Don’t worry, there is clearly a simple solution already in development.... if you don’t like developing these characters for these GLs, the next pair is rather likely to ‘raise the bar’ so these two are the ‘easy’ GLs, therefore, once they release the next ones, the requirements on these will be much more appealing!!
I can’t wait for Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight. Requires R7 Princess Leia, Rolo, Han Solo, Captain Han, Young Han, Old Han, Stormtrooper Han, Chewbacca, Lando, Wedge, Biggs, Darth Vader, Hermit Yoda, Wampa, Hoth Rebel Trooper, Hoth Rebel Scout, C-3PO, R2-D2, CLS, Red 5, Admiral Ackbar, General Calrissian, Nien Nunb, Mon Mothma, Rebel Trooper Rex, Jabba, Gammorean Guard, Bib Fortuna, Salacious Crumb, Malakili, Sarlaac and Boba Fett. On the plus side you’ll only need an R5 Slave Leia. Though of course most players will take her to R7 anyway since her ability to distract an enemy toon will be pretty key to actually winning the battle against the Emperor...
Lol I know. Just finally saying something. I'm just getting irritated in Grand Arena. There's been numerous times where I should have won with my characters but couldn't beat the kenobi capital ship, so I lost. It's really starting to **** me off. It takes way too long to obtain them and I'm not spending anymore money for it either.
What does not developing a counter to a fleet have to do with GL requirements?
Matchmaking issues.
Sounds more like roster building issues
So getting GL's are a building issue? Alright. Seems they need a buff so that I auto-win I guess.
If you cant beat players with similar top of roster investment, you are either not as good at strategy and gameplay, or you built a poor roster (or both). Blaming mm for you losses is the easy way out of trying to improve.
Besides, you still havent explained what GLs have to do with not developing fleets. Fleets were around for years before GLs.
Two problems with your argument. 1st- having a "poor" top end roster might be about choices, that doesn't mean those choices should result in one sided match ups. If someone goes after a gl instead of gas their top end roster will have characters that don't perform as well as the power rating indicates. 2nd- you don't have to lose to think mm is broken. I win the majority of my 5v5 match ups (3v3, not so much). I still would like power ratings to be adjusted. The fact that jka and phasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is wrong.
No, the fact that JKA and PHasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is perfect, as GP is in no way a measure of effectiveness. If you want to argue that GAC should just match you with players with nearly identical characters and fundamentally change the mode, thats an argument for a different time. However, in its current state GAC success hinges on both roster building and utilization. Going for a GL over GAS is a choice, and it is up to the player to find the best ways to utilize those requirements.
So gp is no way to measure effectiveness but it is a good way to determine a match up?
I'd argue the current state of gac hinges primarily on roster building but that's somewhat dependant on where you are in the game. End game probably leans more towards utilization.
Either way match ups are more fun if people are at the same place in the game. I don't enjoy getting a full clear against someone who can't break my front line any more than when I meet someone with a team I know I can't counter.
If the requirements are outrageous, why are more showing up in my shard daily?
I could make the argument that they aren't outrageous enough. At least with prior metas there was an exclusivity window of 3 months or more. That window already closed with this meta.
Lol I know. Just finally saying something. I'm just getting irritated in Grand Arena. There's been numerous times where I should have won with my characters but couldn't beat the kenobi capital ship, so I lost. It's really starting to **** me off. It takes way too long to obtain them and I'm not spending anymore money for it either.
What does not developing a counter to a fleet have to do with GL requirements?
Matchmaking issues.
Sounds more like roster building issues
So getting GL's are a building issue? Alright. Seems they need a buff so that I auto-win I guess.
If you cant beat players with similar top of roster investment, you are either not as good at strategy and gameplay, or you built a poor roster (or both). Blaming mm for you losses is the easy way out of trying to improve.
Besides, you still havent explained what GLs have to do with not developing fleets. Fleets were around for years before GLs.
