This toon value system in the talk also ignores emerging/theory crafted teams which is the bread and butter of the game...and that further restricts us to CG designated compos. How do you account for the GG nuke team parading around these days?
I think only weighting they need to apply is a blind one, blind to mod speeds even, just the number of mods and their distribution of development quality compared between players etc. The content of those mods should be irrelevant to such an algo and should stay as player advantage. Gear distribution, zeta and omega totals can also enter into the weighting picture similarly. Abundancy on one front and lack on others should still make MM between 2 players possible within certain thresholds (let's say A has upto %20 better mods, B has %20 more zetas etc.). This type of algo would also put more weight into each investment we make over time, put a bad zeta somewhere that you can't use in pvp, that's on you.
Actually a weighted system based on the player base would help top theory crafters and emerging combos. The first players to use them would be paired against "lower weight" opponents because they would have a lower weighted team. New toons or odd toons used effectively by less players would be weighted less, which is a reward for being outside of the box.
What you suggest starts to go back to what Nic and leef were saying, do you really want them saying what is equivalent? What % of mods is equal to % of zetas?
It also sounds much like the current system, GP, which treats all things equal, so I'm not sure how that would change what we currently have.
This toon value system in the talk also ignores emerging/theory crafted teams which is the bread and butter of the game...and that further restricts us to CG designated compos. How do you account for the GG nuke team parading around these days?
I think only weighting they need to apply is a blind one, blind to mod speeds even, just the number of mods and their distribution of development quality compared between players etc. The content of those mods should be irrelevant to such an algo and should stay as player advantage. Gear distribution, zeta and omega totals can also enter into the weighting picture similarly. Abundancy on one front and lack on others should still make MM between 2 players possible within certain thresholds (let's say A has upto %20 better mods, B has %20 more zetas etc.). This type of algo would also put more weight into each investment we make over time, put a bad zeta somewhere that you can't use in pvp, that's on you.
Actually a weighted system based on the player base would help top theory crafters and emerging combos. The first players to use them would be paired against "lower weight" opponents because they would have a lower weighted team. New toons or odd toons used effectively by less players would be weighted less, which is a reward for being outside of the box.
What you suggest starts to go back to what Nic and leef were saying, do you really want them saying what is equivalent? What % of mods is equal to % of zetas?
It also sounds much like the current system, GP, which treats all things equal, so I'm not sure how that would change what we currently have.
If you remember the og matchmaking topics my initial suggestion was to revamp GP itself which is extremely lopsided itself. But any hopes on that behalf went down the drain with Geo Tb launch. The original gp tables are set randomly without regarding much consideration besides everything has more value as their numbers arise.
Anyway I don't see how the community use works, i.e. Malak gets released, only 7-8k people gets him which makes him a scarcity which would be weighted much lower since it's not used as things everyone got.
...maybe a better thing can be figured out if I was in line with this toon worth idea. But regardless of me getting stuff (more unlikely than any spender) I'm against it as it's player capability and advantage what toon to grab. Some are able to grab all, some make sacrifices to get one over another, some of those investments doesn't turn out that good etc. All these should be crystallised and preserved at any time imo.
To reduce the complexity of a weighting system, couldn't they use the player base to rough out how to weight a toon.
Basically, the more players that have them developed past some GP value or some development marker, the more they should be weighted.
Toons that are built up for other reasons would fudge this a little, but as time moved on they would fall behind leaving the most used toons weighted higher.
This would allow for an evolving weighted system. This could also be setup to give a negative value for highly used toons that a player doesnt have, but that could possibly be manipulated (maybe).
That's not a good system. There are a lot of bad toons who are more commonly kitted out, and a lot of good toons who are not.
Bounty Hunters are a great example. There are no bad hunters, but there's a pretty clear, commonly agreed upon divide between the great ones- Bossk, Boba, Jango, Dengar, Embo- and the good to okay ones- Cad, Greedo, Aurra, IG-88, and Zam.
Let's go off of G12s for convenience.
There are 43k G12 Cad Banes in the game. For IG-88, generally agreed to be the worst hunter, 40k. Zam, arguably the worst without a ship, 16k. Greedo? 50k.
