Grand Arena Matchmaking?

Hi!

My best team is NS in gear12 and I got an opponent with Dart Revan sith team.
The Dart Revan team cannot be beaten by the NS team. The NS team can be defeated with Dart Revan. If my opponent puts Dart Revan in first place, I can't beat him. If I put down the NS team, then He will defeat. So my opponent is in a win-win position.I wouldn't call this situation a good matchmaking.

Of course, if we both put down our best team, I might have a chance against the rest, but the advantage is still there.

Please change this.

ZagaAga

Replies

  • Liath
    5016 posts Member
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Liath
    5016 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?
  • Waqui
    7166 posts Member
    ZagaAga wrote: »
    Hi!

    My best team is NS in gear12 and I got an opponent with Dart Revan sith team.
    [...]

    Please change this.

    ZagaAga

    Agreed. Change this. Go get a Darth Revan or a counter of your own.

    Oh!? You meant developers should change their design? Nah!

  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    edited July 2019
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

    "Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

    Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

    But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Liath
    5016 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

    "Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

    Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

    But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.
  • Okay, that's my fault. I defeated the Dart Revan team with NS. I thought it wouldn't work, but I did it. Sorry for the post.
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    edited July 2019
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

    "Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

    Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

    But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.

    I just want X to mean X - and CG to clarify if X means X or if it really means Y. It seems like the only people that want X to mean Y are Malak owners. As I said, I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

    I never said anyone was stupid so don't put words in my mouth. And the only thing I said regarding honesty was that anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    So, are you suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match"?

    Oh, and are you a Malak owner?


    I'm asking because I don't want to accuse you of saying something that you didn't say. ;)
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • TVF
    22457 posts Member
    CG's stated intentions are meaningless. They also stated that Kyro was intended to ease the crunch on gear like carbs guns and eyeballs, when everyone knows the actual intention was money.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    CG's stated intentions are meaningless. They also stated that Kyro was intended to ease the crunch on gear like carbs guns and eyeballs, when everyone knows the actual intention was money.

    Exactly. I just want them to come clean. Now you're getting it. ;)
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • TVF
    22457 posts Member
    They won't though.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    edited July 2019
    TVF wrote: »
    They won't though.

    Which says as much as saying anything.

    Their answer will be in their actions - whether they actually post anything (here or on Reddit).
    Post edited by Nikoms565 on
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • jhbuchholz
    1967 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    The disconnect may lie in another quote from the matchmaking post:
    the number of blowouts was still far higher than our targets

    They don't say, or indicate, that they are trying to get rid of all blowouts. The Malak vs. No Malak blowouts may, and seems to (based on their actions), fall within their targets. It's very possible that they generally ignore these matchups when reviewing the data because they see it as transient (does anyone care about CLS vs. No CLS matchups anymore?). Trying to ascertain the intentions of CG is going to be an uphill battle due to the communication expertise CG has shown.
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    Which is why I am going to let this play out. If the round 2, 3 and 4 matches are equally one sided and CG doesn't step up and suggest that there were some weaknesses in the new mm algorithm (and the later ladder algorithm), then I (and everyone else either bored getting their head kicked in or those feeling rewarded for their entitled eady match-ups) will have the answer.

    Then we will know if X means X. Or if CG just likes to Y on it's players heads and tell them its X.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Liath
    5016 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

    "Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

    Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

    But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.

    I just want X to mean X - and CG to clarify if X means X or if it really means Y. It seems like the only people that want X to mean Y are Malak owners. As I said, I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

    I never said anyone was stupid so don't put words in my mouth. And the only thing I said regarding honesty was that anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    So, are you suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match"?

    Oh, and are you a Malak owner?


    I'm asking because I don't want to accuse you of saying something that you didn't say. ;)

    Yes, I am #the882. But the fact is that the old matchmaking system was MUCH easier for me. I got, in large part, exceptionally easy matches pre-GAC against people whose rosters were frankly terrible. GAC matching has been much closer in actual roster strength. Do I like that? No, I'd much rather have the blowouts. But then I despise GA and all forms of PvP anyway.

    Refusing to acknowledge that a different interpretation of a statement is also reasonable, logical, and acceptable is its own form of intellectual dishonesty. And calling me a shill is beyond obnoxious.
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

    "Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

    Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

    But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.