Two problems with your argument. 1st- having a "poor" top end roster might be about choices, that doesn't mean those choices should result in one sided match ups. If someone goes after a gl instead of gas their top end roster will have characters that don't perform as well as the power rating indicates. 2nd- you don't have to lose to think mm is broken. I win the majority of my 5v5 match ups (3v3, not so much). I still would like power ratings to be adjusted. The fact that jka and phasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is wrong.
If they begin to introduce MM on char effectiveness, that will get out of hand quickly and as they introduce and rework chars they’d have to keep changing the MM.
GAC specialists don’t lose that often, even when matched with rosters that appear to be better. GAC is about understanding mechanics and having chars, gear and mods to go with those mechanics. Knowing what D teams are effective at stripping banners and maximizing your O banners.
I don't think they have to readjust mm. If they reworked the power rating system so power was a better indicator of a characters viability that would be best case. That said simply allowing people to choose some characters they don't want to use in gac would reduce the problem.
I typically finish 2-4 in gac despite being the only person without D.Revan and usually Malak. Mainly because I am lucky enough to have reasonable mods and I do my best to make sure there are no characters in my top 75-80 I won't be using. That's hard considering I took most of 2019 off so things like my gear 12 Pao still slip in.
That would be nearly impossible to do I guess. How would you rate certain chars for example in the current 3v3 GAC? Normal and viable g13 char at 20k, Malak at 150k and Rey at 800k?
It might be impossible at this point. That's why I suggested being able to remove some characters that way rose tico isn't getting matched against Malak.
There are 6,763 Reys and 5,125 Kylos unlocked on swgoh.gg. This is as high as the jkr unlocks and higher than dr/gas unlocks already. People including many f2p are meeting the requirements fine.
Lol I know. Just finally saying something. I'm just getting irritated in Grand Arena. There's been numerous times where I should have won with my characters but couldn't beat the kenobi capital ship, so I lost. It's really starting to **** me off. It takes way too long to obtain them and I'm not spending anymore money for it either.
What does not developing a counter to a fleet have to do with GL requirements?
Matchmaking issues.
Sounds more like roster building issues
So getting GL's are a building issue? Alright. Seems they need a buff so that I auto-win I guess.
If you cant beat players with similar top of roster investment, you are either not as good at strategy and gameplay, or you built a poor roster (or both). Blaming mm for you losses is the easy way out of trying to improve.
Besides, you still havent explained what GLs have to do with not developing fleets. Fleets were around for years before GLs.
Two problems with your argument. 1st- having a "poor" top end roster might be about choices, that doesn't mean those choices should result in one sided match ups. If someone goes after a gl instead of gas their top end roster will have characters that don't perform as well as the power rating indicates. 2nd- you don't have to lose to think mm is broken. I win the majority of my 5v5 match ups (3v3, not so much). I still would like power ratings to be adjusted. The fact that jka and phasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is wrong.
No, the fact that JKA and PHasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is perfect, as GP is in no way a measure of effectiveness. If you want to argue that GAC should just match you with players with nearly identical characters and fundamentally change the mode, thats an argument for a different time. However, in its current state GAC success hinges on both roster building and utilization. Going for a GL over GAS is a choice, and it is up to the player to find the best ways to utilize those requirements.
So gp is no way to measure effectiveness but it is a good way to determine a match up?
I'd argue the current state of gac hinges primarily on roster building but that's somewhat dependant on where you are in the game. End game probably leans more towards utilization.
Either way match ups are more fun if people are at the same place in the game. I don't enjoy getting a full clear against someone who can't break my front line any more than when I meet someone with a team I know I can't counter.
correct. In its current state GAC is matching on roster investment, not effectiveness. In general it rewards those who invested in more effective teams. Individual characters should never, ever, be included in a mm formula. That completely devalues having a character and investing in them. If you cannot counter a team it is not the fault of mm.
There are 6,763 Reys and 5,125 Kylos unlocked on swgoh.gg. This is as high as the jkr unlocks and higher than dr/gas unlocks already. People including many f2p are meeting the requirements fine.
GLs had their requirements told prior to the event. 4 months prior. Other character were thrust upon us, so not everyone was able to plan as well.