Embo, one of the game's great hunters? 12k. This isn't because of his power or viability. It's because he's inconvenient, and someone building a fleet or a hunter team is already doing two 20 energy hard node farms for Bossk and HT (which comes with Jango). Someone who built up Embo would get clocked as weaker than someone who built up Greedo despite Embo being the stronger hunter.
As for me, I have these:
My Resistance team is JTR, BB-8, R2, Rose, Amilyn. They can throw down at or above the level of the old school GK/Thrawn Resistance lineup.
Rose is a good unit. Holdo is a great unit. But because they're unpopular characters and single hard node farms, and there are more accessible alternatives, they're not commonly invested in. By the model you propose, I would be clocked as having two of the worst units in the game and it would dismiss those two outright.
There are 4.7k G12 Holdos in the game. There are 5.6k G12 Farmboy Lukes in the game. There are less than a thousand G12 Roses in the game, and two G13s to over 1000 G12 Kit Fistos in the game and one G13.
I would be clocked as having two toons on the level of Farmboy Luke and Kit Fisto when in reality they're two effective and key members in one of my stronger teams.
It gets much, much worse when you factor in new, limited access units. Right now, the premier examples would be Malak and Padme.
There are 8k G12 Malaks at the moment and 9k G12 Padmes. There are 10k G12 Luminaras. Going based on total investment, Malak and Padme would be clocked as being as powerful as Luminara, which would just break the system outright.
This whole game is based on dice rolls, just make match making within a division a dice roll as well. As the GAC progresses and people win/lose things will sort themselves out, but at least we would all know the initial matches were random and then don't have to complain about some wonky algorithm.
I would prefer a dice roll.
“We have no clue how to do proper matchmaking, so we will just do random.”
To reduce the complexity of a weighting system, couldn't they use the player base to rough out how to weight a toon.
Basically, the more players that have them developed past some GP value or some development marker, the more they should be weighted.
Toons that are built up for other reasons would fudge this a little, but as time moved on they would fall behind leaving the most used toons weighted higher.
This would allow for an evolving weighted system. This could also be setup to give a negative value for highly used toons that a player doesnt have, but that could possibly be manipulated (maybe).
That's not a good system. There are a lot of bad toons who are more commonly kitted out, and a lot of good toons who are not.
Bounty Hunters are a great example. There are no bad hunters, but there's a pretty clear, commonly agreed upon divide between the great ones- Bossk, Boba, Jango, Dengar, Embo- and the good to okay ones- Cad, Greedo, Aurra, IG-88, and Zam.
Let's go off of G12s for convenience.
There are 43k G12 Cad Banes in the game. For IG-88, generally agreed to be the worst hunter, 40k. Zam, arguably the worst without a ship, 16k. Greedo? 50k.
Embo, one of the game's great hunters? 12k. This isn't because of his power or viability. It's because he's inconvenient, and someone building a fleet or a hunter team is already doing two 20 energy hard node farms for Bossk and HT (which comes with Jango). Someone who built up Embo would get clocked as weaker than someone who built up Greedo despite Embo being the stronger hunter.
As for me, I have these:
My Resistance team is JTR, BB-8, R2, Rose, Amilyn. They can throw down at or above the level of the old school GK/Thrawn Resistance lineup.
Rose is a good unit. Holdo is a great unit. But because they're unpopular characters and single hard node farms, and there are more accessible alternatives, they're not commonly invested in. By the model you propose, I would be clocked as having two of the worst units in the game and it would dismiss those two outright.
There are 4.7k G12 Holdos in the game. There are 5.6k G12 Farmboy Lukes in the game. There are less than a thousand G12 Roses in the game, and two G13s to over 1000 G12 Kit Fistos in the game and one G13.
I would be clocked as having two toons on the level of Farmboy Luke and Kit Fisto when in reality they're two effective and key members in one of my stronger teams.
It gets much, much worse when you factor in new, limited access units. Right now, the premier examples would be Malak and Padme.
There are 8k G12 Malaks at the moment and 9k G12 Padmes. There are 10k G12 Luminaras. Going based on total investment, Malak and Padme would be clocked as being as powerful as Luminara, which would just break the system outright.
