GAC matchmaking with GL?

Jefferx

What do you think CG should set the GAC matchmaking when first GL unlock?

I think the best way it’s to not change something in the matchmaking. If they match GL with other owners of GL, this would be the worst choice ever.

TVF

They won't.

gflegui

TVF wrote: »

They won't.

Sure?

TVF

gflegui wrote: »

TVF wrote: »

They won't.

Sure?

Pretty.

There was a Q&A response IIRC that indicated they wouldn't be doing individual toon matchmaking.

ImaSmakya

TVF wrote: »

gflegui wrote: »

TVF wrote: »

They won't.

Sure?

Pretty.

There was a Q&A response IIRC that indicated they wouldn't be doing individual toon matchmaking.

Source?

Rath_Tarr

They haven't done it for g12s, Revans, relics or anything else character-related. Seems unlikely they would start now.

Gifafi

they certainly haven't mentioned changing the entire GAC matchmaking, so...

TVF

ImaSmakya wrote: »

TVF wrote: »

gflegui wrote: »

TVF wrote: »

They won't.

Sure?

Pretty.

There was a Q&A response IIRC that indicated they wouldn't be doing individual toon matchmaking.

Source?

"IIRC." I'm admitting I don't recall for absolute certain, unlike many here. If you care enough you can go search it out. Or we can just wait and see who's right.

ImaSmakya

TVF wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

TVF wrote: »

gflegui wrote: »

TVF wrote: »

They won't.

Sure?

Pretty.

There was a Q&A response IIRC that indicated they wouldn't be doing individual toon matchmaking.

Source?

"IIRC." I'm admitting I don't recall for absolute certain, unlike many here. If you care enough you can go search it out. Or we can just wait and see who's right.

"They won't" sounded pretty definitive.

Somebody asking "Sure?" and you saying "Pretty" also kind of indicates you're pretty sure.

Last time you asked me for a source/link for a statement I made, I was more than happy to go and look it up and provide said link. Good to know you don't want to be held to the same standard that you seem to hold the rest of the forum.

Cool, I have my new standard response when you simply type "Source?"

"If you care enough you can go search it out"

MaruMaru

I won't go searching for it either. But I know that statement exists in q/as 3-4 back. "we internally talked about it and won't do it in the foreseeable future" type of statement in response to meta/toon specific mm weighting question.

TVF

Yes I said I was pretty sure. I did not say I was absolutely sure. Granted my first reply was more definitive. So great job "owning" me.

https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/210733/developer-q-a-8-1/p1

Q: Some characters are so much more powerful than others. Will matchmaking take this into consideration somehow?
A: Tophat - Maybe in the future. We don't have any plans to introduce this into Matchmaking at this time. Making a matchmaking system that recognizes the state of the meta is (for us) tricky at this time. We've discussed it, but we want to see if we can make more general rule based changes first before we have to do this sort of "fixing".

Given how long ago this answer was, I'm still pretty sure they won't be doing this, since they still haven't yet. But only they know for sure.

Enjoy your internet points, hope they help.

CosmicJ

With the way match making works, you'll either be matched with someone else who meets the GL requirements and your rey's/kylo's will punch it out... OR

....you'll face someone who doesn't have the GL requirements... meaning (if they're competitive) they'll have more investment in other key characters (better ones than than r5 rose, poe etc) that could still make your overall GAC difficult.

Jarvind

They didn’t change matchmaking when Malak came out and everyone survived. Don’t see why GLs would be any different.

Fanatic

ImaSmakya wrote: »

thecarterologist958 wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Well, I wasn't the one who said I owned anyone and that was definitely not my point.

Not sure how many of your 20,000+ posts are simply "Source?" or "Link?", but it's quite a few. You expect people to provide corroborating evidence for everything they say, but you do not feel you need to do the same simply because you put "IIRC" or "pretty sure" and when they call you on it your response is look it up ur **** self.

I was simply pointing out the irony.

I feel like this would be more ironic if most people didn't post stuff with absolute certainty, insist that other people were wrong or stupid for not believing them, or simply reference things that actually don't exist.

If this were the case, more than half the internet would disappear and we would be left with ****.

And by "****" you mean a better and more useful internet right?

ImaSmakya

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

thecarterologist958 wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Well, I wasn't the one who said I owned anyone and that was definitely not my point.

