Something is rotten in the state of GAC

Replies

  • What is it you want to see from the leaderboard? It’s not flawed though just because you had different expectations.

    It seems like people are disappointed that it wasn’t the biggest rosters sitting at the top. Is that all you want? Because we could all save a lot of time by just having them rank us on GP and tell us where we sit.

    And the matchmaking isn’t perfect, but I’ve never seen a competition where someone didn’t cry foul over the match ups. That’s just the nature of the beast. Matchmaking can be improved, and I hope it does get better, but to say that the people at the top of the leaderboards aren’t good just because someone else has a better roster or worse matchups is poor sportsmanship.

    Maybe what you should be asking for is a competition where everyone gets the exact same characters, gear pieces and mods. Then everyone can make the teams they want out of what’s available and play on a level playing field. That way the top player can say they are the “Best”

    If you want to play with your characters though, then I think you might want to think about what the “Best” means. The best players aren’t necessarily the ones that have the deepest rosters, but the ones that can use all those characters effectively.
  • uno
    129 posts Member
    maybe i missed it in the thread somewhere but the player atop div 3 has a point total that's impossible... how many other scores are inaccurate...ino others have made tickets about wrong calculations but in a system rife with bugs hopefully they'll take some time to fix
  • leef
    12588 posts Member
    What is it you want to see from the leaderboard? It’s not flawed though just because you had different expectations.

    It seems like people are disappointed that it wasn’t the biggest rosters sitting at the top. Is that all you want? Because we could all save a lot of time by just having them rank us on GP and tell us where we sit.

    And the matchmaking isn’t perfect, but I’ve never seen a competition where someone didn’t cry foul over the match ups. That’s just the nature of the beast. Matchmaking can be improved, and I hope it does get better, but to say that the people at the top of the leaderboards aren’t good just because someone else has a better roster or worse matchups is poor sportsmanship.

    Maybe what you should be asking for is a competition where everyone gets the exact same characters, gear pieces and mods. Then everyone can make the teams they want out of what’s available and play on a level playing field. That way the top player can say they are the “Best”

    If you want to play with your characters though, then I think you might want to think about what the “Best” means. The best players aren’t necessarily the ones that have the deepest rosters, but the ones that can use all those characters effectively.

    You seem to think that the leaderboard displays "the best players" eventhough they don't have the best rosters, but it doesn't do that either.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • I thought the goal of GAC was to find the best player in the world ?

    Have you seen the player rank 1 kyber in division 1? He has no Malak. He is ranked 72 arena and 63 fleet and has only 1 G13.

    Thousands of players can beat him .
  • No_Try
    3387 posts Member
    I thought the goal of GAC was to find the best player in the world ?

    Have you seen the player rank 1 kyber in division 1? He has no Malak. He is ranked 72 arena and 63 fleet and has only 1 G13.

    Thousands of players can beat him .

    Do you mean the best roster in the world? You need to pick one. Best player doesn't mean in any way their roster can't be beat.
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    Anyone consider that the whales who just sit at #1 and only do a couple mirror matches a day actually have far less battle experience and are at a huge disadvantage?

    Those of us who have spent 3 years reading, researching, and trying new things might actually be better at GAC.

    A lot of those whales are in guilds that are very competitive for TW. I don't really think an experience advantage or disadvantage can be inferred.
  • jhbuchholz wrote: »
    jhbuchholz wrote: »
    jhbuchholz wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Acrofales wrote: »
    However, upon closer analysis, we see this cannot be "the 10 best SWGOH players" by any stretch of the imagination.

    [...]

    But between matchmaking and the specter of cheating, the leaderboard is meaningless.

    You appear to be under the false assumption, that the rankings are lists of the best players in the game. It's not. It's a list of the top scorers in GAC, and as such it makes perfect sense. Don't read too much into the list.

    If that's all it is, and I agree that that is what is currently is, then GAC fails to live up to the Championship title.

    vmsk6h4tiasp.jpeg

    Ask the NCAA about their football championship sometime

    You mean the one where they go to great lengths to analyze each game, provide in depth analytics, and have a panel of people decide how important each win and loss is? The one where they admit that not every victory is equal and a smaller school like UCF can go undefeated and not be automatically declared #1 (which is exactly what GAC would do)?

