These pictures show the two problems with GAC right now

Replies

  • leef
    13458 posts Member

    1st - couldn't agree with you more. I wish I was being paired up against other people with a similar win/loss record. However, this isn't the only problem with current match making algorithms. Take a minute and look at the current top 50 in the world for this GAC - an overwhelming majority of them are low to mid-level GP accounts in this bracket. These are smart players with lean rosters and a relatively low GP compared to the bracket they are in. The reason you see so few whale/kraken accounts at the very top is because we are being matched against each other where both people are putting up 7 meta defense's and there is little to no room for under-manned wins and even less room to try for these ridiculous FO feats. I've been beaten by accounts with far less GP than me because of well thought out defenses that forced me to make bad decisions on offense. I've also beaten far larger accounts for the same reason. I've looked at this particular opponent's roster thoroughly and I have set up a defense that I feel will force him to make tough choices. But I can also tell you that he/she has all the necessary pieces needed to clear my defense cleanly - but that depends on how much thought and preparation he has put into the match on his end. I win my matches because I take the time to scout my opponents roster and I put up a defense I think he will struggle with while saving myself enough ammunition left to clear what I think he will put up against me.
    This isn't a problem with matchmaking, but with the ranking.

    Save water, drink champagne!
  • leef
    13458 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    [...]

    Don’t waste your breath here.

    I tried to make a similar point, but the typical response you will get is: well if somebody has better toons / ships then you s/he should win! The just invested their time/money smarter than you.

    I think people just don’t understand the concept of “fair matchmaking”

    Do you understand the concept that fair matches and even matches are not necessarily the same thing?

    I've always heard it as "there's a difference between fair and equal". Fair is subjective, equal is measurable. There's no way to get universal consensus on "fair" and trying to do so is just a waste of everyone's time.

    I'm convinced there's no way to get a universal consensus on what is "equal/even" either to be honest. Some will say it's purely roster based, others will argue that it should include skill level as well.
    In the end it's the devs who decide what their aim is for matchmaking and try their best to achieve that, which is a difficult task regardless of whether they chose "fair", "equal" or "even".
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • leef wrote: »

    1st - couldn't agree with you more. I wish I was being paired up against other people with a similar win/loss record. However, this isn't the only problem with current match making algorithms. Take a minute and look at the current top 50 in the world for this GAC - an overwhelming majority of them are low to mid-level GP accounts in this bracket. These are smart players with lean rosters and a relatively low GP compared to the bracket they are in. The reason you see so few whale/kraken accounts at the very top is because we are being matched against each other where both people are putting up 7 meta defense's and there is little to no room for under-manned wins and even less room to try for these ridiculous FO feats. I've been beaten by accounts with far less GP than me because of well thought out defenses that forced me to make bad decisions on offense. I've also beaten far larger accounts for the same reason. I've looked at this particular opponent's roster thoroughly and I have set up a defense that I feel will force him to make tough choices. But I can also tell you that he/she has all the necessary pieces needed to clear my defense cleanly - but that depends on how much thought and preparation he has put into the match on his end. I win my matches because I take the time to scout my opponents roster and I put up a defense I think he will struggle with while saving myself enough ammunition left to clear what I think he will put up against me.
    This isn't a problem with matchmaking, but with the ranking.

    It's not even a problem.

    GAC isn't "who has the best roster". It's "who uses their roster the best".

    Now, the amount of turds floating in the Kraken pool is certainly less than others. But money doesn't buy smart modding (without violating ToS).
  • It’s because GAC matchmaking is bloody awful.

    9/10 I can tell the result of a match before starting. It’s because there are certain characters that are auto win.

    If one person has a maxed general Skywalker or Malak. That’s it, game over.

    Yawn...
  • leef
    13458 posts Member
    leef wrote: »

    1st - couldn't agree with you more. I wish I was being paired up against other people with a similar win/loss record. However, this isn't the only problem with current match making algorithms. Take a minute and look at the current top 50 in the world for this GAC - an overwhelming majority of them are low to mid-level GP accounts in this bracket. These are smart players with lean rosters and a relatively low GP compared to the bracket they are in. The reason you see so few whale/kraken accounts at the very top is because we are being matched against each other where both people are putting up 7 meta defense's and there is little to no room for under-manned wins and even less room to try for these ridiculous FO feats. I've been beaten by accounts with far less GP than me because of well thought out defenses that forced me to make bad decisions on offense. I've also beaten far larger accounts for the same reason. I've looked at this particular opponent's roster thoroughly and I have set up a defense that I feel will force him to make tough choices. But I can also tell you that he/she has all the necessary pieces needed to clear my defense cleanly - but that depends on how much thought and preparation he has put into the match on his end. I win my matches because I take the time to scout my opponents roster and I put up a defense I think he will struggle with while saving myself enough ammunition left to clear what I think he will put up against me.
    This isn't a problem with matchmaking, but with the ranking.

