Matchmaking is based on division and top-X GP in the first GA.
To be specific, the first argument is that top-X comparison should possible be top-12 instead, at least in div 4.
Why only top-12 if you have 6 defensive slots? Also, you do realize, that since you have a high relic roster top you would probably not have easier matches if matching by top-12 instead of top-60, right?
The second is that it is lopsided even top-X in this example, i.e. roughly 43 weighted toons to 6.
43 vs. 6? Now you're not serious.
Lopsided? You can't really blame MM for that. You have matching top-X GP. Your opponent built a roster, which is more suitable for GA than you did. Of course he should benefit.
The third is that not considering a gross difference in overall gp is also possibly faulty given the difference in potential theory crafting and shear power in numbers.
If your opponent needs to use much of that extra GP characters, he's probably struggling to break through your defense and losing anyway.
@Waqui Happy Easter btw. I think you misunderstood the data I was showing. When I said top-12, as I explained I meant top 12 squads since in division 4 in this GAC there are 6 squads on defense and 6 squads on offense necessary. My two examples were comparing 1:1 the top 50 toons and the top 60 toons (at data lock). I thought you meant top-X as top 10 squads. And as such we do not have matching top-X gp. This is the data I'm showing you. Or are you saying top 10 toons? If that's the case I think your criteria for matchmaking is incorrect. The matchmaking according to the latest developer threads that I could find is on top 80 toons. And in my analysis of top 60 toons (I didn't go as far as 80 toons but the trend is the same), I have 6 toons with higher gp versus my opponent and my opponent has 53 toons with higher gp than mine. The total gp difference in top 60 toons is 54,000. This is easy math. It means that he has roughly 1000 gp more per toon than me through the top 60 toons. That's the average. Actually I have 6 toons with about 9700 gp more than 6 of his toons, and the next 53 of his toons have a combined 64000 gp more than my next 53. This is so unbalanced I can't really understand what you're saying.
Regarding the confusion about the expression top-X:
You are matched by the GP of your top-X characters, where X is 10 times the number of defensive slots. In your case if you have 6 defensive slots you are matched by the GP of your top-60 characters. X varies from division to division. Hence the top-X expression. In divisions 1 and 2 players are matched by GP of their top-80 characters (at least when the layout is 8 defensive squads and no ships). In lower division X is less.
Comparing the top-50 characters is irrelevant since you are matched by top-60 characters.
How did you make sure, that you compare rosters as they were at roster lock several days ago?
Comparing how many toons your opponent has with higher GP than yours (how do you even compare this?) is irrelevant since you are matched by top-X GP - not by number of high GP toons among your top-X characters. The imbalance, you keep mentioning, arises from the way you chose to build your roster. Your opponent built a top-X roster more suitable for GA. Don't blame matchmaking for your own mistakes/shortcomings/choices/whatever....
The total gp difference in top 60 toons is 54,000.
I highly doubt that there was such a big difference at roster lock.
Long story short:
Matchmaking did its job. Your opponent is more skilled at building rosters suitable for GA than you are. He won fair and square.
Learn from this loss or not. It's all up to you now.
I wrote this originally as feedback in the feedback section. Whether you (@Waqui) believe the data or not is up to you. I'm pretty sure the relevant developers will understand what's going on here and if necessary be able to look at the data lock data. I think it is less likely that my opponent increased 53 of his toons by 1000 gp each in a day or two versus my 6 toons than it is that the data is actually closer to what I described. My intention was that a developer take this feedback. My process was simple I listed 60 top toons of mine and my opponents in a spreadsheet. The first six of mine had about a 1.5k gp advantage more than his first 6 toons. After that, his toons had about a 1.1k avg gp advantage down the line. Every single one. And in the end the overall difference in top-X was approx 54k gp. I had thought that when you're in GAC it shows you the data at data lock but alas it does change so my data is approx data lock +24hrs (please refer to the fourth sentence above). Think about it. 1000 gp per toon for 53 toons could be something like 5 pieces of gear per toon give or take for 53 toons. In 24 hours? I didn't apply any zetas or change any mods. Maybe he had ten or twenty zetas he decided to use or put on higher mods. I doubt it and it's not really plausible given my initial description of the match-up at data lock in terms of gear levels because those didn't really change.
I think my last comment about this is that it's not about winning or losing for me and this post is certainly not about me losing this one match-up. It's no big deal. I enjoy tinkering with my toons and squads to prepare for GAC. And I'm always excited when GAC begins. It's probably my favorite part of the game. But it also has been a bit disappointing for me given the time that I spend, when I get these seemingly goofy match-ups especially right at the beginning of a month long GAC. Thanks again everyone for your input. See you on the Holotables.
