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.
Pride comes for the fall ;p
Joking aside, your idea of ideal matchmaking is obviously not universal for all players. Edge cases will always exist. We don't even agree what "developing a better roster" means by the looks of it.
People will never, ever be happy. This is an extremely silly place, but not in a good way.
True, but you're on this forum more than anyone. Are there more matchup complaints now than previous GA's? I'd claim yes.
#CloneHelmets4Life...VICTORY!!!! "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).
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.
Toon differences doesn't make it fun but totally fits with my idea of fair. Soon there will be people with negotiators and Wat which many others won't have. There are have's and have not's always. That outcome is due to player effort and should be kept to be player advantage just like their choices of development on what's avaliable to everyone.
We can't be sure unless CG comes out and reveals what -variables- they were thinking of. Matching rosters that looks similar depends on what the variables are. And naturally our idea of similar is totally constructed by game outcomes and may have little bearing on CG's take on it.
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.
Depends on your definition of fair.
I can just as easily argue that it's unfair that everyone who didn't invest resources into unlocking drevan and malak is being "rewarded" by not having to face drevan and malak (which seems to something you're advocating for).
I'd wager that my chances of winning would be a lot higher if i could let my own drevan/malak magically disappear and only face players without them than my chances currently are. (7/8 have malak including myself). Obviously that's based on the assumption that there are way more "not so great" players without malak than there are with malak. Ofcourse i can't prove that or anything like that, but i honestly feel like that's a reasonable assumption to make.
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.
Toon differences doesn't make it fun but totally fits with my idea of fair. Soon there will be people with negotiators and Wat which many others won't have. There are have's and have not's always. That outcome is due to player effort and should be kept to be player advantage just like their choices of development on what's avaliable to everyone.
We can't be sure unless CG comes out and reveals what -variables- they were thinking of. Matching rosters that looks similar depends on what the variables are. And naturally our idea of similar is totally constructed by game outcomes and may have little bearing on CG's take on it.
That's true, of course. I just think when most people think of "a roster that looks similar to yours" the current and previous meta-dominant characters (and the ones with some of the highest power in the game - which is why I question the theory that "it only checks the top 80 characters" and whether or not that's actually working as intended) is a common sense place to start.
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*
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.
Pride comes for the fall ;p
Joking aside, your idea of ideal matchmaking is obviously not universal for all players. Edge cases will always exist. We don't even agree what "developing a better roster" means by the looks of it.
What's your idea of developing a better roster? Mine is...on a rather invisible matchmaking method that has little importance, laying out various strategies that are effective depending on options avaliable to me, maxing out stuff more than others (beyond arena metas) and trying to excel at mods.
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.
Toon differences doesn't make it fun but totally fits with my idea of fair. Soon there will be people with negotiators and Wat which many others won't have. There are have's and have not's always. That outcome is due to player effort and should be kept to be player advantage just like their choices of development on what's avaliable to everyone.
We can't be sure unless CG comes out and reveals what -variables- they were thinking of. Matching rosters that looks similar depends on what the variables are. And naturally our idea of similar is totally constructed by game outcomes and may have little bearing on CG's take on it.
That's true, of course. I just think when most people think of "a roster that looks similar to yours" the current and previous meta-dominant characters (and the ones with some of the highest power in the game - which is why I question the theory that "it only checks the top 80 characters" and whether or not that's actually working as intended) is a common sense place to start.
I didn't put the ingame statement of how it works right now upto the task. People that simply added that top portion GPs confirmed the matchmaking was working on that GP slice total on chats I've read. It's a brute force method just like matching on total toon GP was.
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.
Depends on your definition of fair.
I can just as easily argue that it's unfair that everyone who didn't invest resources into unlocking drevan and malak is being "rewarded" by not having to face drevan and malak (which seems to something you're advocating for).
I'd wager that my chances of winning would be a lot higher if i could let my own drevan/malak magically disappear and only face players without them than my chances currently are. (7/8 have malak including myself). Obviously that's based on the assumption that there are way more "not so great" players without malak than there are with malak. Ofcourse i can't prove that or anything like that, but i honestly feel like that's a reasonable assumption to make.
While I realize that is some people's preference (especially those that are the "have"s), that's not what CG said - either in the GAC matchup rework (where they talk about facing rosters that look more like yours) or in the GA in-game info screen where it talks about matchups being based on "the maximum power of units a player is allowed to use." - as the two Revans are some of the highest powered characters in the game.
