GAC Matchup Discrepency
So this GAC I've gone 3-0, 1-2 (barely), 3-0, and I'm currently 0-2.
This seems wrong to me? (as if the game is wildly overcompensating after each round of 3)
So much so I'm now considering throwing the final match if playing for 1st in future GAC. Prefer to avoid being at a 900k GP disadvantage.
Seems like I'd have a better shot at Kyber going 2-1 every single round.
This seems wrong to me? (as if the game is wildly overcompensating after each round of 3)
So much so I'm now considering throwing the final match if playing for 1st in future GAC. Prefer to avoid being at a 900k GP disadvantage.
Seems like I'd have a better shot at Kyber going 2-1 every single round.
#CloneHelmets4Life...VICTORY!!!! 
"I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).
"I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).0
- 60.9K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
You seem to be an average player with 6 wins 6 losses (50% success rate) -- don't see this as an issue
What's weird is I'm going 3-0, then 1-2 using the exact same strategy throughout. I've never had the GP advantage since GAC started, which I've accepted, but a 900k disadvantage is new.
It’s not that weird. They’re still using GP to matchup people. GP represents your investments in the game and not your roster’s strength. You probably, randomly got 3 easier matches and then 3 harder. The last round is typically the hardest because most people that don’t try have stayed in lower leagues.
The first round is totally open in terms of player pool, and good players should have an easy time.
The second round splits the people who went 3-0 and 2-1 into one league and people who went 1-2 and 0-3 into another league, and as such is significantly more challenging for people who moved up.
The third round will see the player pool increase again, as players who went 6-0 all the way down to 2-4 will be in the same league. Hence the return of some pretty easy matchups.
The fourth round will be quite challenging as it will generally only pool players who went 9-0 through 7-2.
There are some edge cases due to feats and low-scoring defensive match-ups, but for the most part your described experience is pretty representative of what a typical player will experience.
Other than matching div/league/top teams GP, it's random. Sometimes random helps you, other times not. This GAC, my week 2 and 3 matches were much harder than week 4, but that was just luck. My week 4 opponents were drawn from an overall tougher pool.
This is interesting, has this actually been confirmed? This is my first time hearing of this but would definitely explain the level of competition in my final round.
It might be a reasonable rough guide, but points also depend heavily on how many zones you clear and how much losses you take. Certainly you can make Aurodium going into week 4 with a much worse than 7-2 record if you're full clearing and finishing feats. In fact, if you're clearing your opponents, you pretty much need to lose all your matches not to advance league each round.
I haven't run the numbers, but as a test case, I started week 4 in Aurodium at 6-3 Div 2. And it wasn't close, I probably would have made it at 4-5 or 3-6 with the same combat scores (I went 3-0 to finish and barely made Kyber). But I got all the feats and averaged close to 1900 points. Players using defensive strategies would need a much better record.
Trying to go a bit more offensive now, I just want to full clear tbh. I don't care 100% if I get the win.
During GA1 (these are Div 1 figures by the way) players need to average 1580 or so per match to make it to bronzium, not counting feats which will lower that figure. Pretty much anyone who is engaging with the game mode will manage that, unless they are extremely unlucky with matchmaking or just plain bad at the game.
So GA2 will see those trying matched together as they’re all in chromium, whilst those not engaging or bad or unlucky will be matched together as they’re in Carbonite.
At the end of GA2, feats not counted, players need to have averaged 1875 per match to make Chromium. That is actually doable with no victories at all - if you full clear them all but lose on efficiency. More likely though, those that have lost a match or 2 will not make it to Chromium.
So GA3 sees those who have won 3 or more matches grouped together in Chromium, those who have engaged but not done well matched together in Bronzium and... well anyone who is still in Carbonite after 6 rounds... who cares?
But it’s GA3 into GA4 that separates things out. To get into Aurodium after 9 matches you need to be averaging just over 2600 per match. Feats reduce that slightly, but we’re talking at most 2 defeats here to make it there.
And that’s the reality. Those who make Aurodium after GA3 are all matched together. And they’ll have at least a 7&2 record or better. That’s why GA4 typically sees the toughest matchups for the most successful players.
Correct. The difficulty of the first three GAs is largely a function of randomness, as the player pool doesn't diminish a whole lot - pretty much anyone who actively participates will advance to the next league. As stated you can theoretically lose every match and still be in Chromium for GA3 as long as you get full clears and do some feats. In GA4 you are pretty much only facing intelligent players who win most of their matches, so the difficulty level is noticeably greater.
And I also thought we've passed the "oh my god my opponent has xxxk more GP" time. GP is meaningless.
How? its 4 weeks of 3 matchups... 12 total.
So, 10 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie.
This match was the tie, so I'll see if I won or lost today.
It's meaningless in terms of whether player A can beat player B. And it's meaningless in terms of the total GP differences players always point out, because GAC isn't based on total GP, it is based on top X toons in a players roster.
For the devs they need SOME number by which to calculate who is 'equivalent' to rank together. That is what GP is. Personally I'd like to see them move to a ladder ranking like most games use that is based on win/loss ratios (and which bracket you are in). But they do need to use a number. They chose GP. They could have chosen total zeta's applied, or total g12 characters, or any other arbitrary number. None of those would be meaningfully better than the current top X GP. They could try and weight different characters differently, but that is also a rather arbitrary assignment with which the player base (as a whole) would not agree with - and those character weights would need to be re-evaluated with every new character release and how they interact with existing toons.
And what would you suggest as an alternative?
Can you tell me why GP is a bad way to pit players against one another, at least?
Without entirely blowing up the current GP calculation (which is somewhat impractical as other game modes are based on it)?
You could add an aging algorithm to each character that devalues their GP by an exponential amount for every quarter since their kit was last touched. The function could largely filter out launch toons like CUP, Ugnaught, Tuskens, etc. while preserving most of the value of anything after the introduction of zetas. I think we'd all agree that new characters have more utility and synergy, and that the adjusted health and protection and G13 finisher stats for older characters didn't really alter the landscape much.
There are only a handful of untouched kits that still play OK: Clone Sergeant, Ewok Elder, First Order Officer, Snowtrooper, and Resistance Trooper. They are already low GP anyway because they have only 3 abilities and generally don't show up in people's top X.
An adaptive matchmaking algorithm would be incredible, but let’s be honest with ourselves: there is absolutely no way the devs are up to the task of implementing and maintaining such a system effectively.
Thrawn was 6/13/2017, and Nest was 6/1/2018. Zetas were introduced near the end of 2016. I'm thinking of a curve where anything from 1/1/2017 forward is >75% value and approaching 100% as you move towards today, and anything before 1/1/2017 is approaching 50% or less as you get to the start date of the game.
There are obviously outliers like Nest and Thrawn, but I was trying to quickly suggest something that could be a single equation and would not yield nonsense results. There's never going to be a perfect system, but it's depressing that many of us can come up with a superior solution in under 20 minutes.