    I think it's a great comparison and would love if CG looked to it for ideas.

    LOL every year the NCAA is criticized because their championship system is flawed. It's very possible UCF does have the better team, but we'll never know because the system won't allow it.
    It's the system we have. It ain't perfect but it's there. And aint nobody going to analyze each SWGOH match and do some mystery voodoo points system ranking based on good old boy votes to determine who should be #1. No, it has to be a concrete earning system, and that's what we have.

    While this is all true they at least make an effort to have a competition to decide the best football team in the country each year. GAC doesn't even try to determine the best SWGoH PvP players. Just the ones that score the most points in random matchups (from a highly criticized matchmaking system) of a made up scoring system. It would be kind of like declaring the team with the most prolific offence the NCAA Champion each year. I'm sure a very good team would win, just like I'm sure the top 50 of GAC are very good players. And I'm also sure Alabama would have a legitimate complaint.

    We're kind of off in the weeds here. My overall point isn't that the leaderboard is bad in its current iteration. Just that it's not as good as it could be.

    The problem to me with GAC is the structure. There should be no promotion from one league to another during a given tournament. There should also be no reset of the tournament after the 5 weeks.

    Promotion should occur only at the end of the 15 matches. The top 20% of scores should move from Carbonite to Bronzium. At the end of the next tournament, the top 20% in Carbonite move to Bronzium. The top 20% in Bronzium move to Chromium, and the bottom 20% in Bronzium move back to Carbonite. And so on and so forth each tournament. Very important structural requirements here would be that you should only play players within your own league, and you could play any player in that league. In the event of an odd number of people in the league, then the bottom scorer of Bronzium for example would play the top scorer from Carbonite. Also, there are literally no matchmaking considerations in this format. You can play anyone in your division because it all equals out in the end.

    Promotion and relegation. While we won't truly know the upper echelon players after the first 5 weeks (or even the first 10), by week 20, those players who reach Kyber would truly be decently representative of the better players in the game. They would have played 60 matches in total and always been one of the top 20% of their scores.

    Once that first group populates Kyber, every new tournament there would be churn 20% in 20% out. Are you a solid Kyber player who never bounces out? Or do you bounce between the two? This would be a far better format than we have currently. In the long run it would result in better matches and better competition.



  • Dk_rek
    3119 posts Member
    jhbuchholz wrote: »
    jhbuchholz wrote: »
    jhbuchholz wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Acrofales wrote: »
    However, upon closer analysis, we see this cannot be "the 10 best SWGOH players" by any stretch of the imagination.

    [...]

    But between matchmaking and the specter of cheating, the leaderboard is meaningless.

    You appear to be under the false assumption, that the rankings are lists of the best players in the game. It's not. It's a list of the top scorers in GAC, and as such it makes perfect sense. Don't read too much into the list.

    If that's all it is, and I agree that that is what is currently is, then GAC fails to live up to the Championship title.

    vmsk6h4tiasp.jpeg

    Ask the NCAA about their football championship sometime

    You mean the one where they go to great lengths to analyze each game, provide in depth analytics, and have a panel of people decide how important each win and loss is? The one where they admit that not every victory is equal and a smaller school like UCF can go undefeated and not be automatically declared #1 (which is exactly what GAC would do)?

    I think it's a great comparison and would love if CG looked to it for ideas.

    LOL every year the NCAA is criticized because their championship system is flawed. It's very possible UCF does have the better team, but we'll never know because the system won't allow it.
    It's the system we have. It ain't perfect but it's there. And aint nobody going to analyze each SWGOH match and do some mystery voodoo points system ranking based on good old boy votes to determine who should be #1. No, it has to be a concrete earning system, and that's what we have.