When you long press your opponent's characters on his defense you are supposed to see the lock stats. There's no way to see locked stats of hist other characters.
Giving feedback is great. I hope the developers will appreciate it. I also hope you appreciate the feedback you got and now understand a little better how matchmaking works and why you get the kind of match-ups, you get. I hope it will help you prepare your roster better for future GAs and help you accept what you call goofy matchups and help you enjoy GAC more until you turn your roster around and build it stronger.
thought i was done but then i saw this. It lists my rank as #13 in div 4. it's obviously wrong but could it have something to do with the mismatch? is there a glitch here somehow that is messing my mm up?
thought i was done but then i saw this. It lists my rank as #13 in div 4. it's obviously wrong but could it have something to do with the mismatch? is there a glitch here somehow that is messing my mm up?
No.
It sounds like you didn’t account for your top ship GP in your calculation despite this GAC having ships in it.
thought i was done but then i saw this. It lists my rank as #13 in div 4. it's obviously wrong but could it have something to do with the mismatch? is there a glitch here somehow that is messing my mm up?
It lists you as #13 in the Carbonite league of division 4 - not #13 overall in division 4. There are thousands of players already in bronzium league and the best will even hit chromium after collecting points for the 3rd round.
No.
It sounds like you didn’t account for your top ship GP in your calculation despite this GAC having ships in it.
It's a good point. Thanks Liath. All the conversation was around the relic 7 "top heavy" advantage so I got caught up in this evaluation which doesn't seem to match the top-X squad data. Your point could explain the matchup. Even though he has the 7* neg, my fleet gp is all higher for the first 6 or 7 ships.
I would ask, if this is the reason for this kind of recurring, lopsided GAC matchup with squads, that somebody consider this situation as it relates to GAC more closely. For example, since fleet is located in a rear zone, if the squad match-up is so lopsided a player's advantage in fleet may not come into play. The opponent can, for example, put up a wall and it's over. If the match making doesn't handicap for this possibility, it can be problematic, as in this example. It's also potentially problematic to use the same gp top-X evaluation for fleet for other reasons (if that’s what’s happening), multiple pilot ships versus single or no pilot ships could vary the gp comparison, multiple higher gp capital ships could affect a comparison since only one capital ship can be used per squad, and again the placement of the fleet zone in GAC at the rear means a fleet advantage is not as much of an advantage. Also doesn't pilot gp increase ship gp so it's almost counted twice or weighted more for high gp pilots? This would be especially problematic for a GK/Anakin/Ahsoka relic'd fleet and squad line-up or something similar. And it could affect somebody in a lower division more because in theory they will have farmed and geared fewer toons overall so these affects could be more pronounced.That's just a quick few differences that come to mind. If fleet is part of GAC this should be considered in the algorithm and potentially handicapped somehow for reasons like these if it's throwing off matchups.
I would say also to the answer that most GAC results are tracking to a 50% win rate and that offers some satisfaction with the algorithm overall, that the design may just be reinforcing an anti-fleet bias of many players. If fleet is part of the game and part of GAC, fleet balance in an account should at least not be a disadvantage.
No.
It sounds like you didn’t account for your top ship GP in your calculation despite this GAC having ships in it.
It's a good point. Thanks Liath. All the conversation was around the relic 7 "top heavy" advantage so I got caught up in this evaluation which doesn't seem to match the top-X squad data. Your point could explain the matchup. Even though he has the 7* neg, my fleet gp is all higher for the first 6 or 7 ships.
I would ask, if this is the reason for this kind of recurring, lopsided GAC matchup with squads, that somebody consider this situation as it relates to GAC more closely. For example, since fleet is located in a rear zone, if the squad match-up is so lopsided a player's advantage in fleet may not come into play. The opponent can, for example, put up a wall and it's over. If the match making doesn't handicap for this possibility, it can be problematic, as in this example. It's also potentially problematic to use the same gp top-X evaluation for fleet for other reasons (if that’s what’s happening), multiple pilot ships versus single or no pilot ships could vary the gp comparison, multiple higher gp capital ships could affect a comparison since only one capital ship can be used per squad, and again the placement of the fleet zone in GAC at the rear means a fleet advantage is not as much of an advantage. Also doesn't pilot gp increase ship gp so it's almost counted twice or weighted more for high gp pilots? This would be especially problematic for a GK/Anakin/Ahsoka relic'd fleet and squad line-up or something similar. And it could affect somebody in a lower division more because in theory they will have farmed and geared fewer toons overall so these affects could be more pronounced.That's just a quick few differences that come to mind. If fleet is part of GAC this should be considered in the algorithm and potentially handicapped somehow for reasons like these if it's throwing off matchups.
