post you quoted. I'll wait. You'll see it eventually.
I wouldn't consider having the two characters that have been meta for the past 6+ months, while others have neither to be" looking like them. "
I disagree with your fundamental complaint that the characters should be the same or similar. But even we accept that as a flaw, how does it make it worse than it was before? The matchmaking process has never factored that in. The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
First off, the fact that you disagree with what CG has clearly stated the intent of the matchmaking GAC rework was to accomplish is irrelevant.
And no one has indentified anything. There are a few theories that don't seem consistent when applied across the larger number of cases.
To this point, CG has maintained radio silence as to what the issue is....or if they even think there is one.
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
It’s not really speculation. They say so right in Grand Arena, and it’s been pretty consistent from the examples we’ve seen.
CG never said they wanted only people with similar meta toons to face each other. You keep quoting that everywhere but are adding your own meaning to it.
I'll type nice and slow, so you'll understand...
From the GAC match-up rework post from Crumb.... "they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them."
Now look at the bolded from the post you quoted. I'll wait. You'll see it eventually.
I wouldn't consider having the two characters that have been meta for the past 6+ months, while others have neither to be" looking like them. "
I disagree with your fundamental complaint that the characters should be the same or similar. But even we accept that as a flaw, how does it make it worse than it was before? The matchmaking process has never factored that in. The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
First off, the fact that you disagree with what CG has clearly stated the intent of the matchmaking GAC rework was to accomplish is irrelevant.
And no one has indentified anything. There are a few theories that don't seem consistent when applied across the larger number of cases.
To this point, CG has maintained radio silence as to what the issue is....or if they even think there is one.
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
It’s not really speculation. They say so right in Grand Arena, and it’s been pretty consistent from the examples we’ve seen.
CG never said they wanted only people with similar meta toons to face each other. You keep quoting that everywhere but are adding your own meaning to it.
I apologize in advance if English isn't your primary language. The quote from the GAC rework post clearly states that the intent is for players to "be matched up against someone who looks more like them.". I'm fairly certain CG didn't mean physically looks like them.
If they don't mean similarly constructed rosters, please explain what you think they mean? And please try to be intellectually honest and not steer it to what you hope they meant or what you woukd prefer they meant, as others posting in this thread and other threads have done.
I do appreciate the screen shot, as it is the precise reason for this thread. Rosters without either Revan would be severely underpowered versus players that could use both, as both are some of the higher powered toons in the game.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Will people only be happy once we are matched up so evenly that every match is a draw? Do we need 1000 divisions to ensure we never have any hard fights? I guess maybe my definition of championship is different than a lot of people's. It used to mean the best, but now I guess it's just the best among contenders exactly the same as you.
I don't have Rey's Falcon unlocked. Why am I matched up with someone who does have it?
It's funny....I'm not sure what the "VF" part of your username means, but the "T" is fairly obvious.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
To be fair, this part was happening before too. Though in my bracket when I spot check with DSR it’s pretty even.
I happen to think it’ll work out just fine. Theoretically in a 5 week GAC you will only see what people are calling mismatches in the first week. Hard to know though since CG refuses to get a Community Manager.
I'll type nice and slow, so you'll understand...
From the GAC match-up rework post from Crumb.... "they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them."
Now look at the bolded from the post you quoted. I'll wait. You'll see it eventually.
I wouldn't consider having the two characters that have been meta for the past 6+ months, while others have neither to be" looking like them. "
I disagree with your fundamental complaint that the characters should be the same or similar. But even we accept that as a flaw, how does it make it worse than it was before? The matchmaking process has never factored that in. The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
First off, the fact that you disagree with what CG has clearly stated the intent of the matchmaking GAC rework was to accomplish is irrelevant.
And no one has indentified anything. There are a few theories that don't seem consistent when applied across the larger number of cases.
To this point, CG has maintained radio silence as to what the issue is....or if they even think there is one.
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
It’s not really speculation. They say so right in Grand Arena, and it’s been pretty consistent from the examples we’ve seen.
CG never said they wanted only people with similar meta toons to face each other. You keep quoting that everywhere but are adding your own meaning to it.
I apologize in advance if English isn't your primary language. The quote from the GAC rework post clearly states that the intent is for players to "be matched up against someone who looks more like them.". I'm fairly certain CG didn't mean physically looks like them.
