unfairness within a division
Hi @CG_Carrie, dev team,
I won't talk about the matchmaking, I think this was already discussed many times in other threads. Having to face an opponent with 500k more GP (so mor or less 4 or 5 more full g12 teams) isn't really fair, but ok.
But what I really have a problem with, is that from the same division, people do not have to set the same number of defensive teams. In my case, in division 3, people seems to be able to set either 6 or 8 teams.
So only with the defensive phase, some people will have 180 more points per round. So basically, the top10 will only be those who can set 8 teams, and can win all of the GAs. There is no point for people setting 6 teams to even try to compete for the top, it's very very unlikely that they can go near that.
Would it be possible to harmonize the GP range for division AND for calculating the number of defensive team to set ? That would look more appropriate. Otherwise, the ranking means even less.
We do not need that kind of difference, while there is already many factors that can screw the ranking, as it's not about winning and losing, but about getting points. You can easily see that facing someone going heavy on defense, or someone going heavy on offense, will drastically affect the amount of points you may get, and thus your ranking, provided that you win in both cases. So if you want to screw someone's ranking, just put all your best team in defense.
On a side note, why didn't you go with elo ranking ? I mean, it's not like every game is using this ranking calculation, so it's not like it has been proven many time. I thus understand why you wanted to reinvent the wheel...
Have fun compiling all the feedbacks !
I won't talk about the matchmaking, I think this was already discussed many times in other threads. Having to face an opponent with 500k more GP (so mor or less 4 or 5 more full g12 teams) isn't really fair, but ok.
But what I really have a problem with, is that from the same division, people do not have to set the same number of defensive teams. In my case, in division 3, people seems to be able to set either 6 or 8 teams.
So only with the defensive phase, some people will have 180 more points per round. So basically, the top10 will only be those who can set 8 teams, and can win all of the GAs. There is no point for people setting 6 teams to even try to compete for the top, it's very very unlikely that they can go near that.
Would it be possible to harmonize the GP range for division AND for calculating the number of defensive team to set ? That would look more appropriate. Otherwise, the ranking means even less.
We do not need that kind of difference, while there is already many factors that can screw the ranking, as it's not about winning and losing, but about getting points. You can easily see that facing someone going heavy on defense, or someone going heavy on offense, will drastically affect the amount of points you may get, and thus your ranking, provided that you win in both cases. So if you want to screw someone's ranking, just put all your best team in defense.
On a side note, why didn't you go with elo ranking ? I mean, it's not like every game is using this ranking calculation, so it's not like it has been proven many time. I thus understand why you wanted to reinvent the wheel...
Have fun compiling all the feedbacks !
0
- 61.6K General Discussion
- -35 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.7K Arena and Character Strategy
- 3.2K Individual Events
- 5.5K Guild Events
- 4.7K PVP and Rivalry
- 51K Guild Recruitment
- 751 Art and Media
- 4.2K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
Considering league progression is driving GAC rewards (higher league equals better rewards) you have blown the lid off this scheme to bury a progression limiter into the algorithm.
They won't address it, but it's a solid point. Good job thinking this through your good with critical thinking, you get it. Most people don't.