I would say also to the answer that most GAC results are tracking to a 50% win rate and that offers some satisfaction with the algorithm overall, that the design may just be reinforcing an anti-fleet bias of many players. If fleet is part of the game and part of GAC, fleet balance in an account should at least not be a disadvantage.
The reason for what you call lopsided match-ups is still the way you built your roster. Whatever other reasons you are looking for will not change the fact that your opponent in your example simply built his roster in a way that is more suitable for GAC (and for that matter also for TW), while the way you built yours is less suitable for GAC.
If a player is blocked from reaching the fleet zone in the back, it's because he either didn't build a counter for the team blocking his path or he put it on defense. In both cases it's the player's own fault. If the fleet zone is moved forward, a player may be blocked from reaching to the squad zone in the rear, and the reason would again be his lack of a counter. There's not much difference.
If you want to win more and have easier match-ups adapt and change your roster building strategy. It's all up to you.
@Waqui I'm sorry you keep saying the same thing and I can tell you're convinced especially since you've said it across several chat boards and in response to every post about lopsided GAC matches including mine but you haven't backed it up with data in this example. Additionally this squad is very similar to another that I have which isn't getting these same kind of matchups. What Liath said is backed up by data according to my comparison and seems to make more sense than that r5, r6 and r7 are somehow weighted more in the algo. I've read nothing from developers that supports this. The algo seems to be a top-12 gp comparison which you've acknowledged and three relic levels only add 1-2.5k per toon which for five toons doesn't equal a ~63k gp difference. And if it does, than this is wrong and should be changed. Are you a developer for this game? Because this is to whom I'm writing this feedback.
@Waqui I'm sorry you keep saying the same thing and I can tell you're convinced especially since you've said it across several chat boards and in response to every post about lopsided GAC matches including mine but you haven't backed it up with data in this example.
What kind of data do you request? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP. Whatever lopsidedness you see arises from how each of you and your opponent chose to build your rosters. As already pointed out your opponent has more complete viable teams while you have a few incomplete teams with one or more undergeared toons. You have more high relic toons, your opponent has more g12 toons. What more do you need to know? Please elaborate.
I don't see these lopsided match-ups in my other accounts. The biggest difference seems to be that this account is much more efficient. It doesn't have as many unused/unlocked and geared characters.
So, which one is it? Are they very similar or is one much more efficient than the other?
If you provide a link to that other account on swgoh.gg I'll be happy to take a look at it to see and explain what the difference may be.
What Liath said is backed up by data according to my comparison and seems to make more sense than that r5, r6 and r7 are somehow weighted more in the algo. I've read nothing from developers that supports this.
What do you want from the developers? It's all about GP. Next time you upgrade a character from r4 to R5, r6 and R7 note how much GP is added. What more do you need to know?
And if it does, than this is wrong and should be changed. Are you a developer for this game? Because this is to whom I'm writing this feedback.
And I'm writing my feedback to you (but anyone is welcome to chip in).
You can sit back and wait for a change to the algorithm to have it favor your roster or you could learn and adapt and build a roster more suitable for GAC. Up to you.
BTW when I checked your GAC history I noticed, that you could actually have won that round in your example against Thunderman if only you had used your Padme team against his NS instead of losing against his JKR team (BTW may I suggest that you move your Ahsoka up in front of JKA and 3P0 in the order on your team?). Also, your losses against his NS should illustrate the weakness of your incomplete teams well. That empire team of yours with a g12 zetaed Vader but also several undergeared members and that rebel team with Chewie and Han Solo but no CLS were no match for his NS team. If you had completed those teams they might have had a chance.
Replies
Why only top-12 if you have 6 defensive slots? Also, you do realize, that since you have a high relic roster top you would probably not have easier matches if matching by top-12 instead of top-60, right?
43 vs. 6? Now you're not serious.
Lopsided? You can't really blame MM for that. You have matching top-X GP. Your opponent built a roster, which is more suitable for GA than you did. Of course he should benefit.
If your opponent needs to use much of that extra GP characters, he's probably struggling to break through your defense and losing anyway.
You are matched by the GP of your top-X characters, where X is 10 times the number of defensive slots. In your case if you have 6 defensive slots you are matched by the GP of your top-60 characters. X varies from division to division. Hence the top-X expression. In divisions 1 and 2 players are matched by GP of their top-80 characters (at least when the layout is 8 defensive squads and no ships). In lower division X is less.
Comparing the top-50 characters is irrelevant since you are matched by top-60 characters.
How did you make sure, that you compare rosters as they were at roster lock several days ago?