    I just want X to mean X - and CG to clarify if X means X or if it really means Y. It seems like the only people that want X to mean Y are Malak owners. As I said, I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

    I never said anyone was stupid so don't put words in my mouth. And the only thing I said regarding honesty was that anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    So, are you suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match"?

    Oh, and are you a Malak owner?


    I'm asking because I don't want to accuse you of saying something that you didn't say. ;)

    Yes, I am #the882. But the fact is that the old matchmaking system was MUCH easier for me. I got, in large part, exceptionally easy matches pre-GAC against people whose rosters were frankly terrible. GAC matching has been much closer in actual roster strength. Do I like that? No, I'd much rather have the blowouts. But then I despise GA and all forms of PvP anyway.

    Refusing to acknowledge that a different interpretation of a statement is also reasonable, logical, and acceptable is its own form of intellectual dishonesty. And calling me a shill is beyond obnoxious.

    I don't refuse to acknowledge a different interpretation is possible - that's why want CG to say....anything really. That's actually precisely what I am asking.

    Once again, please show me where I called you a shill. I'll wait....
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Liath
    5016 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

    "Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

    Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

    But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.

    I just want X to mean X - and CG to clarify if X means X or if it really means Y. It seems like the only people that want X to mean Y are Malak owners. As I said, I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

    I never said anyone was stupid so don't put words in my mouth. And the only thing I said regarding honesty was that anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    So, are you suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match"?

    Oh, and are you a Malak owner?


    I'm asking because I don't want to accuse you of saying something that you didn't say. ;)

    Yes, I am #the882. But the fact is that the old matchmaking system was MUCH easier for me. I got, in large part, exceptionally easy matches pre-GAC against people whose rosters were frankly terrible. GAC matching has been much closer in actual roster strength. Do I like that? No, I'd much rather have the blowouts. But then I despise GA and all forms of PvP anyway.

    Refusing to acknowledge that a different interpretation of a statement is also reasonable, logical, and acceptable is its own form of intellectual dishonesty. And calling me a shill is beyond obnoxious.

    I don't refuse to acknowledge a different interpretation is possible - that's why want CG to say....anything really. That's actually precisely what I am asking.

    Once again, please show me where I called you a shill. I'll wait....

    If you don't consider this statement, in direct response to me pointing out that I have a different interpretation of CG's statement than you, to be calling me a shill then that would explain why we so frequently have such extreme disagreements on the meaning of sentences.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is.
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    edited July 2019
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

    I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

    But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

    And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

    CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

    Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

    "Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

    Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

    But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.

    I just want X to mean X - and CG to clarify if X means X or if it really means Y. It seems like the only people that want X to mean Y are Malak owners. As I said, I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

    I never said anyone was stupid so don't put words in my mouth. And the only thing I said regarding honesty was that anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

    So, are you suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match"?

    Oh, and are you a Malak owner?


    I'm asking because I don't want to accuse you of saying something that you didn't say. ;)

    Yes, I am #the882. But the fact is that the old matchmaking system was MUCH easier for me. I got, in large part, exceptionally easy matches pre-GAC against people whose rosters were frankly terrible. GAC matching has been much closer in actual roster strength. Do I like that? No, I'd much rather have the blowouts. But then I despise GA and all forms of PvP anyway.

    Refusing to acknowledge that a different interpretation of a statement is also reasonable, logical, and acceptable is its own form of intellectual dishonesty. And calling me a shill is beyond obnoxious.

    I don't refuse to acknowledge a different interpretation is possible - that's why want CG to say....anything really. That's actually precisely what I am asking.

    Once again, please show me where I called you a shill. I'll wait....

    If you don't consider this statement, in direct response to me pointing out that I have a different interpretation of CG's statement than you, to be calling me a shill then that would explain why we so frequently have such extreme disagreements on the meaning of sentences.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is.

    It certainly would, as the sentence clearly has an "or" in it - separating the Malak owners (who are not unbiased either) and the shills (who also often have their own agenda). That's a pretty clear separation - so I'm not quite sure why you are taking this entire thing so personally.

    And the fact of the matter is, we can all opine until our faces explode what CG means by "close matches" and "rosters that look similar to their own". Everyone might have an opinion (and ALL are biased) - but none matters except CG's in determining if it's WAI.