Not sure how many of your 20,000+ posts are simply "Source?" or "Link?", but it's quite a few. You expect people to provide corroborating evidence for everything they say, but you do not feel you need to do the same simply because you put "IIRC" or "pretty sure" and when they call you on it your response is look it up ur **** self.

I was simply pointing out the irony.

I feel like this would be more ironic if most people didn't post stuff with absolute certainty, insist that other people were wrong or stupid for not believing them, or simply reference things that actually don't exist.

If this were the case, more than half the internet would disappear and we would be left with ****.

And by "****" you mean a better and more useful internet right?

I'll leave the "better and more useful" definition to you. That's a rabbit hole I would prefer to avoid.

TaTaKaS

CosmicJ wrote: »

With the way match making works, you'll either be matched with someone else who meets the GL requirements and your rey's/kylo's will punch it out... OR

....you'll face someone who doesn't have the GL requirements... meaning (if they're competitive) they'll have more investment in other key characters (better ones than than r5 rose, poe etc) that could still make your overall GAC difficult.

This... I was about to say that GL owners will face GL owners with extreme consistency or no GL players with many more good characters and teams with high relics. If GL are unbeatable by non GL characters then that's fine. If they are beatable then the ones who chose to ignore them and invest all those resources to useful characters will have a significant advantage. That is the main reason I am hoarding right now. I will wait for our lovely youtubers to unlock them both, show us how they perform and decide which of the 3 routes I will take.

Rey-Kylo-none and wait for next big character.

If GL are truly op I will probably go for Rey cause that would help with lsgeotb and my hsith scores.

The same thing happened with GS. I have faced only one of them cause the guys who have him had more reliced characters than me therefore they had more top 80 GP. As the years pass this will change cause there will be players that put their first relics on characters needed for gas. But with the requirements for GL being the same for all it means the same useless GP for all GL owners which is more fair in my opinion than what we had until now. For example you can unlock GS with some bare minimums if you have the patience to do 3.000 battles but someone who doesn't has more relics on some characters.

Dnoff423

TVF wrote: »

Enjoy your internet points, hope they help.

The meme was supposed to not be in the quote. So here it is again.

ImaSmakya

@kyno Can I get some indication as to why some of my posts in this thread have been deleted. I’d like to know if there is some line I’ve crossed that I’m not aware of.

Ruark_Icefire

ImaSmakya wrote: »

@kyno Can I get some indication as to why some of my posts in this thread have been deleted. I’d like to know if there is some line I’ve crossed that I’m not aware of.

Did you edit them? Because the forums love to eat posts when you edit them.

ImaSmakya

Nope, never touched them.

Kyno

ImaSmakya wrote: »

kyno Can I get some indication as to why some of my posts in this thread have been deleted. I’d like to know if there is some line I’ve crossed that I’m not aware of.

Responded in a direct message.

ImaSmakya

Kyno wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

kyno Can I get some indication as to why some of my posts in this thread have been deleted. I’d like to know if there is some line I’ve crossed that I’m not aware of.

Responded in a direct message.

Fair enough, won’t happen again on purpose. In all fairness, there are some pretty wonky words that get starred though.

Fanatic

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

thecarterologist958 wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Well, I wasn't the one who said I owned anyone and that was definitely not my point.

Not sure how many of your 20,000+ posts are simply "Source?" or "Link?", but it's quite a few. You expect people to provide corroborating evidence for everything they say, but you do not feel you need to do the same simply because you put "IIRC" or "pretty sure" and when they call you on it your response is look it up ur **** self.

I was simply pointing out the irony.

I feel like this would be more ironic if most people didn't post stuff with absolute certainty, insist that other people were wrong or stupid for not believing them, or simply reference things that actually don't exist.

If this were the case, more than half the internet would disappear and we would be left with ****.

And by "****" you mean a better and more useful internet right?

I'll leave the "better and more useful" definition to you. That's a rabbit hole I would prefer to avoid.

Well the original quote was a reference to the internet being filled with trolls, name calling, etc. You replied that we would lose half the internet if that weren't the case (ie, troll posts and the like all disappeared from the internet). I do believe then, what we would be left with, is a better and more useful internet.