    It's not even a problem.

    GAC isn't "who has the best roster". It's "who uses their roster the best".

    Now, the amount of turds floating in the Kraken pool is certainly less than others. But money doesn't buy smart modding (without violating ToS).

    It's not an accurate ladder for "who uses their roster the best" either. It's much easier to score banners at 4.5m GP than it is at 6m GP, but they're competing with eachother on the same ladder (div 1) nontheless.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • It’s a “championship” that doesn’t last long enough to produce meaningful competitive matchups.

    Most of my matches are a slaughter either way. Either I demolish an opponent with ease or I get owned. Neither are fun.

    It’s all because certain characters are just deal breakers in GAC if you have them or not.

    Malak, General Anakin, Negotiator etc.
  • As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"
    u58t4vkrvnrz.png



  • leef wrote: »

    1st - couldn't agree with you more. I wish I was being paired up against other people with a similar win/loss record. However, this isn't the only problem with current match making algorithms. Take a minute and look at the current top 50 in the world for this GAC - an overwhelming majority of them are low to mid-level GP accounts in this bracket. These are smart players with lean rosters and a relatively low GP compared to the bracket they are in. The reason you see so few whale/kraken accounts at the very top is because we are being matched against each other where both people are putting up 7 meta defense's and there is little to no room for under-manned wins and even less room to try for these ridiculous FO feats. I've been beaten by accounts with far less GP than me because of well thought out defenses that forced me to make bad decisions on offense. I've also beaten far larger accounts for the same reason. I've looked at this particular opponent's roster thoroughly and I have set up a defense that I feel will force him to make tough choices. But I can also tell you that he/she has all the necessary pieces needed to clear my defense cleanly - but that depends on how much thought and preparation he has put into the match on his end. I win my matches because I take the time to scout my opponents roster and I put up a defense I think he will struggle with while saving myself enough ammunition left to clear what I think he will put up against me.
    This isn't a problem with matchmaking, but with the ranking.

    It's not even a problem.

    GAC isn't "who has the best roster". It's "who uses their roster the best".

    Now, the amount of turds floating in the Kraken pool is certainly less than others. But money doesn't buy smart modding (without violating ToS).

    I wish that was true, but in the current GAC it is not!

    Matchmaking is definitely the issue here.
    And you can argue what a “fair” matchmaking is, but you cannot argue that a matchup between somebody with DR, Malak, Traya and all the usual meta toons (and 10% more GP) and somebody without those meta toons is unfair!
  • Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    And the current matchmaking fails to do that!

    Your Patriots comparison would only be true if Belichick was allowed to ride a motorcycle on the field.
  • It’s because GAC matchmaking is bloody awful.

    9/10 I can tell the result of a match before starting. It’s because there are certain characters that are auto win.

    If one person has a maxed general Skywalker or Malak. That’s it, game over.

    Yawn...

    I really don’t think that’s true , because a lot of my grand arenas have 5 or six maxed Malaks, yet each time there is only 1 first place winner.
    It takes more than a single character or team for a win.
  • While i understand your frustration,you got to try at least,i won many matches while opponent had both revans or one of them and i have 0 revans,its all about forming a good defence,offense plan.
  • There is no problem these whales are good. Not only have they bought teams but they can read abilities and use them.
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    2 x pictures = 0 problems with GAC
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • While i understand your frustration,you got to try at least,i won many matches while opponent had both revans or one of them and i have 0 revans,its all about forming a good defence,offense plan.