Players that have the Revans/Malak are already "rewarded" in almost every other area of the game - arena, raids, TB (the new one as well), etc. CG has seemed to indicate (repeatedly) that GA and GAC are designed to create more "even" matchups. That doesn't seem to be how the current algorithm is working. At all.
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*
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.
Depends on your definition of fair.
I can just as easily argue that it's unfair that everyone who didn't invest resources into unlocking drevan and malak is being "rewarded" by not having to face drevan and malak (which seems to something you're advocating for).
I'd wager that my chances of winning would be a lot higher if i could let my own drevan/malak magically disappear and only face players without them than my chances currently are. (7/8 have malak including myself). Obviously that's based on the assumption that there are way more "not so great" players without malak than there are with malak. Ofcourse i can't prove that or anything like that, but i honestly feel like that's a reasonable assumption to make.
While I realize that is some people's preference (especially those that are the "have"s), that's not what CG said - either in the GAC matchup rework (where they talk about facing rosters that look more like yours) or in the GA in-game info screen where it talks about matchups being based on "the maximum power of units a player is allowed to use." - as the two Revans are some of the highest powered characters in the game.
Players that have the Revans/Malak are already "rewarded" in almost every other area of the game - arena, raids, TB (the new one as well), etc. CG has seemed to indicate (repeatedly) that GA and GAC are designed to create more "even" matchups. That doesn't seem to be how the current algorithm is working. At all.
It's adding up the gps of that topmost part. Revans having some extra gp there doesn't make much difference. It's not matching on toon by toon gp basis and tries to find a fitting picture on 40 or whatever seperate gps.
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.
Toon differences doesn't make it fun but totally fits with my idea of fair. Soon there will be people with negotiators and Wat which many others won't have. There are have's and have not's always. That outcome is due to player effort and should be kept to be player advantage just like their choices of development on what's avaliable to everyone.
We can't be sure unless CG comes out and reveals what -variables- they were thinking of. Matching rosters that looks similar depends on what the variables are. And naturally our idea of similar is totally constructed by game outcomes and may have little bearing on CG's take on it.
That's true, of course. I just think when most people think of "a roster that looks similar to yours" the current and previous meta-dominant characters (and the ones with some of the highest power in the game - which is why I question the theory that "it only checks the top 80 characters" and whether or not that's actually working as intended) is a common sense place to start.
I didn't put the ingame statement of how it works right now upto the task. People that simply added that top portion GPs confirmed the matchmaking was working on that GP slice total on chats I've read. It's a brute force method just like matching on total toon GP was.
But that doesn't seem to add up when you consider swgohfan29's example (and the many others like it). How are two of the highest powered characters (JKR and DR) not being accounted for then? Outside of CLS, those two are the highest powered characters 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*
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.
Toon differences doesn't make it fun but totally fits with my idea of fair. Soon there will be people with negotiators and Wat which many others won't have. There are have's and have not's always. That outcome is due to player effort and should be kept to be player advantage just like their choices of development on what's avaliable to everyone.
We can't be sure unless CG comes out and reveals what -variables- they were thinking of. Matching rosters that looks similar depends on what the variables are. And naturally our idea of similar is totally constructed by game outcomes and may have little bearing on CG's take on it.
That's true, of course. I just think when most people think of "a roster that looks similar to yours" the current and previous meta-dominant characters (and the ones with some of the highest power in the game - which is why I question the theory that "it only checks the top 80 characters" and whether or not that's actually working as intended) is a common sense place to start.
I didn't put the ingame statement of how it works right now upto the task. People that simply added that top portion GPs confirmed the matchmaking was working on that GP slice total on chats I've read. It's a brute force method just like matching on total toon GP was.
But that doesn't seem to add up when you consider swgohfan29's example (and the many others like it). How are two of the highest powered characters (JKR and DR) not being accounted for then? Outside of CLS, those two are the highest powered characters in the game.
Dunno, check how many deployable zones there are, browse both rosters and add their top gp numbers up and see if they fit. The ones I saw did. Too lazy to do that for my own matchups as I don't believe this method is here to stay either.
We don't even agree what "developing a better roster" means by the looks of it.
And may be you never will, because if matchmaking is based on roster then "better" roster will depend on MM algorithm. And algorithm-based optimizations/exploits (aka sandbagging) may even become more important than pursuing meta teams, actual roster development, etc. Or may not, it depends.
If, however, MM algorithm is based purely on actual player performance, this allows you don't care about it and develop roster purely around building better squads, counters, etc., as it should be 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.