If they don't mean similarly constructed rosters, please explain what you think they mean? And please try to be intellectually honest and not steer it to what you hope they meant or what you woukd prefer they meant, as others posting in this thread and other threads have done.
I do appreciate the screen shot, as it is the precise reason for this thread. Rosters without either Revan would be severely underpowered versus players that could use both, as both are some of the higher powered toons in the game.
Matched up against someone who looks more like you doesn’t mean the exact same characters. It means characters at the same gear level. You don’t get any more matchups of players with 2 G12 characters against 30 G12 characters. That’s what they are trying to avoid. It has nothing to do with who has Malak or not.
Okay, i lied accidentally. Theres only one guy with no Revans.
Actually, the person with no revans aren't the worse of in my matchup. Its the guy with Darth Revan. His roster has no LS support at all. Its literally just Revan.
The guy who doesnt have revan has the most G12s, so he'll probably have the advantage over him at least maybe if he holds on def.
Also, both players with both revans are unable to field both Traya and Revan concurrently, which does even things out a little
To be fair to CG, i think 75% of my group remains competitve
If GP is not the only criteria for matchmaking, should it be the criteria for deciding who wins in a tie?
I don’t think it should have ever been a tie break, but an interesting question is what is the tiebreak now? I assume the current listed order is done by the tiebreak, since everyone has 0 wins, and it’s not GP. Is it this GP of Top 80 characters?
If GP is not the only criteria for matchmaking, should it be the criteria for deciding who wins in a tie?
I don’t think it should have ever been a tie break, but an interesting question is what is the tiebreak now? I assume the current listed order is done by the tiebreak, since everyone has 0 wins, and it’s not GP. Is it this GP of Top 80 characters?
Both players set defense and no one attacks or can break through a single squad maybe.
Although I'm disadvantaged in my GAC, most of the players are similar. All of them have both revan, I have JR. 6 of them have traya, i dont. All are in the top 50 in arena, I'm at 75. This isnt really fair, but im going to make the best of it. I will just set my lowest characters on defense as to not give them any satisfaction, plus I will still get last place rewards. If I knew for sure it would work I would only set 1 team on defense. Either way you look at it, you may not be the best in this GAC. Maybe next GAC you will be in a better position. You still get rewards either way. Quit complaining and earn your place in your group. Besides because of my wide roster I'm in better position for TB's.
What is it with ppl not wanting to "give them the satisfaction"?
First, why do you blame them for being better than you?
And why do you think they care? I'm sure they appreciate the time you're saving them. I know I would.
Although I'm disadvantaged in my GAC, most of the players are similar. All of them have both revan, I have JR. 6 of them have traya, i dont. All are in the top 50 in arena, I'm at 75. This isnt really fair, but im going to make the best of it. I will just set my lowest characters on defense as to not give them any satisfaction, plus I will still get last place rewards. If I knew for sure it would work I would only set 1 team on defense. Either way you look at it, you may not be the best in this GAC. Maybe next GAC you will be in a better position. You still get rewards either way. Quit complaining and earn your place in your group. Besides because of my wide roster I'm in better position for TB's.
What is it with ppl not wanting to "give them the satisfaction"?
First, why do you blame them for being better than you?
And why do you think they care? I'm sure they appreciate the time you're saving them. I know I would.
I hope you get matched up with me at some point in time. Mixed up teams and 1 shooting character may save time but not exactly fun or challenging. Either way eventually the match ups will go in your favor. That's the true point!
When you said you said you were setting your worst teams on defense I thought the same thing!!
I'll type nice and slow, so you'll understand...
From the GAC match-up rework post from Crumb.... "they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them."
Now look at the bolded from the post you quoted. I'll wait. You'll see it eventually.
I wouldn't consider having the two characters that have been meta for the past 6+ months, while others have neither to be" looking like them. "
I disagree with your fundamental complaint that the characters should be the same or similar. But even we accept that as a flaw, how does it make it worse than it was before? The matchmaking process has never factored that in. The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
First off, the fact that you disagree with what CG has clearly stated the intent of the matchmaking GAC rework was to accomplish is irrelevant.
And no one has indentified anything. There are a few theories that don't seem consistent when applied across the larger number of cases.