There are 6,763 Reys and 5,125 Kylos unlocked on swgoh.gg. This is as high as the jkr unlocks and higher than dr/gas unlocks already. People including many f2p are meeting the requirements fine.
Yeah. I checked gg yesterday expecting less than half those numbers
Lol I know. Just finally saying something. I'm just getting irritated in Grand Arena. There's been numerous times where I should have won with my characters but couldn't beat the kenobi capital ship, so I lost. It's really starting to **** me off. It takes way too long to obtain them and I'm not spending anymore money for it either.
What does not developing a counter to a fleet have to do with GL requirements?
Matchmaking issues.
Sounds more like roster building issues
So getting GL's are a building issue? Alright. Seems they need a buff so that I auto-win I guess.
If you cant beat players with similar top of roster investment, you are either not as good at strategy and gameplay, or you built a poor roster (or both). Blaming mm for you losses is the easy way out of trying to improve.
Besides, you still havent explained what GLs have to do with not developing fleets. Fleets were around for years before GLs.
Two problems with your argument. 1st- having a "poor" top end roster might be about choices, that doesn't mean those choices should result in one sided match ups. If someone goes after a gl instead of gas their top end roster will have characters that don't perform as well as the power rating indicates. 2nd- you don't have to lose to think mm is broken. I win the majority of my 5v5 match ups (3v3, not so much). I still would like power ratings to be adjusted. The fact that jka and phasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is wrong.
No, the fact that JKA and PHasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is perfect, as GP is in no way a measure of effectiveness. If you want to argue that GAC should just match you with players with nearly identical characters and fundamentally change the mode, thats an argument for a different time. However, in its current state GAC success hinges on both roster building and utilization. Going for a GL over GAS is a choice, and it is up to the player to find the best ways to utilize those requirements.
So gp is no way to measure effectiveness but it is a good way to determine a match up?
I'd argue the current state of gac hinges primarily on roster building but that's somewhat dependant on where you are in the game. End game probably leans more towards utilization.
Either way match ups are more fun if people are at the same place in the game. I don't enjoy getting a full clear against someone who can't break my front line any more than when I meet someone with a team I know I can't counter.
correct. In its current state GAC is matching on roster investment, not effectiveness. In general it rewards those who invested in more effective teams. Individual characters should never, ever, be included in a mm formula. That completely devalues having a character and investing in them. If you cannot counter a team it is not the fault of mm.
This
I only had one match since GAC started where I felt I had zero chance to win and it was because that roster was super GAC focused.
Every single other match, I’ve felt I at least had a shot.
How many of the other matches did you know for a fact you'd win? Whether you want to admit it or not that's just as big a problem.
Lol I know. Just finally saying something. I'm just getting irritated in Grand Arena. There's been numerous times where I should have won with my characters but couldn't beat the kenobi capital ship, so I lost. It's really starting to **** me off. It takes way too long to obtain them and I'm not spending anymore money for it either.
What does not developing a counter to a fleet have to do with GL requirements?
Matchmaking issues.
Sounds more like roster building issues
So getting GL's are a building issue? Alright. Seems they need a buff so that I auto-win I guess.
If you cant beat players with similar top of roster investment, you are either not as good at strategy and gameplay, or you built a poor roster (or both). Blaming mm for you losses is the easy way out of trying to improve.
Besides, you still havent explained what GLs have to do with not developing fleets. Fleets were around for years before GLs.
Two problems with your argument. 1st- having a "poor" top end roster might be about choices, that doesn't mean those choices should result in one sided match ups. If someone goes after a gl instead of gas their top end roster will have characters that don't perform as well as the power rating indicates. 2nd- you don't have to lose to think mm is broken. I win the majority of my 5v5 match ups (3v3, not so much). I still would like power ratings to be adjusted. The fact that jka and phasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is wrong.
GAC specialists don’t lose that often, even when matched with rosters that appear to be better. GAC is about understanding mechanics and having chars, gear and mods to go with those mechanics. Knowing what D teams are effective at stripping banners and maximizing your O banners.