    While this is all true they at least make an effort to have a competition to decide the best football team in the country each year. GAC doesn't even try to determine the best SWGoH PvP players. Just the ones that score the most points in random matchups (from a highly criticized matchmaking system) of a made up scoring system. It would be kind of like declaring the team with the most prolific offence the NCAA Champion each year. I'm sure a very good team would win, just like I'm sure the top 50 of GAC are very good players. And I'm also sure Alabama would have a legitimate complaint.

    We're kind of off in the weeds here. My overall point isn't that the leaderboard is bad in its current iteration. Just that it's not as good as it could be.

    The problem to me with GAC is the structure. There should be no promotion from one league to another during a given tournament. There should also be no reset of the tournament after the 5 weeks.

    Promotion should occur only at the end of the 15 matches. The top 20% of scores should move from Carbonite to Bronzium. At the end of the next tournament, the top 20% in Carbonite move to Bronzium. The top 20% in Bronzium move to Chromium, and the bottom 20% in Bronzium move back to Carbonite. And so on and so forth each tournament. Very important structural requirements here would be that you should only play players within your own league, and you could play any player in that league. In the event of an odd number of people in the league, then the bottom scorer of Bronzium for example would play the top scorer from Carbonite. Also, there are literally no matchmaking considerations in this format. You can play anyone in your division because it all equals out in the end.

    Promotion and relegation. While we won't truly know the upper echelon players after the first 5 weeks (or even the first 10), by week 20, those players who reach Kyber would truly be decently representative of the better players in the game. They would have played 60 matches in total and always been one of the top 20% of their scores.

    Once that first group populates Kyber, every new tournament there would be churn 20% in 20% out. Are you a solid Kyber player who never bounces out? Or do you bounce between the two? This would be a far better format than we have currently. In the long run it would result in better matches and better competition.



    ir5cfhtij26d.jpg
  • I’m sure I’m in the minority...I wish they’d scrap Grand Arena all together. I never asked for it in the first place.

    Not sure why I still play this game after 3 years.

    Guess it’s because it’s become a habit more so instead of actually being fun.
  • Brownie wrote: »
    Sufinsil wrote: »
    Player stats change over 5 weeks.

    Feats.

    Mods change.

    There is little data presented here to be conclusive about anything. All it does is rile people up.

    Look at the guy ranked 45 in D1 and feed me that same excuse...

    This. Isn’t this actual proof that MM needs tweaking? Fine. Call it a one-off. But there are countless posts showing that it’s not. At some point, there are just too many leaks to plug.
  • People make mistakes just like athletes. And competition capitalizes on that mistake. In baseball the pitcher foreshadow the pitch the batter can make a big play. And the other way.
    Just because you have a big roster doesn't make you the best. Using what you have and capitalize on others mistakes.
    Plus some might more efficiently complete non GA feats to bolster their score.
  • Justokay wrote: »
    Brownie wrote: »
    Sufinsil wrote: »
    Player stats change over 5 weeks.

    Feats.

    Mods change.

    There is little data presented here to be conclusive about anything. All it does is rile people up.

    Look at the guy ranked 45 in D1 and feed me that same excuse...

    This. Isn’t this actual proof that MM needs tweaking? Fine. Call it a one-off. But there are countless posts showing that it’s not. At some point, there are just too many leaks to plug.

    No, it isn't proof of anything except that they scored more points than all but 44 other players.
  • I’m sure I’m in the minority...I wish they’d scrap Grand Arena all together. I never asked for it in the first place.

    Not sure why I still play this game after 3 years.

    Guess it’s because it’s become a habit more so instead of actually being fun.
    I don't mind it. Honestly, I'd rather this be the thing than squad arena. CG kinda messed up by making JKR and DR waaaay too powerful, making all the top teams pretty much identical in squad arena. Having GA remedies this in a way by making people rely on having more than just that single super team. You have to manage your matchups and possibly break up your super power squad in an intelligent way to maximize your success. It's a much more complete game mode, IMO.

  • willennium wrote: »
    I’m sure I’m in the minority...I wish they’d scrap Grand Arena all together. I never asked for it in the first place.

    Not sure why I still play this game after 3 years.