Put a top end on it (say 85-90%), this would drop all highly owned toons down to normal value. Or only use the past 2-3 meta reports from arena for what toons should be weighted.
The point is to have a system that doesnt need dev input. The players are the ones using toons, that data should be useful in this respect. Also it could be used and not strictly power based. The system would need to be flexible but based on a "natural occurence " in the game so it would always evolve.
Edit to add:
The % would be based on unlocked and used/geared or whatever, so the malak/DR/new toon issue is solved. They would almost always be weighted heavily.
100% of unlocked toons being used would be weighted 100%, for example.
And rewarding people for being outside of the box is a good thing, isnt it?
It’s been tested - double the number of toons you’re setting on defence. You and your 8 bracket opponents will have very similar figures for this.
But they could have 100 more g12 than you... This can't be the competitive matchup (80 g12 vs 165 g12) that they intended to make its as one sided as can be
It’s been tested - double the number of toons you’re setting on defence. You and your 8 bracket opponents will have very similar figures for this.
But they could have 100 more g12 than you... This can't be the competitive matchup (80 g12 vs 165 g12) that they intended to make its as one sided as can be
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying how it works.
Some have spoken about GP matchup working of 10 more than minimum # of toons. That sounds workable to me.
But ultimately I don’t think someone who has 90-100 g12 toons should worry about matching someone with 160 g12 toons. The bigger player will not be using any of those 60 extra g12 toons.
The current system gives a HUGE advantage to whales only looking at 80 toons and disregarding 81-rest of the roster.
People with 165 g12 get matched against people with 80 g12...
For everyone with less than 80 g12 it works pretty much fairly, but for every g12 beyond that 80th spot it's a free advantage to the player with useful toons after 80
Yet again people are forgetting about secondary speed mods as well. That should be seriously factored into matchmaking and yet CG refuses to acknowledge that aspect as an important determinant as to whether matches are even close or not.
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
Yet again people are forgetting about secondary speed mods as well. That should be seriously factored into matchmaking and yet CG refuses to acknowledge that aspect as an important determinant as to whether matches are even close or not.
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
I dont think mods can or should be used in matchmaking, IMHO.
Yet again people are forgetting about secondary speed mods as well. That should be seriously factored into matchmaking and yet CG refuses to acknowledge that aspect as an important determinant as to whether matches are even close or not.
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
The problem with factoring mods in is their value is dynamic.
It's not strictly that more speed sets is better chance of victory anymore. There are more and more teams and units who don't really care about speed. Padme, Separatist droids, and Shaak Troopers can all do quite well without much in the way of speed, or with relatively few units worrying about speed. Units like Chewie and Nest and Resistance Trooper and Sith Trooper can also do well with little or no speed. Nightsisters lineups favoring bulk and offense can do very well in certain matchups.
Make speed mods a heavy factor in the matchmaking and you make the matchmaking more gamable by disproportionately rewarding teams and units who do not rely as much on speed.
Yet again people are forgetting about secondary speed mods as well. That should be seriously factored into matchmaking and yet CG refuses to acknowledge that aspect as an important determinant as to whether matches are even close or not.
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
I dont think mods can or should be used in matchmaking, IMHO.
If you are seriously trying to match rosters based on their combat potential you have to include.mods because they can make a big difference.
Yet again people are forgetting about secondary speed mods as well. That should be seriously factored into matchmaking and yet CG refuses to acknowledge that aspect as an important determinant as to whether matches are even close or not.
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
I dont think mods can or should be used in matchmaking, IMHO.
If you are seriously trying to match rosters based on their combat potential you have to include.mods because they can make a big difference.
But as @YaeVizsla said, how do you weight them? And the MM would be way too granular at that point as that is literally the largest potential variable between all rosters. And ultimately, at the highest levels, its the only variable. And its a choice that can now be made with free energy.
No matter the formula people will complain. I just think we should play this season out and then see how it shakes out.
Yet again people are forgetting about secondary speed mods as well. That should be seriously factored into matchmaking and yet CG refuses to acknowledge that aspect as an important determinant as to whether matches are even close or not.