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.
Your thread title asks if the algorithm is worse than before. Based on this metric, it's basically unchanged.
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.
Your thread title asks if the algorithm is worse than before. Based on this metric, it's basically unchanged.
Except, judging by the big bump in posts here and on reddit (and the much larger roster discrepancies posted - especially on reddit), it seems to be worse by a significant margin.
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*
We don't even agree what "developing a better roster" means by the looks of it.
And may be you never will, because if matchmaking is based on roster then "better" roster will depend on MM algorithm. And algorithm-based optimizations/exploits (aka sandbagging) may even become more important than pursuing meta teams, actual roster development, etc. Or may not, it depends.
"building a better roster" is the constant in the context i used it in, it doesn't change with how matchmaking changes. Point being that No_Try would like to base matchmaking on his idea of what "building a better roster" means, not the other way around.
Before TW, or mainly GA, there was no matchmaking in swgoh, but you could still build a better roster.
If, however, MM algorithm is based purely on actual player performance, this allows you don't care about it and develop roster purely around building better squads, counters, etc., as it should be imo.
There's something logically wrong with this paragraph. It's impossible for matchmaking to be purely based on actual player performance, but also allows you to build better squads, counters, etc etc.
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.
Your thread title asks if the algorithm is worse than before. Based on this metric, it's basically unchanged.
Except, judging by the big bump in posts here and on reddit (and the much larger roster discrepancies posted - especially on reddit), it seems to be worse by a significant margin.
Except, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the way you keep bringing up this "2 people have Revans and 2 don't" as if it's in any way relevant to your thread. It's not. This was happening all the time under the previous system too.
The OP hasn't really posted any usable information to assess how the matchmaking did on the match-up. Just telling us the character GP numbers doesn't tell us anything as everyone knows that there is GP fluff which is useless in a GA battle (although apparently some people are now terrified to face this roster fluff). Also, just because one person has Malak and the other doesn't, that doesn't tell us much either. You're never going to get matched up with the exact same roster as yours. Also, I'm not sure the reference to speed and offense mods means much as I don't believe the matchmaking system has ever factored in who has more speed or offense mods. However, that does tell us that the OP ran the match-up through the bot because it will spit out the number of speed mods and offense mods for each. Therefore, the fact that the OP chose to run the match-up bot but not post the match-up and only included limited information tells us that the match-up is probably fairly balanced in terms of number of G11s and G12s or possibly even in the OP's favor. Otherwise, there would be no reason to run the match-up and hide it from the post.
I am sitting down dinner right now, but am more than happy to post full screen shots (and discord stats) to back up that claim tomorrow morning when I have more time.
Please do. Let's see the printout of the Discord bot match-up you obviously ran to get the numbers on the speed and offense mods and show us where you apparently have a huge disadvantage in terms of numbers of G11s and G12s. Otherwise, you haven't established any tangible match-making issue.
The OP hasn't really posted any usable information to assess how the matchmaking did on the match-up. Just telling us the character GP numbers doesn't tell us anything as everyone knows that there is GP fluff which is useless in a GA battle (although apparently some people are now terrified to face this roster fluff). Also, just because one person has Malak and the other doesn't, that doesn't tell us much either. You're never going to get matched up with the exact same roster as yours. Also, I'm not sure the reference to speed and offense mods means much as I don't believe the matchmaking system has ever factored in who has more speed or offense mods. However, that does tell us that the OP ran the match-up through the bot because it will spit out the number of speed mods and offense mods for each. Therefore, the fact that the OP chose to run the match-up bot but not post the match-up and only included limited information tells us that the match-up is probably fairly balanced in terms of number of G11s and G12s or possibly even in the OP's favor. Otherwise, there would be no reason to run the match-up and hide it from the post.
I am sitting down dinner right now, but am more than happy to post full screen shots (and discord stats) to back up that claim tomorrow morning when I have more time.
Please do. Let's see the printout of the Discord bot match-up you obviously ran to get the numbers on the speed and offense mods and show us where you apparently have a huge disadvantage in terms of numbers of G11s and G12s. Otherwise, you haven't established any tangible match-making issue.
Char GP :: 2.7M vs 2.9M
Ship GP :: 1.7M vs 2.0M
C Arena :: 31 vs 28
S Arena :: 2 vs 43
Zetas :: 64 vs 70
6 Star :: 10 vs 4
7 Star :: 180 vs 208
Gear 11 :: 27 vs 40
Gear 12 :: 72 vs 74
Mod Stats:
6* Mods :: 66 vs 63 10+ Spd :: 126 vs 219
15+ Spd :: 36 vs 68
20+ Spd :: 11 vs 14 100+ Off :: 26 vs 57
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*
You're just asking CG to cover up your lack of mod farming.