    There is only so much you can do with strategy and planning. Strategy and planning actually made me enjoy GAC. But if you know you can potentially knock out one or even two of the opponent’s meta teams, but then this forces you to stay light on defense while your opponent still has enough prime teams to march all over you... then fun no more this is!
  • leef wrote: »

    1st - couldn't agree with you more. I wish I was being paired up against other people with a similar win/loss record. However, this isn't the only problem with current match making algorithms. Take a minute and look at the current top 50 in the world for this GAC - an overwhelming majority of them are low to mid-level GP accounts in this bracket. These are smart players with lean rosters and a relatively low GP compared to the bracket they are in. The reason you see so few whale/kraken accounts at the very top is because we are being matched against each other where both people are putting up 7 meta defense's and there is little to no room for under-manned wins and even less room to try for these ridiculous FO feats. I've been beaten by accounts with far less GP than me because of well thought out defenses that forced me to make bad decisions on offense. I've also beaten far larger accounts for the same reason. I've looked at this particular opponent's roster thoroughly and I have set up a defense that I feel will force him to make tough choices. But I can also tell you that he/she has all the necessary pieces needed to clear my defense cleanly - but that depends on how much thought and preparation he has put into the match on his end. I win my matches because I take the time to scout my opponents roster and I put up a defense I think he will struggle with while saving myself enough ammunition left to clear what I think he will put up against me.
    This isn't a problem with matchmaking, but with the ranking.

    It's not even a problem.

    GAC isn't "who has the best roster". It's "who uses their roster the best".

    Now, the amount of turds floating in the Kraken pool is certainly less than others. But money doesn't buy smart modding (without violating ToS).

    Yeah, but the top end krakens are all relatively equivalent in terms of how well they use their rosters, but theres more people on the low end that don't know how to use their rosters correctly.

    I noticed the very bottom end of division 1 is far less competitive than the top end of division 2 was simply because theres so many more fluffy less lean rosters and people who are just gearing all sorts of stuff whereas the top end of division 2 was far more lean machines. GAC will never be perfect, but it's still enjoyable if you're not looking to find things to complain about.
  • Might be time to let this die except for to say win/loss would be a good metric for assisting match making in the future, and would make the championship better for everyone.

    It was a good match up completed about an hour ago. Squads played out completely even (I won’t be sharing the details), both of us beat the others meta teams in one but dropped points along the way.

    The difference between us turned out to be fleet, which was less to do with YW 7* than it was the extra star on the Negotiatior. From experience the mirror match from this position needs good RNG, and 5* Negotiator won’t hold on Defence against a decent player with good rebels. I am not unhappy with the outcome, and I guess Kurama is pretty happy with it.

    In the end we both full cleared, had a nice conversation about strategies used and are now allies.

    There are many wrong ideas and premises on this thread, but the one thing both players and many others agree on is that win/loss being included in match making would be a useful addition.

    **Also the guy who outed Kurama’s strategy to the world before the match was even played, I hope you asked them first? It happens I didn’t see your post until after the match, but it would probably have helped to have that advanced knowledge as my decisions would have been easier. Certainly you have helped his future opponents! However I suspect he is a good enough player to adjust. For sure this has been the most even squad match up I have had in a while despite us setting very different defenses and therefore having different characters to attack with. Ships is ships, most of the time irrelevant occasionally decisive.

    Good luck to us all in the next round
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    It’s a “championship” that doesn’t last long enough to produce meaningful competitive matchups.

    Most of my matches are a slaughter either way. Either I demolish an opponent with ease or I get owned. Neither are fun.

    It’s all because certain characters are just deal breakers in GAC if you have them or not.

    Malak, General Anakin, Negotiator etc.

    Malak and Negotiator are not deal breakers for my main. I have yet to encounter a player using GAS.

    For my former ticket alt with no JKR, no DR, no Malak, no Negotiator and no Traya those units are not necessarily "deal breakers". It just promoted to division 2 and won 6/7 so far. Previous GAC it won 12/12 even beating some players with Traya, Revan(s) and Malak along the way. Strategy, mods etc. still has some impact.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    It was a good match up completed about an hour ago. Squads played out completely even (I won’t be sharing the details), both of us beat the others meta teams in one but dropped points along the way.

    Thank you for your feedback.
    So........ It turned out to be an even match after all. I guess matchmaking is not all bad, then.

  • KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    And the current matchmaking fails to do that!

    Your Patriots comparison would only be true if Belichick was allowed to ride a motorcycle on the field.

    How does it fail?

    Also, Belichick is the coach. He's not on the field.
    u58t4vkrvnrz.png



  • Jarvind wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    And the current matchmaking fails to do that!

    Your Patriots comparison would only be true if Belichick was allowed to ride a motorcycle on the field.

    How does it fail?

    Also, Belichick is the coach. He's not on the field.