Lol I know. Just finally saying something. I'm just getting irritated in Grand Arena. There's been numerous times where I should have won with my characters but couldn't beat the kenobi capital ship, so I lost. It's really starting to **** me off. It takes way too long to obtain them and I'm not spending anymore money for it either.
What does not developing a counter to a fleet have to do with GL requirements?
Matchmaking issues.
Sounds more like roster building issues
So getting GL's are a building issue? Alright. Seems they need a buff so that I auto-win I guess.
If you cant beat players with similar top of roster investment, you are either not as good at strategy and gameplay, or you built a poor roster (or both). Blaming mm for you losses is the easy way out of trying to improve.
Besides, you still havent explained what GLs have to do with not developing fleets. Fleets were around for years before GLs.
Two problems with your argument. 1st- having a "poor" top end roster might be about choices, that doesn't mean those choices should result in one sided match ups. If someone goes after a gl instead of gas their top end roster will have characters that don't perform as well as the power rating indicates. 2nd- you don't have to lose to think mm is broken. I win the majority of my 5v5 match ups (3v3, not so much). I still would like power ratings to be adjusted. The fact that jka and phasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is wrong.
No, the fact that JKA and PHasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is perfect, as GP is in no way a measure of effectiveness. If you want to argue that GAC should just match you with players with nearly identical characters and fundamentally change the mode, thats an argument for a different time. However, in its current state GAC success hinges on both roster building and utilization. Going for a GL over GAS is a choice, and it is up to the player to find the best ways to utilize those requirements.
So gp is no way to measure effectiveness but it is a good way to determine a match up?
I'd argue the current state of gac hinges primarily on roster building but that's somewhat dependant on where you are in the game. End game probably leans more towards utilization.
Either way match ups are more fun if people are at the same place in the game. I don't enjoy getting a full clear against someone who can't break my front line any more than when I meet someone with a team I know I can't counter.
correct. In its current state GAC is matching on roster investment, not effectiveness. In general it rewards those who invested in more effective teams. Individual characters should never, ever, be included in a mm formula. That completely devalues having a character and investing in them. If you cannot counter a team it is not the fault of mm.
This
I only had one match since GAC started where I felt I had zero chance to win and it was because that roster was super GAC focused.
Every single other match, I’ve felt I at least had a shot.
How many of the other matches did you know for a fact you'd win? Whether you want to admit it or not that's just as big a problem.
Where I’m at with my roster choices, only a couple. 95% of my matches could have gone either way. I hit div 2 without JKR or DR and faced both most of the time. I just had to build solid counters.
I’m not saying MM couldn’t be improved, but I am saying it has been pretty spot on for me, where I’ve mostly had a chance and so has my opponents. The times I lose I was either out played/strategized or I made some mistakes.
Also, mostly the only videos I watch are GAC specialists and learn a ton from them.
95% is pretty good. I'd say about a 3rd of mine are lopsided. I don't even think that's horrible considering I took 8 months off, which gives me a bit of a strange line up. But when I hear people who constantly getting destroyed or see people who consistently winning with no challenge it worries me because I expect it will get worse with people not playing or even more just joining and not trying.
Lol I know. Just finally saying something. I'm just getting irritated in Grand Arena. There's been numerous times where I should have won with my characters but couldn't beat the kenobi capital ship, so I lost. It's really starting to **** me off. It takes way too long to obtain them and I'm not spending anymore money for it either.
What does not developing a counter to a fleet have to do with GL requirements?
Matchmaking issues.
Sounds more like roster building issues
So getting GL's are a building issue? Alright. Seems they need a buff so that I auto-win I guess.
If you cant beat players with similar top of roster investment, you are either not as good at strategy and gameplay, or you built a poor roster (or both). Blaming mm for you losses is the easy way out of trying to improve.
Besides, you still havent explained what GLs have to do with not developing fleets. Fleets were around for years before GLs.