    Guess it’s because it’s become a habit more so instead of actually being fun.
    I don't mind it. Honestly, I'd rather this be the thing than squad arena. CG kinda messed up by making JKR and DR waaaay too powerful, making all the top teams pretty much identical in squad arena. Having GA remedies this in a way by making people rely on having more than just that single super team. You have to manage your matchups and possibly break up your super power squad in an intelligent way to maximize your success. It's a much more complete game mode, IMO.

    This. I am so fed up with SA, i hope they just take that out of the game. Its not only the boring meta it's mainly a competition of who can get the most attempts in around a certain fixed time of the day and is lucky enough to not being targeted at the same time. Outdated game mode. GA is better for sure
  • Mostly those fighting against lower division players thinks MM is great. Mostly those fighting higher division players thinks it failed. There’s something to be said in that. I, for one, never had anyone from my division in a single GAC. I’ve literally never once matched up against someone in my division or even had them in my GAC pool. It was always one or two divisions better against me. I haven’t been playing as long as some but I’ve focused on the best teams. From what I’ve seen, there is innate benefit in having played the game longer that is totally unaccounted for in MM. You have deeper benches to play counters. You’ve had more opportunities to get mods. Putting total GP aside, those in higher divisions have had more time to accrue hundreds of millions more credits and played hundreds of more events, therefore they have had the ability to purchase more mods and have earned more mods through events, which ultimately leads to higher chances of having better speed secondaries, including +20 speed. Can that really be argued? I just don’t see how anyone thinks running MM on a Top 60 or Top 80 and ignoring mods and a deep bench for counters, when those are fundamentally elements of time played, is truly making the battles competitive. To me, it’s just another way the game got unbalanced but in the opposite direction from the last MM format.
  • Naver666 wrote: »
    willennium wrote: »
    I’m sure I’m in the minority...I wish they’d scrap Grand Arena all together. I never asked for it in the first place.

    Not sure why I still play this game after 3 years.

    Guess it’s because it’s become a habit more so instead of actually being fun.
    I don't mind it. Honestly, I'd rather this be the thing than squad arena. CG kinda messed up by making JKR and DR waaaay too powerful, making all the top teams pretty much identical in squad arena. Having GA remedies this in a way by making people rely on having more than just that single super team. You have to manage your matchups and possibly break up your super power squad in an intelligent way to maximize your success. It's a much more complete game mode, IMO.

    This. I am so fed up with SA, i hope they just take that out of the game. Its not only the boring meta it's mainly a competition of who can get the most attempts in around a certain fixed time of the day and is lucky enough to not being targeted at the same time. Outdated game mode. GA is better for sure

    Exactly. The top spots are rigged in most shards anyway due to shard chats. It's become more of just top players agreeing to a schedule rather than actually competing. And GA also takes away the heavy reliance of RNG to roll those super high speed mods. Of course they're still important, but in GA, I can win a matchup against someone who has a lightning fast Darth Revan/Malak as long as I play outplay them by setting better defenses or more efficiently attacking... where as in SA, I pretty much would be wasting my time fighting them.

  • Ultra
    3384 posts Member
    l61j0qf2xsjv.jpeg
    Using any means necessary, eh?
  • Justokay wrote: »
    Mostly those fighting against lower division players thinks MM is great. Mostly those fighting higher division players thinks it failed. There’s something to be said in that. I, for one, never had anyone from my division in a single GAC. I’ve literally never once matched up against someone in my division or even had them in my GAC pool. It was always one or two divisions better against me. I haven’t been playing as long as some but I’ve focused on the best teams. From what I’ve seen, there is innate benefit in having played the game longer that is totally unaccounted for in MM. You have deeper benches to play counters. You’ve had more opportunities to get mods. Putting total GP aside, those in higher divisions have had more time to accrue hundreds of millions more credits and played hundreds of more events, therefore they have had the ability to purchase more mods and have earned more mods through events, which ultimately leads to higher chances of having better speed secondaries, including +20 speed. Can that really be argued? I just don’t see how anyone thinks running MM on a Top 60 or Top 80 and ignoring mods and a deep bench for counters, when those are fundamentally elements of time played, is truly making the battles competitive. To me, it’s just another way the game got unbalanced but in the opposite direction from the last MM format.