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
CG might not have a clue about match making for close matches (they don't based on my bracket - there are 2 guys without Malak...both already had their defenses full cleared, one won't even clear 1 territory on offense)....but they do understand the fact that the game is largely about speed. Just look at g12+4, 12+5 and the "finishers" . All grant significant speed bonuses.
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*
Yet again people are forgetting about secondary speed mods as well. That should be seriously factored into matchmaking and yet CG refuses to acknowledge that aspect as an important determinant as to whether matches are even close or not.
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
I dont think mods can or should be used in matchmaking, IMHO.
If you are seriously trying to match rosters based on their combat potential you have to include.mods because they can make a big difference.
But as @YaeVizsla said, how do you weight them? And the MM would be way too granular at that point as that is literally the largest potential variable between all rosters. And ultimately, at the highest levels, its the only variable. And its a choice that can now be made with free energy.
Well you could use them to calculate the toon's combat stats and weight those but I am not here to advocate for going down that rabbit hole, I was merely pointing out that any serious attempt to quantify combat potential needs to account for mods. Frankly a much bigger problem is quantifying the combat potential of each toon's abilities once you get beyond the simple +%whatevers.
No matter the formula people will complain. I just think we should play this season out and then see how it shakes out.
I don't disagree. I want to see how the Leagues factor in to matchmaking particularly by the third and fourth GAs where we will be a lot more spread out.
Yea, my opponent has 3 g13, malak, DR, Padme at 7 stars.
I dont have any of that.
I am 440k lower GP as well.
Im okay with matchmaking on gp.
Im okay, tho i dislike, matchmaking based on random stuff to get mirror matches.... what im not okay with is this current utterly horrendous approach to this.
This is 3 weeks old and doesn’t address any of the issues.
Its age is irrelevant, and it addresses all of your issues.
Go back and reread the post you linked. Focus on the only bolded part in the entire post. The "close matches" part. If that's the goal, how is a guy with 7 g13 (an entire team's worth plus more) facing a guy with 1 g13 going to be a "close match"?
It still mat be a closer match than what we saw under the previous system. Furthermore, matches may become even closer as players progress through the GAC and through leagues at different paces.
7 v. 1 on g13 would seem to suggest that "top 80 GP" doesn't weigh g13 very heavily...if at all.
The difference between G12+5 and G13 is 210 GP. GP is a useless stat.
Always has been so why they use it as a matchmaking tool is beyond me.
Because it's easy.
And because any potentially superior alternative which relies on roster analysis would be ridiculously complex with no guarantee of better results because there are so many potential permutations & combinations of toons to account for.
I disagree it would be complex, though there would be a guarantee. I guarantee that if they went to a roster analysis method we would still complain about it.
How would it not be complex though? Can you come up with an easy method? Not trying to be snarky, just interrested in knowing how they could possibly do it without it becomming overly complex.
Set a rank based on a few static criteria, such as gear level counts and zetas, and then some more dynamic criteria, such as meta teams.
Get the amount of the following:
1. G11
2. G12
3. G13
4. Zetas
5. 6E mods
6. Mods with at least +15 speed
The meta will always change, so set up a table with a list of team compositions that you check for. As the meta changes, change the data so you do not change the ranking algorithm. Everyone gets a rank at the start of a GA round, and then you use that for matchmaking.
So, basically 12 mirror-matches every GAC. No thanx! It's boring and gives no incentive to strengtheb your roster.
The current system gives a HUGE advantage to whales only looking at 80 toons and disregarding 81-rest of the roster.
People with 165 g12 get matched against people with 80 g12...
For everyone with less than 80 g12 it works pretty much fairly, but for every g12 beyond that 80th spot it's a free advantage to the player with useful toons after 80
Anyone in the ballpark of 70 G12 characters might as well not even play. You will eventually get matched up with a 160 roster.
Looks close enough to me. You have to also keep in mind that there's no lock in anymore. So your opponent could've easily removed a ton of mods to reduce their future matching, or you could've upgraded stuff. It only seems to count by 100k, so that difference could easily be very small, like 1.69v1.70
The current system gives a HUGE advantage to whales only looking at 80 toons and disregarding 81-rest of the roster.
People with 165 g12 get matched against people with 80 g12...