Two problems with your argument. 1st- having a "poor" top end roster might be about choices, that doesn't mean those choices should result in one sided match ups. If someone goes after a gl instead of gas their top end roster will have characters that don't perform as well as the power rating indicates. 2nd- you don't have to lose to think mm is broken. I win the majority of my 5v5 match ups (3v3, not so much). I still would like power ratings to be adjusted. The fact that jka and phasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is wrong.
No, the fact that JKA and PHasma have similar ratings at gear 12 is perfect, as GP is in no way a measure of effectiveness. If you want to argue that GAC should just match you with players with nearly identical characters and fundamentally change the mode, thats an argument for a different time. However, in its current state GAC success hinges on both roster building and utilization. Going for a GL over GAS is a choice, and it is up to the player to find the best ways to utilize those requirements.
So gp is no way to measure effectiveness but it is a good way to determine a match up?
I'd argue the current state of gac hinges primarily on roster building but that's somewhat dependant on where you are in the game. End game probably leans more towards utilization.
Either way match ups are more fun if people are at the same place in the game. I don't enjoy getting a full clear against someone who can't break my front line any more than when I meet someone with a team I know I can't counter.
correct. In its current state GAC is matching on roster investment, not effectiveness. In general it rewards those who invested in more effective teams. Individual characters should never, ever, be included in a mm formula. That completely devalues having a character and investing in them. If you cannot counter a team it is not the fault of mm.
This
I only had one match since GAC started where I felt I had zero chance to win and it was because that roster was super GAC focused.
Every single other match, I’ve felt I at least had a shot.
How many of the other matches did you know for a fact you'd win? Whether you want to admit it or not that's just as big a problem.
Where I’m at with my roster choices, only a couple. 95% of my matches could have gone either way. I hit div 2 without JKR or DR and faced both most of the time. I just had to build solid counters.
I’m not saying MM couldn’t be improved, but I am saying it has been pretty spot on for me, where I’ve mostly had a chance and so has my opponents. The times I lose I was either out played/strategized or I made some mistakes.
Also, mostly the only videos I watch are GAC specialists and learn a ton from them.
95% is pretty good. I'd say about a 3rd of mine are lopsided. I don't even think that's horrible considering I took 8 months off, which gives me a bit of a strange line up. But when I hear people who constantly getting destroyed or see people who consistently winning with no challenge it worries me because I expect it will get worse with people not playing or even more just joining and not trying.
I would say mine is around 95% as well. Not saying the matchmaking is perfect - it's far from it - but I could probably count the amount of lopsided matches I had one one hand, where either me or the opponent were completely outclassed. Almost all the matches I had could have gone either way, which is a good thing. People blame the matchmaking a bit too often imo. Right now it's a bit tricky when you have to face GLs and don't have one yourself, but even then there's workarounds. You'll still very likely lose, but it's definitely not impossible to pull it off if you play it right and know what you're doing.
The formula does need to be tweaked. There are many factors that determine how well matched players are, including:
- number of zetas
- Number of mods with a speed > 20
- Number of GL’s
- Number of characters at a gear threshold and relic level
So a weighted process that includes the above. My case in point, I have both GL’s - so do the majority of my opponents in my current GAC round - so no net advantage there. Now I am sitting on around 4.9m GP. My opponents typically hover above the 6.4m mark - in some cases as pushing above 7m. So almost 2m more GP than I have.
Now this is where there is an issue - my zeta deficit is around 40+, number of mods with a decent speed in a similar ballpark. Roster resilience is a very important aspect and in marginal matches, that can make the difference.
No excuse for FTP to not have at least one GL by now. I'm 11/13 for the second one
Aren't you 10/13? Also, if you really are FTP, you must realise that 6.04M and 800+ crystal income average a day is not representative of the average FTP player?
If the requirements are outrageous, why are more showing up in my shard daily?
I could make the argument that they aren't outrageous enough. At least with prior metas there was an exclusivity window of 3 months or more. That window already closed with this meta.
I'd be interested to see how the numbers look a couple months from now. This in particular is really only an issue in mature leaderboards since we've been playing long enouh that these requirements aren't so bad. Moreover, since you can get Galactic Legends at any time instead of having to wait until the second go-around, I'm curious what the actual number of people with Legends will be after 6 months compared to the number after two runs of a Legendary character release.