    If fails if it matches players where one is predetermined to win and the other is predetermined to lose based on their roster strength.

    I just had a matchup where it was impossible for me to win (unless my opponent doesn’t play).

    With Belichick I assumed he is a player. So much for my knowledge on Football ... lol
  • Monel
    2776 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    2 x pictures = 0 problems with GAC

    Guacamole it is!
  • As long as GAC isn't an e-sports game, it will always be P2W. If someone wants to spent hundreds of dollars to be number one in an "meaningless" game, go for it and I'm okay with it.
  • Atarius wrote: »
    As long as GAC isn't an e-sports game, it will always be P2W. If someone wants to spent hundreds of dollars to be number one in an "meaningless" game, go for it and I'm okay with it.

    I mean... apart from the fact a few people pointed out which is the people that have spent the most on this game are all facing off against each other and having really scrappy difficult matches and ending up way out side of the top 50 (in general, exceptions apply).

    Can we all agree this thread is pretty weired though... both people involved in the match made very rational normal comments... said the match was fun and pretty even... and neither of them brought up the discussion here... and yet we are all moaning/shilling about it for some reason :/
  • Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    Of all the flawed analogies between GAC and sports, this one might actually win. If you really wanted to use the NFL analogy, then best to go back to pure GP matching which most closely resembles a sports salary cap.
  • Austin9370 wrote: »
    This post is a classic example that spreads a false narrative that there are problems with matchmaking. Just because you don't have a cupcake match, doesn't mean it's a problem.

    Just because you dont think it's a problem doesnt mean it's not. If it was a problem originally it still seems like a problem now. Went from winning every match to never winning. I think I've won maybe 3 GAC since they changed it. It's just broken in a different way now it seems. I didntnjust magically start sucking overnight. Addition of g13 and relics have made it worse as well
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    And the current matchmaking fails to do that!

    Your Patriots comparison would only be true if Belichick was allowed to ride a motorcycle on the field.

    How does it fail?

    Also, Belichick is the coach. He's not on the field.

    If fails if it matches players where one is predetermined to win and the other is predetermined to lose based on their roster strength.

    That's where you are wrong. CG never announced, that they intended to make even matches. They announced, that they would make matches more even than back before championships were introduced - which they are. Significantly more even.
    I just had a matchup where it was impossible for me to win (unless my opponent doesn’t play).

    I've seen several of that type of match and won. Or check out the match described by OP. It turned out to be a pretty even match in the end.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    And the current matchmaking fails to do that!

    Your Patriots comparison would only be true if Belichick was allowed to ride a motorcycle on the field.

    How does it fail?

    Also, Belichick is the coach. He's not on the field.

    If fails if it matches players where one is predetermined to win and the other is predetermined to lose based on their roster strength.

    That's where you are wrong. CG never announced, that they intended to make even matches. They announced, that they would make matches more even than back before championships were introduced - which they are. Significantly more even.

    Do you have data to support the statement "significantly more even?"
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    And the current matchmaking fails to do that!

    Your Patriots comparison would only be true if Belichick was allowed to ride a motorcycle on the field.

    How does it fail?

    Also, Belichick is the coach. He's not on the field.

    If fails if it matches players where one is predetermined to win and the other is predetermined to lose based on their roster strength.

    That's where you are wrong. CG never announced, that they intended to make even matches. They announced, that they would make matches more even than back before championships were introduced - which they are. Significantly more even.

    Do you have data to support the statement "significantly more even?"

    No. But matching by "Relevant GP" instead of total GP combined with the effect of leagues a few GAs in......do your own reasoning.
  • Jarvind wrote: »
    As always, "matchmaking" does not mean "you will only face rosters identical to your own." It just matches based on top 80 GP. It is not the matchmaking algorithm's job to ensure your matches are "fair." It's just there to ensure you are facing people in the same ballpark of general roster strength.

    Imagine if every team that played the New England Patriots just shrieked that it wasn't a fair matchup and refused to play. "OMG they have Belichick I have no chance, this sport is p2w!"

    Of all the flawed analogies between GAC and sports, this one might actually win. If you really wanted to use the NFL analogy, then best to go back to pure GP matching which most closely resembles a sports salary cap.

    I'm honestly not sure if you're saying the analogy is good or bad. If it's the latter, I am interested to know why you say that.
    u58t4vkrvnrz.png



Sign In or Register to comment.