For everyone with less than 80 g12 it works pretty much fairly, but for every g12 beyond that 80th spot it's a free advantage to the player with useful toons after 80
Anyone in the ballpark of 70 G12 characters might as well not even play. You will eventually get matched up with a 160 roster.
What is the point of divisions?
Exactly the range of where I was and exactly one of the main reasons I quit.
7 v. 1 on g13 would seem to suggest that "top 80 GP" doesn't weigh g13 very heavily...if at all.
The difference between G12+5 and G13 is 210 GP. GP is a useless stat.
Always has been so why they use it as a matchmaking tool is beyond me.
Because it's easy.
And because any potentially superior alternative which relies on roster analysis would be ridiculously complex with no guarantee of better results because there are so many potential permutations & combinations of toons to account for.
I disagree it would be complex, though there would be a guarantee. I guarantee that if they went to a roster analysis method we would still complain about it.
How would it not be complex though? Can you come up with an easy method? Not trying to be snarky, just interrested in knowing how they could possibly do it without it becomming overly complex.
Set a rank based on a few static criteria, such as gear level counts and zetas, and then some more dynamic criteria, such as meta teams.
Get the amount of the following:
1. G11
2. G12
3. G13
4. Zetas
5. 6E mods
6. Mods with at least +15 speed
The meta will always change, so set up a table with a list of team compositions that you check for. As the meta changes, change the data so you do not change the ranking algorithm. Everyone gets a rank at the start of a GA round, and then you use that for matchmaking.
So, basically 12 mirror-matches every GAC. No thanx! It's boring and gives no incentive to strengtheb your roster.
As I said, people will complain no matter what they do, so they might as well just leave it.
7 v. 1 on g13 would seem to suggest that "top 80 GP" doesn't weigh g13 very heavily...if at all.
The difference between G12+5 and G13 is 210 GP. GP is a useless stat.
Always has been so why they use it as a matchmaking tool is beyond me.
Because it's easy.
And because any potentially superior alternative which relies on roster analysis would be ridiculously complex with no guarantee of better results because there are so many potential permutations & combinations of toons to account for.
I disagree it would be complex, though there would be a guarantee. I guarantee that if they went to a roster analysis method we would still complain about it.
How would it not be complex though? Can you come up with an easy method? Not trying to be snarky, just interrested in knowing how they could possibly do it without it becomming overly complex.
Set a rank based on a few static criteria, such as gear level counts and zetas, and then some more dynamic criteria, such as meta teams.
Get the amount of the following:
1. G11
2. G12
3. G13
4. Zetas
5. 6E mods
6. Mods with at least +15 speed
The meta will always change, so set up a table with a list of team compositions that you check for. As the meta changes, change the data so you do not change the ranking algorithm. Everyone gets a rank at the start of a GA round, and then you use that for matchmaking.
So, basically 12 mirror-matches every GAC. No thanx! It's boring and gives no incentive to strengtheb your roster.
Sandbagging is actually worse now.
If you build enough teams without increasing the GP of your top80 you will win almost every time.
7 v. 1 on g13 would seem to suggest that "top 80 GP" doesn't weigh g13 very heavily...if at all.
The difference between G12+5 and G13 is 210 GP. GP is a useless stat.
Always has been so why they use it as a matchmaking tool is beyond me.
Because it's easy.
And because any potentially superior alternative which relies on roster analysis would be ridiculously complex with no guarantee of better results because there are so many potential permutations & combinations of toons to account for.
I disagree it would be complex, though there would be a guarantee. I guarantee that if they went to a roster analysis method we would still complain about it.
How would it not be complex though? Can you come up with an easy method? Not trying to be snarky, just interrested in knowing how they could possibly do it without it becomming overly complex.
Set a rank based on a few static criteria, such as gear level counts and zetas, and then some more dynamic criteria, such as meta teams.
Get the amount of the following:
1. G11
2. G12
3. G13
4. Zetas
5. 6E mods
6. Mods with at least +15 speed
The meta will always change, so set up a table with a list of team compositions that you check for. As the meta changes, change the data so you do not change the ranking algorithm. Everyone gets a rank at the start of a GA round, and then you use that for matchmaking.