To this point, CG has maintained radio silence as to what the issue is....or if they even think there is one.
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
It’s not really speculation. They say so right in Grand Arena, and it’s been pretty consistent from the examples we’ve seen.
CG never said they wanted only people with similar meta toons to face each other. You keep quoting that everywhere but are adding your own meaning to it.
I apologize in advance if English isn't your primary language. The quote from the GAC rework post clearly states that the intent is for players to "be matched up against someone who looks more like them.". I'm fairly certain CG didn't mean physically looks like them.
If they don't mean similarly constructed rosters, please explain what you think they mean? And please try to be intellectually honest and not steer it to what you hope they meant or what you woukd prefer they meant, as others posting in this thread and other threads have done.
I do appreciate the screen shot, as it is the precise reason for this thread. Rosters without either Revan would be severely underpowered versus players that could use both, as both are some of the higher powered toons in the game.
Both of these matchmaking methods(the ga and canceled exhibition pure toon gp matchmaking) are unfair and quite arbitrary in different ways impacting almost everyone (to their advantage or disadvantage). And this new one has nothing to do with their intentions stated in the announcement either. Let's see how this one plays out as there's no going back from here.
But I completely disagree with -new one is bad, let's go back to old one- too which is supported by certain people where the previous one was to their benefit. I expect something at least a bit close to what's stated as the outcome of CG's announced intentions.
Better for some, worse for others. It doesn't really matter how they adjust matchmaking, that statement will always be true. Whether it's objectively more "fair"/"even" is open for debate.
Previous matchmaking: accumulative GP of all characters
Current matchmaking: accumulative of highest GP characters. Number of characters dependent on the amount of def slots. (defslots * 2 * 5 = amount of characters used for matchmaking)
Both methods have their (dis)advantages. Whether you like the new or old method probably depends on your roster. The new method definately helps out players with a lot of fluff.
On a side note, i do wonder how it works for players who drop 1 or 2 divisions. Why am i matched based on my top80 and not on my top60 for example? Do players only drop division and get less defslots when their topX doesn't have enough GP to find a suitable match? Seeying as there are quite a few players dropping a division that doesn't seem to be the right explanation. I can't figure it out, but it's probably flawed
Better for some, worse for others. It doesn't really matter how they adjust matchmaking, that statement will always be true. Whether it's objectively more "fair"/"even" is open for debate.
Previous matchmaking: accumulative GP of all characters
Current matchmaking: accumulative of highest GP characters. Number of characters dependent on the amount of def slots. (defslots * 2 * 5 = amount of characters used for matchmaking)
Both methods have their (dis)advantages. Whether you like the new or old method probably depends on your roster. The new method definately helps out players with a lot of fluff.
On a side note, i do wonder how it works for players who drop 1 or 2 divisions. Why am i matched based on my top80 and not on my top60 for example? Do players only drop division and get less defslots when their topX doesn't have enough GP to find a suitable match? Seeying as there are quite a few players dropping a division that doesn't seem to be the right explanation. I can't figure it out, but it's probably flawed
I hate both methods xD. Consider this; I have a very fluffed up roster which doesn't matter in this scheme. I also have a very focused top which puts huge importance to 12+. This can get me matched with kraken that are natively able to do that on way higher GPs than me...whom also has a way more developed bottom and hugely better mods that I can not dream to compete with. It also makes it possible a leaner 1M below me to get matched with me in which case they would hold no chance of winning due to having played way less than me and they simply didn't have enough time to get as good as mods as me.
If they went with how they announced new matchmaking will work...there would still be mods difference as no method should really look into the game outcome quality difference of them but rather the amounts of them of them in on various qualities (6e,5a etc). Yet...if there was matchmaking that considered various parameters with different weighting the amount of zetas, g11s, g12s and other important parameters would match much closely...which yields the main difference to be -which toons got invested in- and -content of the mods-...which is as it should be imho. It's where players directly make the difference due to their choices and investments throughout the game chasing more valuable toons and investing hugely into mods (besides on the GAC table play which is not related to matchmaking)
There are certainly fair-er methods possible and they've already announced that was what they want to do. Trying to make it fair-er is not an effort in naught. And we are nowhere near there.