I’ve got a problem with that statement. This is a game about powering up and using your favorite characters, there is no such thing as “building a poor roster.” Choices can’t be blamed on matchmaking no, but don’t call call it “poor roster building” if someone doesn’t invest in all “the meta” characters or invests in a character others call “useless.”
I’ve got a problem with that statement. This is a game about powering up and using your favorite characters, there is no such thing as “building a poor roster.” Choices can’t be blamed on matchmaking no, but don’t call call it “poor roster building” if someone doesn’t invest in all “the meta” characters or invests in a character others call “useless.”
There indeed is a thing as poor roster building...that's if you care to be more competetive. Otherwise you can enjoy the game any way you want, build whatever you want. But are you really expecting anything to be equal to anything else in the game, how would that work in a game of ever changing metas and power creep?
I’ve got a problem with that statement. This is a game about powering up and using your favorite characters, there is no such thing as “building a poor roster.” Choices can’t be blamed on matchmaking no, but don’t call call it “poor roster building” if someone doesn’t invest in all “the meta” characters or invests in a character others call “useless.”
Players are entitled to build their roster as they see fit. What they are not entitled to do is build their roster according to their own likes / dislikes, then complain that they can't be competitive after doing so.
I’ve got a problem with that statement. This is a game about powering up and using your favorite characters, there is no such thing as “building a poor roster.” Choices can’t be blamed on matchmaking no, but don’t call call it “poor roster building” if someone doesn’t invest in all “the meta” characters or invests in a character others call “useless.”
Players are entitled to build their roster as they see fit. What they are not entitled to do is build their roster according to their own likes / dislikes, then complain that they can't be competitive after doing so.
They're entitled to do that too. They should expect to get called out for it though.
I’ve got a problem with that statement. This is a game about powering up and using your favorite characters, there is no such thing as “building a poor roster.” Choices can’t be blamed on matchmaking no, but don’t call call it “poor roster building” if someone doesn’t invest in all “the meta” characters or invests in a character others call “useless.”
There indeed is a thing as poor roster building...that's if you care to be more competetive. Otherwise you can enjoy the game any way you want, build whatever you want. But are you really expecting anything to be equal to anything else in the game, how would that work in a game of ever changing metas and power creep?
This game is a game. Games are supposed to be played for fun. If you’re playing this game competitively, you’re not playing it right. That’s my take.
I’ve got a problem with that statement. This is a game about powering up and using your favorite characters, there is no such thing as “building a poor roster.” Choices can’t be blamed on matchmaking no, but don’t call call it “poor roster building” if someone doesn’t invest in all “the meta” characters or invests in a character others call “useless.”
There indeed is a thing as poor roster building...that's if you care to be more competetive. Otherwise you can enjoy the game any way you want, build whatever you want. But are you really expecting anything to be equal to anything else in the game, how would that work in a game of ever changing metas and power creep?
This game is a game. Games are supposed to be played for fun. If you’re playing this game competitively, you’re not playing it right. That’s my take.
You must appreciate that's going to be a minority view, though?
Replies
I can’t wait for Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight. Requires R7 Princess Leia, Rolo, Han Solo, Captain Han, Young Han, Old Han, Stormtrooper Han, Chewbacca, Lando, Wedge, Biggs, Darth Vader, Hermit Yoda, Wampa, Hoth Rebel Trooper, Hoth Rebel Scout, C-3PO, R2-D2, CLS, Red 5, Admiral Ackbar, General Calrissian, Nien Nunb, Mon Mothma, Rebel Trooper Rex, Jabba, Gammorean Guard, Bib Fortuna, Salacious Crumb, Malakili, Sarlaac and Boba Fett. On the plus side you’ll only need an R5 Slave Leia. Though of course most players will take her to R7 anyway since her ability to distract an enemy toon will be pretty key to actually winning the battle against the Emperor...
So gp is no way to measure effectiveness but it is a good way to determine a match up?