Comparing how many toons your opponent has with higher GP than yours (how do you even compare this?) is irrelevant since you are matched by top-X GP - not by number of high GP toons among your top-X characters. The imbalance, you keep mentioning, arises from the way you chose to build your roster. Your opponent built a top-X roster more suitable for GA. Don't blame matchmaking for your own mistakes/shortcomings/choices/whatever....
I highly doubt that there was such a big difference at roster lock.
Long story short:
Matchmaking did its job. Your opponent is more skilled at building rosters suitable for GA than you are. He won fair and square.
Learn from this loss or not. It's all up to you now.
Giving feedback is great. I hope the developers will appreciate it. I also hope you appreciate the feedback you got and now understand a little better how matchmaking works and why you get the kind of match-ups, you get. I hope it will help you prepare your roster better for future GAs and help you accept what you call goofy matchups and help you enjoy GAC more until you turn your roster around and build it stronger.
thought i was done but then i saw this. It lists my rank as #13 in div 4. it's obviously wrong but could it have something to do with the mismatch? is there a glitch here somehow that is messing my mm up?
No.
It sounds like you didn’t account for your top ship GP in your calculation despite this GAC having ships in it.
It lists you as #13 in the Carbonite league of division 4 - not #13 overall in division 4. There are thousands of players already in bronzium league and the best will even hit chromium after collecting points for the 3rd round.
It's a good point. Thanks Liath. All the conversation was around the relic 7 "top heavy" advantage so I got caught up in this evaluation which doesn't seem to match the top-X squad data. Your point could explain the matchup. Even though he has the 7* neg, my fleet gp is all higher for the first 6 or 7 ships.
I would ask, if this is the reason for this kind of recurring, lopsided GAC matchup with squads, that somebody consider this situation as it relates to GAC more closely. For example, since fleet is located in a rear zone, if the squad match-up is so lopsided a player's advantage in fleet may not come into play. The opponent can, for example, put up a wall and it's over. If the match making doesn't handicap for this possibility, it can be problematic, as in this example. It's also potentially problematic to use the same gp top-X evaluation for fleet for other reasons (if that’s what’s happening), multiple pilot ships versus single or no pilot ships could vary the gp comparison, multiple higher gp capital ships could affect a comparison since only one capital ship can be used per squad, and again the placement of the fleet zone in GAC at the rear means a fleet advantage is not as much of an advantage. Also doesn't pilot gp increase ship gp so it's almost counted twice or weighted more for high gp pilots? This would be especially problematic for a GK/Anakin/Ahsoka relic'd fleet and squad line-up or something similar. And it could affect somebody in a lower division more because in theory they will have farmed and geared fewer toons overall so these affects could be more pronounced.That's just a quick few differences that come to mind. If fleet is part of GAC this should be considered in the algorithm and potentially handicapped somehow for reasons like these if it's throwing off matchups.
I would say also to the answer that most GAC results are tracking to a 50% win rate and that offers some satisfaction with the algorithm overall, that the design may just be reinforcing an anti-fleet bias of many players. If fleet is part of the game and part of GAC, fleet balance in an account should at least not be a disadvantage.
Aha! Waqui, helpful!
The reason for what you call lopsided match-ups is still the way you built your roster. Whatever other reasons you are looking for will not change the fact that your opponent in your example simply built his roster in a way that is more suitable for GAC (and for that matter also for TW), while the way you built yours is less suitable for GAC.
If a player is blocked from reaching the fleet zone in the back, it's because he either didn't build a counter for the team blocking his path or he put it on defense. In both cases it's the player's own fault. If the fleet zone is moved forward, a player may be blocked from reaching to the squad zone in the rear, and the reason would again be his lack of a counter. There's not much difference.
If you want to win more and have easier match-ups adapt and change your roster building strategy. It's all up to you.
What kind of data do you request? You and your opponent have matching relevant GP. Whatever lopsidedness you see arises from how each of you and your opponent chose to build your rosters. As already pointed out your opponent has more complete viable teams while you have a few incomplete teams with one or more undergeared toons. You have more high relic toons, your opponent has more g12 toons. What more do you need to know? Please elaborate.
That's not what you said in your original post:
So, which one is it? Are they very similar or is one much more efficient than the other?
If you provide a link to that other account on swgoh.gg I'll be happy to take a look at it to see and explain what the difference may be.
What do you want from the developers? It's all about GP. Next time you upgrade a character from r4 to R5, r6 and R7 note how much GP is added. What more do you need to know?
If by top-12 you mean top-60 characters, then yes.
At the point of matchmaking the difference was within whatever limit the developers have set.
And I'm writing my feedback to you (but anyone is welcome to chip in).
You can sit back and wait for a change to the algorithm to have it favor your roster or you could learn and adapt and build a roster more suitable for GAC. Up to you.