The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
By itself it may be not "worse", it's probably "as bad as before, but in different way". It inherits the problem "I don't have last meta but my opponent have", but also introduces the new problem - "our top halfs of roster are close but he also have very developed lower half so he has way more options to counter my roster".
But new way is particularly worse for Championships because it contradicts GP division conception. They introduce GP divisions which supposed to be for intra-division competitions, and immediately introduce the MM algorithm which skyrockets the amount of cross-division matchups (as if dividing fleet and chars GP was not enough...), which hurt both sides in different way. Then what's the point of divisions at all?
The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
By itself it may be not "worse", it's probably "as bad as before, but in different way". It inherits the problem "I don't have last meta but my opponent have", but also introduces the new problem - "our top halfs of roster are close but he also have very developed lower half so he has way more options to counter my roster".
But new way is particularly worse for Championships because it contradicts GP division conception. They introduce GP divisions which supposed to be for intra-division competitions, and immediately introduce the MM algorithm which skyrockets the amount of cross-division matchups (as if dividing fleet and chars GP was not enough...), which hurt both sides in different way. Then what's the point of divisions at all?
However matchmaking works right now, in the past or in the future you are expected to push your GP up for better reward structure...which is overall to CG's benefit naturally.
This is not to say you should simply gain GP with any method possible at all. If this current matching stayed people would start to look their top 40 and whom to move from the bottom up there in order to have a lean top where every single toon matters.
There are certainly fair-er methods possible and they've already announced that was what they want to do. Trying to make it fair-er is not an effort in naught. And we are nowhere near there.
I'm not holding my breath waiting, that's for sure.
There are certainly fair-er methods possible and they've already announced that was what they want to do. Trying to make it fair-er is not an effort in naught. And we are nowhere near there.
I'm not holding my breath waiting, that's for sure.
Hold it or not, it's on. Doubt you would like it to stay as it currently is. Folks are already into new method of how to circumvent it and gain advantage from it instead of just trying to play better without putting their minds into matchmaking itself.
There are certainly fair-er methods possible and they've already announced that was what they want to do. Trying to make it fair-er is not an effort in naught. And we are nowhere near there.
I'm not holding my breath waiting, that's for sure.
Hold it or not, it's on. Doubt you would like it to stay as it currently is. Folks are already into new method of how to circumvent it and gain advantage from it instead of just trying to play better without putting their minds into matchmaking itself.
All my viewpoints are based on the assumption that ea/cg can not ever get matchmaking "right", so all we can do is hope that the method they chose is favourable for us personally. Making adjustments to optimize the "competativeness" of your roster is a reasonable thing to do as well imo.
There are certainly fair-er methods possible and they've already announced that was what they want to do. Trying to make it fair-er is not an effort in naught. And we are nowhere near there.
I'm not holding my breath waiting, that's for sure.
Hold it or not, it's on. Doubt you would like it to stay as it currently is. Folks are already into new method of how to circumvent it and gain advantage from it instead of just trying to play better without putting their minds into matchmaking itself.
All my viewpoints are based on the assumption that ea/cg can not ever get matchmaking "right", so all we can do is hope that the method they chose is favourable for us personally. Making adjustments to optimize the "competativeness" of your roster is a reasonable thing to do as well imo.
Ok then, we have to agree to disagree. I know how I exactly would do this if it was my job and I was allowed to. And what that entails is also in the announcement they laid out their intentions with. The possible optimization this new method introduces has little to do with developing a better roster too. Concentrated top end rosters are the future of competetiveness in GAC if it's here to stay. Just like the previous -keep lean to get an easy match- this also introduces no risk, only cg laid out+proven to work type of development.
There are certainly fair-er methods possible and they've already announced that was what they want to do. Trying to make it fair-er is not an effort in naught. And we are nowhere near there.
I'm not holding my breath waiting, that's for sure.
Hold it or not, it's on. Doubt you would like it to stay as it currently is. Folks are already into new method of how to circumvent it and gain advantage from it instead of just trying to play better without putting their minds into matchmaking itself.
All my viewpoints are based on the assumption that ea/cg can not ever get matchmaking "right", so all we can do is hope that the method they chose is favourable for us personally. Making adjustments to optimize the "competativeness" of your roster is a reasonable thing to do as well imo.