    I can agree with you about the length of time making your matches much harder. There isn't much to be done about that though, unless we play a sealed packs kind of tournament. People with time in the game will always have an edge unless you're willing to spend real money to overcome it.

    I'm at the other end of the spectrum. I was always facing the div below me. Generally I had matches against players with more gear 12 and who had the Revans. It wasn't ideal matchmaking for me, but I used my edge GP to my advantage and think I did decently.

    Ultimately, CG will have unhappy people no matter how they structure matchmaking. What I'd really like though, is for them to pick a matchmaking style and stick with it. If we reliably knew how matchmaking was going to work in future events, then we could adjust our play style and rosters accordingly. One of us would be happier than the other, but both of us could make decisions about the importance of GAC and what we want to change to compete in it more effectively.
  • They have no idea what they're doing. They don't know how to match make fairly and they don't know how to stop cheaters. This game mode isn't working as described.
  • I think CG tried pretty hard from the beginning to make it clear this wasn’t about who had the best roster. It’s not who collected the most gear 13 or best moded characters. It’s about who played their roster the best against similar opponents.

    Expecting the best rosters to be top of the leaderboards isn’t relevant to what this was about. Within my guild I ranked third, but my roster is somewhere in the teens. This is what often what happens in my guild. I will place highly in guild events over deeper rosters. And I do think that makes me a better player. Not the marketing hype “Best” that CG is employing, but I can use my roster to better effect than other players.

    That’s what the leaderboards here are meant to show. Comparing rosters in the leaderboard doesn’t mean anything. It was unlikely the top rosters would end up top of the pile. There are other players who use what they’ve built better.

    Personally I think the results are interesting and congratulate all the HONEST top players.

    And who are those honest top players lol? We have no idea and neither does CG.
  • evoluza wrote: »
    Naver666 wrote: »
    I don't think the leaderboard was meant to show the one player that can beat every other player face to face. Its about collecting a score. MM is a tool to keep chances equal across all GP Tiers. Even if MM needs adjustment i thought it was meant this way, that a lower player has the same chance to climb the leaderboard. After all his task was the same as for top tier Players. Beat others that are compareable to himself and do it as efficently as possible.

    League Promotion
    Over the course of a Championship, as players hit certain Championship Score milestones, they will be promoted to the next League. Upon League Promotion, you’re not only immediately granted an automatic reward, you’re also eligible for higher rewards from your new league. With higher league promotions comes a tougher set of opponents in the next Grand Arena, and, of course, even bigger bragging rights. For the first time ever in Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes, we are introducing global leaderboards, so you’ll finally be able to answer the question: **Do you have what it takes to be the greatest in the galaxy?**

    Dont use quotes from CG, that's not what they meant , all the CG people on the forum , though, they'll tell you what it really meant .
  • I think CG tried pretty hard from the beginning to make it clear this wasn’t about who had the best roster. It’s not who collected the most gear 13 or best moded characters. It’s about who played their roster the best against similar opponents.

    Expecting the best rosters to be top of the leaderboards isn’t relevant to what this was about. Within my guild I ranked third, but my roster is somewhere in the teens. This is what often what happens in my guild. I will place highly in guild events over deeper rosters. And I do think that makes me a better player. Not the marketing hype “Best” that CG is employing, but I can use my roster to better effect than other players.

    That’s what the leaderboards here are meant to show. Comparing rosters in the leaderboard doesn’t mean anything. It was unlikely the top rosters would end up top of the pile. There are other players who use what they’ve built better.

    Personally I think the results are interesting and congratulate all the HONEST top players.

    And who are those honest top players lol? We have no idea and neither does CG.

    I did qualify it for a reason! ;)
  • Kyno
    21028 posts Moderator
    I thought the goal of GAC was to find the best player in the world ?

    Have you seen the player rank 1 kyber in division 1? He has no Malak. He is ranked 72 arena and 63 fleet and has only 1 G13.