So, basically 12 mirror-matches every GAC. No thanx! It's boring and gives no incentive to strengtheb your roster.
Sandbagging is actually worse now.
If you build enough teams without increasing the GP of your top80 you will win almost every time.
100 extra usable characters is insurmountable.
If the new algo makes you build teams besides your top 80, wouldn't that be the opposite of sandbagging?
If you build enough teams without increasing the GP of your top80 you will win almost every time.
100 extra usable characters is insurmountable.
It's quite surmountable. If your opponent's top 80 are sufficient to one and done your field, that extra roster depth doesn't help much. You can only use so many toons and you hit diminishing returns.
Is it an advantage? Sure. But it's not absolutely decisive in the way you frame.
Replies
Actually a weighted system based on the player base would help top theory crafters and emerging combos. The first players to use them would be paired against "lower weight" opponents because they would have a lower weighted team. New toons or odd toons used effectively by less players would be weighted less, which is a reward for being outside of the box.
What you suggest starts to go back to what Nic and leef were saying, do you really want them saying what is equivalent? What % of mods is equal to % of zetas?
It also sounds much like the current system, GP, which treats all things equal, so I'm not sure how that would change what we currently have.
If you remember the og matchmaking topics my initial suggestion was to revamp GP itself which is extremely lopsided itself. But any hopes on that behalf went down the drain with Geo Tb launch. The original gp tables are set randomly without regarding much consideration besides everything has more value as their numbers arise.
Anyway I don't see how the community use works, i.e. Malak gets released, only 7-8k people gets him which makes him a scarcity which would be weighted much lower since it's not used as things everyone got.
...maybe a better thing can be figured out if I was in line with this toon worth idea. But regardless of me getting stuff (more unlikely than any spender) I'm against it as it's player capability and advantage what toon to grab. Some are able to grab all, some make sacrifices to get one over another, some of those investments doesn't turn out that good etc. All these should be crystallised and preserved at any time imo.
RIDICULOUS matchmaking
Bounty Hunters are a great example. There are no bad hunters, but there's a pretty clear, commonly agreed upon divide between the great ones- Bossk, Boba, Jango, Dengar, Embo- and the good to okay ones- Cad, Greedo, Aurra, IG-88, and Zam.
Let's go off of G12s for convenience.
There are 43k G12 Cad Banes in the game. For IG-88, generally agreed to be the worst hunter, 40k. Zam, arguably the worst without a ship, 16k. Greedo? 50k.
Embo, one of the game's great hunters? 12k. This isn't because of his power or viability. It's because he's inconvenient, and someone building a fleet or a hunter team is already doing two 20 energy hard node farms for Bossk and HT (which comes with Jango). Someone who built up Embo would get clocked as weaker than someone who built up Greedo despite Embo being the stronger hunter.
As for me, I have these:
My Resistance team is JTR, BB-8, R2, Rose, Amilyn. They can throw down at or above the level of the old school GK/Thrawn Resistance lineup.
Rose is a good unit. Holdo is a great unit. But because they're unpopular characters and single hard node farms, and there are more accessible alternatives, they're not commonly invested in. By the model you propose, I would be clocked as having two of the worst units in the game and it would dismiss those two outright.
There are 4.7k G12 Holdos in the game. There are 5.6k G12 Farmboy Lukes in the game. There are less than a thousand G12 Roses in the game, and two G13s to over 1000 G12 Kit Fistos in the game and one G13.
I would be clocked as having two toons on the level of Farmboy Luke and Kit Fisto when in reality they're two effective and key members in one of my stronger teams.
It gets much, much worse when you factor in new, limited access units. Right now, the premier examples would be Malak and Padme.
There are 8k G12 Malaks at the moment and 9k G12 Padmes. There are 10k G12 Luminaras. Going based on total investment, Malak and Padme would be clocked as being as powerful as Luminara, which would just break the system outright.
How is this fair?
I would prefer a dice roll.
“We have no clue how to do proper matchmaking, so we will just do random.”
At least this is transparent.
How is this fair?
The matchmaking algorithm is to mitigate the randomness and make it more fair.
Pure randomness would make the vast majority of fights incredibly one-sided and not worth putting the effort into, as opposed to just some.