    Until CG comes out and either clarifies the statements - despite their seeming clarity to me - or takes no action, which would make clear by their actions what those mean to them, then it's all pointless noise and wasted time. All I am asking for is consistency - or at least some level of understanding.

    Honestly if they are simply going to gift the 882 and those that paid for Malak with easy matchups throughout GAC, then at least we all know what to expect going forward. If that's the case, at least those without Malak can rest easy knowing they have almost no chance in GAC until they obtain the "I win" piece for their own roster and until that time they can focus on feats and fighting for GAC scraps.

    Basically, I just want to know how CG wants to prescribe play to me, so I can decide if I want to keep playing whatever game they are prescribing to me. It's just difficult when they say one thing, but their actions indicate something entirely different, to know how we "should" play the game or what we should expect.

    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Liath
    5016 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »

    It certainly would, as the sentence clearly has an "or" in it - separating the Malak owners (who are not unbiased either) and the shills (who also often have their own agenda). That's a pretty clear separation - so I'm not quite sure why you are taking this entire thing so personally.

    You didn't even know whether I was a Malak owner when you posted that as evidenced by your subsequent question on that subject. Yeah, I'm sure you were talking about a completely different group of posters here, who just happen to not have posted on this thread, and to hold the same opinion as me, as being shills, and that wasn't directed at me in any way. Sounds super plausible. Gee, I can't even begin to imagine why I might have thought you were calling me a shill. But please, enlighten me as to exactly which posters you consider shills, so that I don't misinterpret your comments.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    it's all pointless noise and wasted time.

    At least there's one thing we can agree on.
  • Nikoms565
    12229 posts Member
    edited July 2019
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »

    It certainly would, as the sentence clearly has an "or" in it - separating the Malak owners (who are not unbiased either) and the shills (who also often have their own agenda). That's a pretty clear separation - so I'm not quite sure why you are taking this entire thing so personally.

    You didn't even know whether I was a Malak owner when you posted that as evidenced by your subsequent question on that subject. Yeah, I'm sure you were talking about a completely different group of posters here, who just happen to not have posted on this thread, and to hold the same opinion as me, as being shills, and that wasn't directed at me in any way. Sounds super plausible. Gee, I can't even begin to imagine why I might have thought you were calling me a shill. But please, enlighten me as to exactly which posters you consider shills, so that I don't misinterpret your comments.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    it's all pointless noise and wasted time.

    At least there's one thing we can agree on.

    I never even said shills "who posted in the thread" - again, stop taking everything so personally and being so defensive. Besides, I don't like to name names. And we both know that's against forum guidelines.

    Although, the fact that you are a Malak owner does tell me why you would prefer X meant Y....
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Liath
    5016 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »

    It certainly would, as the sentence clearly has an "or" in it - separating the Malak owners (who are not unbiased either) and the shills (who also often have their own agenda). That's a pretty clear separation - so I'm not quite sure why you are taking this entire thing so personally.

    You didn't even know whether I was a Malak owner when you posted that as evidenced by your subsequent question on that subject. Yeah, I'm sure you were talking about a completely different group of posters here, who just happen to not have posted on this thread, and to hold the same opinion as me, as being shills, and that wasn't directed at me in any way. Sounds super plausible. Gee, I can't even begin to imagine why I might have thought you were calling me a shill. But please, enlighten me as to exactly which posters you consider shills, so that I don't misinterpret your comments.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    it's all pointless noise and wasted time.

    At least there's one thing we can agree on.

    I never even said shills "who posted in the thread" - again, stop taking everything so personally and being so defensive. Besides, I don't like to name names. And we both know that's against forum guidelines.

    Although, the fact that you are a Malak owner does tell me why you would prefer X meant Y....

    Or the fact that you are not a Malak owner tells me why you would prefer that X meant Y? But no, it couldn't possibly be that since your interpretation is the only one that could possibly be reasonable and sensible.

    I have already told you that the old matchmaking system was a lot better for me. But just go ahead and continue ignoring that fact.
  • Rmaxtpmx
    284 posts Member
    If you fight and beat people with no Malak, where do you think you'll end up? Won't you be climbing higher to where all the malaks are? You can lose to them now or later, and end up theoretically in the same ranking in the end. Everything is working exactly how it's supposed to. This is the whole point of an extended format. You want to just fight all of the subpar squads for an entire GAC, and expect the best rewards? There are no participation trophies here.
Sign In or Register to comment.