    Thousands of players can beat him .

    @leef I have been trying to find a better way to explain what i meant by it not showing what players expected and I will try in response to the above post.

    Players look at this like they always look at this game, its all about "arena" or winning battles, but as gets pointed out many times over, there is more to the game than winning a battle.

    GAC is a multi faceted attempt to find "the best player", not the best at a battle.
    - large roster to get into the top division, this represents the collection aspect of the game
    - GA setup, which does represent winning battles, but also due to needing a number of teams and clearing zones to get more points, this represents knowledge of synergy and counters
    - feats also serve to promote the knowledge of synergy and counters by asking for a number of undersized teams and use of a specific teams
    - we also see fleets being introduced through feats and the common arenas too.

    I'm not going to claim this is wholly their intent, but this is how i see the point system we have and how it represents the "best player" as someone who has "better" knowledge and a good collection which is the back bone of this game. not just winning a battle or a single GA match.

    this also doesn't mean that this system doesnt need a tweak or 7 to better represent the players choices and not the situation they end up in.

    without an ongoing player v player system that would make each player face each other, there is no way to ever truly know who can claim a title of "best in battle" its just not something this game would every really be able to do.
  • I think we can all agree that guy in 9th is pretty awesome, though some others above him, I'd have to assume are blatant cheaters. How it's possible to put up those scores with those rosters and mods is beyond me.
  • Nihion
    2070 posts Member
    Drazz127 wrote: »
    I think we can all agree that guy in 9th is pretty awesome, though some others above him, I'd have to assume are blatant cheaters. How it's possible to put up those scores with those rosters and mods is beyond me.

    Matchmaking.
  • So I think a big problem is this doesnt consider the stupid feats. Feats should have ZERO baring in getting points. As you have zero way of accurately making any conclusion of who truly did "well" in GAC. I personally was 475 points shy of Kyber and lost only 1 match. I also didnt go ham on most of the feats as I focused on locking the wins in more than doing the feats. So its whatever.

    TLDR Leader board is worthless
  • So I think a big problem is this doesnt consider the stupid feats. Feats should have ZERO baring in getting points. As you have zero way of accurately making any conclusion of who truly did "well" in GAC. I personally was 475 points shy of Kyber and lost only 1 match. I also didnt go ham on most of the feats as I focused on locking the wins in more than doing the feats. So its whatever.

    TLDR Leader board is worthless

    Everyone on the leaderboard had to go undefeated, with nearly all feats completed, with all territories cleared. Additionally feats make it even harder to win in some instances, which is part of the strategy you have to employ.
    Hardly worthless.... The only question is if they are legit or not.
    My alt could have lost 3 matches and still made kyber. If you only lost 1 match and still missed it, you must have ignored feats completely.
  • Acrofales
    1339 posts Member
    edited August 9
    Drazz127 wrote: »
    So I think a big problem is this doesnt consider the stupid feats. Feats should have ZERO baring in getting points. As you have zero way of accurately making any conclusion of who truly did "well" in GAC. I personally was 475 points shy of Kyber and lost only 1 match. I also didnt go ham on most of the feats as I focused on locking the wins in more than doing the feats. So its whatever.

    TLDR Leader board is worthless

    Everyone on the leaderboard had to go undefeated, with nearly all feats completed, with all territories cleared. Additionally feats make it even harder to win in some instances, which is part of the strategy you have to employ.
    Hardly worthless.... The only question is if they are legit or not.
    My alt could have lost 3 matches and still made kyber. If you only lost 1 match and still missed it, you must have ignored feats completely.

    Not necessarily. Your alt (and main) probably went heavy offense: if you get cleared, but clear yourself, you score a good amount of points even on a loss. If you go heavy on defense and can't clear your opponent then even on a win you don't score *that* well. Which is just yet another flaw with the scoring system: pigeon-holing players into an offensive style, whereas an individual GA allowed for defensive styles to work well as well, and thus led to far greater variety in tactics, and thus the players to express their playstyles more freely.
    Post edited by Acrofales on
Sign In or Register to comment.