I didn't even notice the 126 10+ before, I was focused on the 36 15+. As a launch player, you can't blame bad luck for such a low number of 10+. I started in April 2017 and have 207.
I think OP just wants to play himself or something. He seems to want only identical rosters to be matched up, which is impossible.
Nice strawman. I simply would like to know if CG's point about "Those players will still be rewarded for their strategy in Grand Arena, but they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them." and the statement in the GAC info screen about matchups being based on the maximum power of the units allowed to be used is actually working as intended and is being reflected in the matchups currently in place.
I realize there are some of you who would personally prefer it not be as CG has clearly stated - repeatedly. Sorry if that's not how you want the game to play. In the same post (regarding GAC matchup improvements) CG clearly stated : "The change won’t be drastic – in most cases, players should still have GP that is pretty close to that of their opponent." - that doesn't seem to be happening either. Again, whether or not that's your personal preference (or mine) is irrelevant. Either CG's statements about the matchmaking rework are off base, or the way the matchup algorithm is working (or not working) is. I'm just offering feedback and wanting to know which it is.
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*
You're just asking CG to cover up your lack of mod farming.
I didn't even notice the 126 10+ before, I was focused on the 36 15+. As a launch player, you can't blame bad luck for such a low number of 10+. I started in April 2017 and have 207.
Lol - you're right. I'm the only one with a bad matchup and it's all about me. If you want to mod brag, start your own post.
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*
Current matchmaking has nothing to do with their announcement either. There are 3 seperate things in our hands right now. Let's differentiate between them. 2 realities and one promise and some vague statements associated with it.
You're just asking CG to cover up your lack of mod farming.
I didn't even notice the 126 10+ before, I was focused on the 36 15+. As a launch player, you can't blame bad luck for such a low number of 10+. I started in April 2017 and have 207.
Lol - you're right. I'm the only one with a bad matchup and it's all about me. If you want to mod brag, start your own post.
You complained about your matchup in your OP.
And I'm not bragging about 10+. There's much less luck involved there. You just haven't put the work into mods and want CG to help you cover up that deficiency in your roster.
Replies
Pride comes for the fall ;p
Joking aside, your idea of ideal matchmaking is obviously not universal for all players. Edge cases will always exist. We don't even agree what "developing a better roster" means by the looks of it.
True, but you're on this forum more than anyone. Are there more matchup complaints now than previous GA's? I'd claim yes.
Toon differences doesn't make it fun but totally fits with my idea of fair. Soon there will be people with negotiators and Wat which many others won't have. There are have's and have not's always. That outcome is due to player effort and should be kept to be player advantage just like their choices of development on what's avaliable to everyone.
We can't be sure unless CG comes out and reveals what -variables- they were thinking of. Matching rosters that looks similar depends on what the variables are. And naturally our idea of similar is totally constructed by game outcomes and may have little bearing on CG's take on it.
Depends on your definition of fair.
I can just as easily argue that it's unfair that everyone who didn't invest resources into unlocking drevan and malak is being "rewarded" by not having to face drevan and malak (which seems to something you're advocating for).
I'd wager that my chances of winning would be a lot higher if i could let my own drevan/malak magically disappear and only face players without them than my chances currently are. (7/8 have malak including myself). Obviously that's based on the assumption that there are way more "not so great" players without malak than there are with malak. Ofcourse i can't prove that or anything like that, but i honestly feel like that's a reasonable assumption to make.
That's true, of course. I just think when most people think of "a roster that looks similar to yours" the current and previous meta-dominant characters (and the ones with some of the highest power in the game - which is why I question the theory that "it only checks the top 80 characters" and whether or not that's actually working as intended) is a common sense place to start.
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*
What's your idea of developing a better roster? Mine is...on a rather invisible matchmaking method that has little importance, laying out various strategies that are effective depending on options avaliable to me, maxing out stuff more than others (beyond arena metas) and trying to excel at mods.
I didn't put the ingame statement of how it works right now upto the task. People that simply added that top portion GPs confirmed the matchmaking was working on that GP slice total on chats I've read. It's a brute force method just like matching on total toon GP was.