Put a top end on it (say 85-90%), this would drop all highly owned toons down to normal value. Or only use the past 2-3 meta reports from arena for what toons should be weighted.
The point is to have a system that doesnt need dev input. The players are the ones using toons, that data should be useful in this respect. Also it could be used and not strictly power based. The system would need to be flexible but based on a "natural occurence " in the game so it would always evolve.
Edit to add:
The % would be based on unlocked and used/geared or whatever, so the malak/DR/new toon issue is solved. They would almost always be weighted heavily.
100% of unlocked toons being used would be weighted 100%, for example.
And rewarding people for being outside of the box is a good thing, isnt it?
But they could have 100 more g12 than you... This can't be the competitive matchup (80 g12 vs 165 g12) that they intended to make its as one sided as can be
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying how it works.
Some have spoken about GP matchup working of 10 more than minimum # of toons. That sounds workable to me.
But ultimately I don’t think someone who has 90-100 g12 toons should worry about matching someone with 160 g12 toons. The bigger player will not be using any of those 60 extra g12 toons.
The current system gives a HUGE advantage to whales only looking at 80 toons and disregarding 81-rest of the roster.
People with 165 g12 get matched against people with 80 g12...
For everyone with less than 80 g12 it works pretty much fairly, but for every g12 beyond that 80th spot it's a free advantage to the player with useful toons after 80
Yet again I have been matched to people with 3 times my number of high-end secondary speed mods and 6-DoT mods.
CG you can stuff this game mode if you aren't willing to live up to your claim about trying to make these competitive.
I dont think mods can or should be used in matchmaking, IMHO.
It's not strictly that more speed sets is better chance of victory anymore. There are more and more teams and units who don't really care about speed. Padme, Separatist droids, and Shaak Troopers can all do quite well without much in the way of speed, or with relatively few units worrying about speed. Units like Chewie and Nest and Resistance Trooper and Sith Trooper can also do well with little or no speed. Nightsisters lineups favoring bulk and offense can do very well in certain matchups.
Make speed mods a heavy factor in the matchmaking and you make the matchmaking more gamable by disproportionately rewarding teams and units who do not rely as much on speed.
But as @YaeVizsla said, how do you weight them? And the MM would be way too granular at that point as that is literally the largest potential variable between all rosters. And ultimately, at the highest levels, its the only variable. And its a choice that can now be made with free energy.
No matter the formula people will complain. I just think we should play this season out and then see how it shakes out.
CG might not have a clue about match making for close matches (they don't based on my bracket - there are 2 guys without Malak...both already had their defenses full cleared, one won't even clear 1 territory on offense)....but they do understand the fact that the game is largely about speed. Just look at g12+4, 12+5 and the "finishers" . All grant significant speed bonuses.
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 don't disagree. I want to see how the Leagues factor in to matchmaking particularly by the third and fourth GAs where we will be a lot more spread out.
I dont have any of that.
I am 440k lower GP as well.
Im okay with matchmaking on gp.
Im okay, tho i dislike, matchmaking based on random stuff to get mirror matches.... what im not okay with is this current utterly horrendous approach to this.
It still mat be a closer match than what we saw under the previous system. Furthermore, matches may become even closer as players progress through the GAC and through leagues at different paces.
So, basically 12 mirror-matches every GAC. No thanx! It's boring and gives no incentive to strengtheb your roster.
Anyone in the ballpark of 70 G12 characters might as well not even play. You will eventually get matched up with a 160 roster.
What is the point of divisions?
Looks close enough to me. You have to also keep in mind that there's no lock in anymore. So your opponent could've easily removed a ton of mods to reduce their future matching, or you could've upgraded stuff. It only seems to count by 100k, so that difference could easily be very small, like 1.69v1.70
Exactly the range of where I was and exactly one of the main reasons I quit.
As I said, people will complain no matter what they do, so they might as well just leave it.
Sandbagging is actually worse now.
If you build enough teams without increasing the GP of your top80 you will win almost every time.
100 extra usable characters is insurmountable.
If the new algo makes you build teams besides your top 80, wouldn't that be the opposite of sandbagging?
Is it an advantage? Sure. But it's not absolutely decisive in the way you frame.