But I think we can all agree on, for example, the situation cited by swgohfan29 - 2 of the 8 have both Revans, 2 of the 8 have neither. That is in no way "fair", competitive or fun - for any of players. I've been on both sides of that situation and it's not an enjoyable gaming experience to win easily or lose easily.
And that also doesn't seem to make sense given CG's statements regarding the "improved" matchmaking for GAC - which talks about facing people whose rosters "look more like yours". Whether people agree or not that GAC "should" consist of largely evenly matched opponents, that is what CG stated the goal of matchup "tweak" was for. Judging by the results, they seemed to have missed by a rather large margin.
I am willing to play it out to see how this all shakes out, but if these drastically unbalanced matchups are truly WAI, this will be an easy time in the game's life for me to see if any of my guildmates are interested in playing a new account.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Replies
I'm not defending the change, I'm stating the reason why it happened. I liked the old algorithm, but i also only lost a total of 3 close matches so I'm a little biased.
First off, the fact that you disagree with what CG has clearly stated the intent of the matchmaking GAC rework was to accomplish is irrelevant.
And no one has indentified anything. There are a few theories that don't seem consistent when applied across the larger number of cases.
To this point, CG has maintained radio silence as to what the issue is....or if they even think there is one.
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
It’s not really speculation. They say so right in Grand Arena, and it’s been pretty consistent from the examples we’ve seen.
CG never said they wanted only people with similar meta toons to face each other. You keep quoting that everywhere but are adding your own meaning to it.
I apologize in advance if English isn't your primary language. The quote from the GAC rework post clearly states that the intent is for players to "be matched up against someone who looks more like them.". I'm fairly certain CG didn't mean physically looks like them.
If they don't mean similarly constructed rosters, please explain what you think they mean? And please try to be intellectually honest and not steer it to what you hope they meant or what you woukd prefer they meant, as others posting in this thread and other threads have done.
I do appreciate the screen shot, as it is the precise reason for this thread. Rosters without either Revan would be severely underpowered versus players that could use both, as both are some of the higher powered toons in the game.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
It's funny....I'm not sure what the "VF" part of your username means, but the "T" is fairly obvious.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
To be fair, this part was happening before too. Though in my bracket when I spot check with DSR it’s pretty even.
I happen to think it’ll work out just fine. Theoretically in a 5 week GAC you will only see what people are calling mismatches in the first week. Hard to know though since CG refuses to get a Community Manager.
Matched up against someone who looks more like you doesn’t mean the exact same characters. It means characters at the same gear level. You don’t get any more matchups of players with 2 G12 characters against 30 G12 characters. That’s what they are trying to avoid. It has nothing to do with who has Malak or not.
Actually, the person with no revans aren't the worse of in my matchup. Its the guy with Darth Revan. His roster has no LS support at all. Its literally just Revan.
The guy who doesnt have revan has the most G12s, so he'll probably have the advantage over him at least maybe if he holds on def.
Also, both players with both revans are unable to field both Traya and Revan concurrently, which does even things out a little
To be fair to CG, i think 75% of my group remains competitve
I don’t think it should have ever been a tie break, but an interesting question is what is the tiebreak now? I assume the current listed order is done by the tiebreak, since everyone has 0 wins, and it’s not GP. Is it this GP of Top 80 characters?
Both players set defense and no one attacks or can break through a single squad maybe.
What is it with ppl not wanting to "give them the satisfaction"?
First, why do you blame them for being better than you?
And why do you think they care? I'm sure they appreciate the time you're saving them. I know I would.
When you said you said you were setting your worst teams on defense I thought the same thing!!
Both of these matchmaking methods(the ga and canceled exhibition pure toon gp matchmaking) are unfair and quite arbitrary in different ways impacting almost everyone (to their advantage or disadvantage). And this new one has nothing to do with their intentions stated in the announcement either. Let's see how this one plays out as there's no going back from here.
But I completely disagree with -new one is bad, let's go back to old one- too which is supported by certain people where the previous one was to their benefit. I expect something at least a bit close to what's stated as the outcome of CG's announced intentions.