While I realize that is some people's preference (especially those that are the "have"s), that's not what CG said - either in the GAC matchup rework (where they talk about facing rosters that look more like yours) or in the GA in-game info screen where it talks about matchups being based on "the maximum power of units a player is allowed to use." - as the two Revans are some of the highest powered characters in the game.
Players that have the Revans/Malak are already "rewarded" in almost every other area of the game - arena, raids, TB (the new one as well), etc. CG has seemed to indicate (repeatedly) that GA and GAC are designed to create more "even" matchups. That doesn't seem to be how the current algorithm is working. At all.
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 adding up the gps of that topmost part. Revans having some extra gp there doesn't make much difference. It's not matching on toon by toon gp basis and tries to find a fitting picture on 40 or whatever seperate gps.
But that doesn't seem to add up when you consider swgohfan29's example (and the many others like it). How are two of the highest powered characters (JKR and DR) not being accounted for then? Outside of CLS, those two are the highest powered characters 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*
Dunno, check how many deployable zones there are, browse both rosters and add their top gp numbers up and see if they fit. The ones I saw did. Too lazy to do that for my own matchups as I don't believe this method is here to stay either.
And may be you never will, because if matchmaking is based on roster then "better" roster will depend on MM algorithm. And algorithm-based optimizations/exploits (aka sandbagging) may even become more important than pursuing meta teams, actual roster development, etc. Or may not, it depends.
If, however, MM algorithm is based purely on actual player performance, this allows you don't care about it and develop roster purely around building better squads, counters, etc., as it should be imo.
I guess you don't remember when GA was first launched. Or TW for that matter.
This is exactly the same as every single time there's new content.
Your thread title asks if the algorithm is worse than before. Based on this metric, it's basically unchanged.
Except, judging by the big bump in posts here and on reddit (and the much larger roster discrepancies posted - especially on reddit), it seems to be worse by a significant margin.
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*
Before TW, or mainly GA, there was no matchmaking in swgoh, but you could still build a better roster.
There's something logically wrong with this paragraph. It's impossible for matchmaking to be purely based on actual player performance, but also allows you to build better squads, counters, etc etc.
Except, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the way you keep bringing up this "2 people have Revans and 2 don't" as if it's in any way relevant to your thread. It's not. This was happening all the time under the previous system too.
Ha, that was fast.
Please do. Let's see the printout of the Discord bot match-up you obviously ran to get the numbers on the speed and offense mods and show us where you apparently have a huge disadvantage in terms of numbers of G11s and G12s. Otherwise, you haven't established any tangible match-making issue.
Ship GP :: 1.7M vs 2.0M
C Arena :: 31 vs 28
S Arena :: 2 vs 43
Zetas :: 64 vs 70
6 Star :: 10 vs 4
7 Star :: 180 vs 208
Gear 11 :: 27 vs 40
Gear 12 :: 72 vs 74
Mod Stats:
6* Mods :: 66 vs 63
10+ Spd :: 126 vs 219
15+ Spd :: 36 vs 68
20+ Spd :: 11 vs 14
100+ Off :: 26 vs 57
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 didn't even notice the 126 10+ before, I was focused on the 36 15+. As a launch player, you can't blame bad luck for such a low number of 10+. I started in April 2017 and have 207.
Nice strawman. I simply would like to know if CG's point about "Those players will still be rewarded for their strategy in Grand Arena, but they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them." and the statement in the GAC info screen about matchups being based on the maximum power of the units allowed to be used is actually working as intended and is being reflected in the matchups currently in place.
I realize there are some of you who would personally prefer it not be as CG has clearly stated - repeatedly. Sorry if that's not how you want the game to play. In the same post (regarding GAC matchup improvements) CG clearly stated : "The change won’t be drastic – in most cases, players should still have GP that is pretty close to that of their opponent." - that doesn't seem to be happening either. Again, whether or not that's your personal preference (or mine) is irrelevant. Either CG's statements about the matchmaking rework are off base, or the way the matchup algorithm is working (or not working) is. I'm just offering feedback and wanting to know which it is.
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*
Lol - you're right. I'm the only one with a bad matchup and it's all about me. If you want to mod brag, start your own post.
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*
You complained about your matchup in your OP.
And I'm not bragging about 10+. There's much less luck involved there. You just haven't put the work into mods and want CG to help you cover up that deficiency in your roster.
https://swgohevents.com/gp-compare?p1=279847465&p2=589575321&total=30&submit=Submit
https://swgohevents.com/gp-compare?p1=279-847-465&p2=589-575-321&total=60&submit=Submit