I'd argue the current state of gac hinges primarily on roster building but that's somewhat dependant on where you are in the game. End game probably leans more towards utilization.
Either way match ups are more fun if people are at the same place in the game. I don't enjoy getting a full clear against someone who can't break my front line any more than when I meet someone with a team I know I can't counter.
I could make the argument that they aren't outrageous enough. At least with prior metas there was an exclusivity window of 3 months or more. That window already closed with this meta.
It might be impossible at this point. That's why I suggested being able to remove some characters that way rose tico isn't getting matched against Malak.
correct. In its current state GAC is matching on roster investment, not effectiveness. In general it rewards those who invested in more effective teams. Individual characters should never, ever, be included in a mm formula. That completely devalues having a character and investing in them. If you cannot counter a team it is not the fault of mm.
GLs had their requirements told prior to the event. 4 months prior. Other character were thrust upon us, so not everyone was able to plan as well.
Yeah. I checked gg yesterday expecting less than half those numbers
How many of the other matches did you know for a fact you'd win? Whether you want to admit it or not that's just as big a problem.
This is pretty much on point. Great comment Zap.
95% is pretty good. I'd say about a 3rd of mine are lopsided. I don't even think that's horrible considering I took 8 months off, which gives me a bit of a strange line up. But when I hear people who constantly getting destroyed or see people who consistently winning with no challenge it worries me because I expect it will get worse with people not playing or even more just joining and not trying.
I would say mine is around 95% as well. Not saying the matchmaking is perfect - it's far from it - but I could probably count the amount of lopsided matches I had one one hand, where either me or the opponent were completely outclassed. Almost all the matches I had could have gone either way, which is a good thing. People blame the matchmaking a bit too often imo. Right now it's a bit tricky when you have to face GLs and don't have one yourself, but even then there's workarounds. You'll still very likely lose, but it's definitely not impossible to pull it off if you play it right and know what you're doing.
- number of zetas
- Number of mods with a speed > 20
- Number of GL’s
- Number of characters at a gear threshold and relic level
So a weighted process that includes the above. My case in point, I have both GL’s - so do the majority of my opponents in my current GAC round - so no net advantage there. Now I am sitting on around 4.9m GP. My opponents typically hover above the 6.4m mark - in some cases as pushing above 7m. So almost 2m more GP than I have.
Now this is where there is an issue - my zeta deficit is around 40+, number of mods with a decent speed in a similar ballpark. Roster resilience is a very important aspect and in marginal matches, that can make the difference.
Actually there are lots of excuses.
Aren't you 10/13? Also, if you really are FTP, you must realise that 6.04M and 800+ crystal income average a day is not representative of the average FTP player?
I'd be interested to see how the numbers look a couple months from now. This in particular is really only an issue in mature leaderboards since we've been playing long enouh that these requirements aren't so bad. Moreover, since you can get Galactic Legends at any time instead of having to wait until the second go-around, I'm curious what the actual number of people with Legends will be after 6 months compared to the number after two runs of a Legendary character release.
I’ve got a problem with that statement. This is a game about powering up and using your favorite characters, there is no such thing as “building a poor roster.” Choices can’t be blamed on matchmaking no, but don’t call call it “poor roster building” if someone doesn’t invest in all “the meta” characters or invests in a character others call “useless.”
There indeed is a thing as poor roster building...that's if you care to be more competetive. Otherwise you can enjoy the game any way you want, build whatever you want. But are you really expecting anything to be equal to anything else in the game, how would that work in a game of ever changing metas and power creep?
Players are entitled to build their roster as they see fit. What they are not entitled to do is build their roster according to their own likes / dislikes, then complain that they can't be competitive after doing so.
They're entitled to do that too. They should expect to get called out for it though.
This game is a game. Games are supposed to be played for fun. If you’re playing this game competitively, you’re not playing it right. That’s my take.
Im only getting my first GL very soon because of my ship arena shard.. Many players are not that lucky
For me it’s just that I don’t want to get them, ever. Unless they are required for someone I really, really want.
"Shouldn't"
Ok.