- Previous matchmaking: accumulative GP of all characters
- Current matchmaking: accumulative of highest GP characters. Number of characters dependent on the amount of def slots. (defslots * 2 * 5 = amount of characters used for matchmaking)
Both methods have their (dis)advantages. Whether you like the new or old method probably depends on your roster. The new method definately helps out players with a lot of fluff.On a side note, i do wonder how it works for players who drop 1 or 2 divisions. Why am i matched based on my top80 and not on my top60 for example? Do players only drop division and get less defslots when their topX doesn't have enough GP to find a suitable match? Seeying as there are quite a few players dropping a division that doesn't seem to be the right explanation. I can't figure it out, but it's probably flawed
I hate both methods xD. Consider this; I have a very fluffed up roster which doesn't matter in this scheme. I also have a very focused top which puts huge importance to 12+. This can get me matched with kraken that are natively able to do that on way higher GPs than me...whom also has a way more developed bottom and hugely better mods that I can not dream to compete with. It also makes it possible a leaner 1M below me to get matched with me in which case they would hold no chance of winning due to having played way less than me and they simply didn't have enough time to get as good as mods as me.
If they went with how they announced new matchmaking will work...there would still be mods difference as no method should really look into the game outcome quality difference of them but rather the amounts of them of them in on various qualities (6e,5a etc). Yet...if there was matchmaking that considered various parameters with different weighting the amount of zetas, g11s, g12s and other important parameters would match much closely...which yields the main difference to be -which toons got invested in- and -content of the mods-...which is as it should be imho. It's where players directly make the difference due to their choices and investments throughout the game chasing more valuable toons and investing hugely into mods (besides on the GAC table play which is not related to matchmaking)
There are certainly fair-er methods possible and they've already announced that was what they want to do. Trying to make it fair-er is not an effort in naught. And we are nowhere near there.
By itself it may be not "worse", it's probably "as bad as before, but in different way". It inherits the problem "I don't have last meta but my opponent have", but also introduces the new problem - "our top halfs of roster are close but he also have very developed lower half so he has way more options to counter my roster".
But new way is particularly worse for Championships because it contradicts GP division conception. They introduce GP divisions which supposed to be for intra-division competitions, and immediately introduce the MM algorithm which skyrockets the amount of cross-division matchups (as if dividing fleet and chars GP was not enough...), which hurt both sides in different way. Then what's the point of divisions at all?
However matchmaking works right now, in the past or in the future you are expected to push your GP up for better reward structure...which is overall to CG's benefit naturally.
This is not to say you should simply gain GP with any method possible at all. If this current matching stayed people would start to look their top 40 and whom to move from the bottom up there in order to have a lean top where every single toon matters.
I'm not holding my breath waiting, that's for sure.
Hold it or not, it's on. Doubt you would like it to stay as it currently is. Folks are already into new method of how to circumvent it and gain advantage from it instead of just trying to play better without putting their minds into matchmaking itself.
All my viewpoints are based on the assumption that ea/cg can not ever get matchmaking "right", so all we can do is hope that the method they chose is favourable for us personally. Making adjustments to optimize the "competativeness" of your roster is a reasonable thing to do as well imo.
Ok then, we have to agree to disagree. I know how I exactly would do this if it was my job and I was allowed to. And what that entails is also in the announcement they laid out their intentions with. The possible optimization this new method introduces has little to do with developing a better roster too. Concentrated top end rosters are the future of competetiveness in GAC if it's here to stay. Just like the previous -keep lean to get an easy match- this also introduces no risk, only cg laid out+proven to work type of development.
But I think we can all agree on, for example, the situation cited by swgohfan29 - 2 of the 8 have both Revans, 2 of the 8 have neither. That is in no way "fair", competitive or fun - for any of players. I've been on both sides of that situation and it's not an enjoyable gaming experience to win easily or lose easily.
And that also doesn't seem to make sense given CG's statements regarding the "improved" matchmaking for GAC - which talks about facing people whose rosters "look more like yours". Whether people agree or not that GAC "should" consist of largely evenly matched opponents, that is what CG stated the goal of matchup "tweak" was for. Judging by the results, they seemed to have missed by a rather large margin.
I am willing to play it out to see how this all shakes out, but if these drastically unbalanced matchups are truly WAI, this will be an easy time in the game's life for me to see if any of my guildmates are interested in playing a new account.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*