Gifafi

if you added 500k in gp you'd probably be matched with others near your level who added 500k gp, but they haven't said anything about somehow changing all matchmaking to match gl with only other gl's. not sure why this thread is (still) a thing

ImaSmakya

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

thecarterologist958 wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Well, I wasn't the one who said I owned anyone and that was definitely not my point.

Not sure how many of your 20,000+ posts are simply "Source?" or "Link?", but it's quite a few. You expect people to provide corroborating evidence for everything they say, but you do not feel you need to do the same simply because you put "IIRC" or "pretty sure" and when they call you on it your response is look it up ur **** self.

I was simply pointing out the irony.

I feel like this would be more ironic if most people didn't post stuff with absolute certainty, insist that other people were wrong or stupid for not believing them, or simply reference things that actually don't exist.

If this were the case, more than half the internet would disappear and we would be left with ****.

And by "****" you mean a better and more useful internet right?

I'll leave the "better and more useful" definition to you. That's a rabbit hole I would prefer to avoid.

Well the original quote was a reference to the internet being filled with trolls, name calling, etc. You replied that we would lose half the internet if that weren't the case (ie, troll posts and the like all disappeared from the internet). I do believe then, what we would be left with, is a better and more useful internet.

Well, the word that was starred kinda set the context for the thought, but was apparently a word I'm not supposed to say so I won't say it. Alas no, most would not consider it better and more useful. But that is just my opinion and as was pointed out to me in another thread, opinions can be wrong.

thecarterologist958

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

thecarterologist958 wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Well, I wasn't the one who said I owned anyone and that was definitely not my point.

Not sure how many of your 20,000+ posts are simply "Source?" or "Link?", but it's quite a few. You expect people to provide corroborating evidence for everything they say, but you do not feel you need to do the same simply because you put "IIRC" or "pretty sure" and when they call you on it your response is look it up ur **** self.

I was simply pointing out the irony.

I feel like this would be more ironic if most people didn't post stuff with absolute certainty, insist that other people were wrong or stupid for not believing them, or simply reference things that actually don't exist.

If this were the case, more than half the internet would disappear and we would be left with ****.

And by "****" you mean a better and more useful internet right?

I'll leave the "better and more useful" definition to you. That's a rabbit hole I would prefer to avoid.

Well the original quote was a reference to the internet being filled with trolls, name calling, etc. You replied that we would lose half the internet if that weren't the case (ie, troll posts and the like all disappeared from the internet). I do believe then, what we would be left with, is a better and more useful internet.

Well, the word that was starred kinda set the context for the thought, but was apparently a word I'm not supposed to say so I won't say it. Alas no, most would not consider it better and more useful. But that is just my opinion and as was pointed out to me in another thread, opinions can be wrong.

Most?

ImaSmakya

thecarterologist958 wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Fanatic wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

thecarterologist958 wrote: »

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Well, I wasn't the one who said I owned anyone and that was definitely not my point.

Not sure how many of your 20,000+ posts are simply "Source?" or "Link?", but it's quite a few. You expect people to provide corroborating evidence for everything they say, but you do not feel you need to do the same simply because you put "IIRC" or "pretty sure" and when they call you on it your response is look it up ur **** self.

I was simply pointing out the irony.

I feel like this would be more ironic if most people didn't post stuff with absolute certainty, insist that other people were wrong or stupid for not believing them, or simply reference things that actually don't exist.

If this were the case, more than half the internet would disappear and we would be left with ****.

And by "****" you mean a better and more useful internet right?

I'll leave the "better and more useful" definition to you. That's a rabbit hole I would prefer to avoid.

Well the original quote was a reference to the internet being filled with trolls, name calling, etc. You replied that we would lose half the internet if that weren't the case (ie, troll posts and the like all disappeared from the internet). I do believe then, what we would be left with, is a better and more useful internet.

Well, the word that was starred kinda set the context for the thought, but was apparently a word I'm not supposed to say so I won't say it. Alas no, most would not consider it better and more useful. But that is just my opinion and as was pointed out to me in another thread, opinions can be wrong.

Most?

Yes, most being my opinion as I stated. Will you be happier if I provide a number? If so, then I’ll go with 5.

thecarterologist958

ImaSmakya wrote: »

Yes, most being my opinion as I stated. Will you be happier if I provide a number? If so, then I’ll go with 5.

Thinking that 5 is more than half the total number of people is a good example of a wrong opinion.