Grand Arena Matchmaking

Replies

  • Rath_Tarr
    3497 posts Member
    2) I didn't say "one of" the best. I said THE best. And you know full well that the person who finishes top would not stand a chance against some of the others in Division 1. Particularly last time out. I'm not saying that they're not good. I'm saying they're not THE best.
    There are two aspects to SWGoH:
    1) roster management
    2) combat

    The best players will excel at both. Higher GP does not equal better player.
  • Daishi wrote: »
    This has been discussed in every meta. Going against general Skywalker when you don't have him. Countering Darth Revan when you don't have him. The point of GP matchmaking (top 80) means they do take into account your gear 13, relic, etc. It means you have roughly the same investment as your opponent. Having it look for specific characters means you don't get an advantage by smart play and earning or buying the newest shiny.

    To compare, wrestlers are matched on weight class. If one guy eats junk and doesn't exercise, weight 280, another guy eats right, lifts heavy, and has built up muscle to also weigh 280, shoulder he have an advantage? The flabby one will lose until he falls into a bracket of others of his skill/fitness level, and the buff guy will advance into a bracket that challenges him.

    I don't wanna see a out of shape flabby guy win the wrestling tournament because they only gave him other flabby guys to fight and never had to face the fit man to advance in the tournament

    OP was not saying the „flabby guy“ (mind your language, dude) should have an advantage. He said the guy should be matched with wrestlers who are also „flabby“.
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    79 posts Member
    edited August 6
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    @Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?
  • Kyno
    25182 posts Moderator
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means you rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's not a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    This one came up on the back end, nothing to point to. just pressing the point that they should look at how this all works and the way some TW matches get tipped one way or the other based on number of players.
  • Nikoms565
    12763 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL.

    You'd think so - but that's not how the matchmaking algorithm seems to "work" (using the term very loosely). This round, my group has 1 guy with both GLs and one guy that doesn't have either. So clearly, the "bloat" created and the sheer GP from an ultimate GL (or two) is not properly accounted for. That's kinda the point of this entire thread. But again, we all know that the matchmaking doesn't create close matches (regardless as to what CG says the intent is) - so we live with it.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL.

    You'd think so - but that's not how the matchmaking algorithm seems to "work" (using the term very loosely). This round, my group has 1 guy with both GLs and one guy that doesn't have either. So clearly, the "bloat" created and the sheer GP from an ultimate GL (or two) is not properly accounted for. That's kinda the point of this entire thread. But again, we all know that the matchmaking doesn't create close matches (regardless as to what CG says the intent is) - so we live with it.
    It is how it works though. I’ve just collected my rewards from my first round win against a guy with neither GL. I have Rey (ultimate) and SLKR (no ultimate yet). When I dug deeper to see how we could have been matched, he had a whole host of toons at r7 bloating up his GP. And not GL requirements either.

    I’m talking r7 L3, Chilidish Landino, clone Sarge, Plo Koon... I could go on.

    He had double the r7 I do. And more than half of his were questionable to say the least. Our top 66 GP was near identical.
  • Waqui
    7666 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    @Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).


  • Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    @Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).


    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
  • Kyno
    25182 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL.

    You'd think so - but that's not how the matchmaking algorithm seems to "work" (using the term very loosely). This round, my group has 1 guy with both GLs and one guy that doesn't have either. So clearly, the "bloat" created and the sheer GP from an ultimate GL (or two) is not properly accounted for. That's kinda the point of this entire thread. But again, we all know that the matchmaking doesn't create close matches (regardless as to what CG says the intent is) - so we live with it.

    did the player who didn't have them have toons geared towards unlocking one of them?
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    2) I didn't say "one of" the best. I said THE best. And you know full well that the person who finishes top would not stand a chance against some of the others in Division 1. Particularly last time out. I'm not saying that they're not good. I'm saying they're not THE best.
    There are two aspects to SWGoH:
    1) roster management
    2) combat

    The best players will excel at both. Higher GP does not equal better player.

    Then why does higher GP equal win when banners are tied? Huh? Huh? You got nothing for that 1 do ya?

    Point disproven with utter evidentiary brilliance! Cha ching! Take that 1 home to your momma!

    Higher GP = awesomeness
  • TVF
    25124 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    2) I didn't say "one of" the best. I said THE best. And you know full well that the person who finishes top would not stand a chance against some of the others in Division 1. Particularly last time out. I'm not saying that they're not good. I'm saying they're not THE best.
    There are two aspects to SWGoH:
    1) roster management
    2) combat

    The best players will excel at both. Higher GP does not equal better player.

    Then why does higher GP equal win when banners are tied? Huh? Huh? You got nothing for that 1 do ya?

    Point disproven with utter evidentiary brilliance! Cha ching! Take that 1 home to your momma!

    Higher GP = awesomeness

    source.gif
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Natetiffer
    76 posts Member
    edited August 7
    Overall I have found the GAC Matchmaking accuracy to be about as good as TW Matchmaking accuracy. I have only had one match up where they had GAS but I didn't! I think that is fair enough even though I couldn't win. This time around I was outmatched massively so I threw in some basic teams, I even used MM for a laugh and the opponent messaged me and we've had a great chat about it.

    I am learning not to take the game too seriously but if my top 80 GP is used, and I have a fairly even spread I will not win against someone that has a top 80 with the first 40 stacked massively. That is just tactics and I haven't adopted those tactics.

    However, I agree with @Mephisto_style on a draw highest GP shouldn't win, the lowest GP should because they were technically the underdog?! I have benefited from this and I didn't think it was fair...

    I would like to see a review of matchmaking, let's see how it goes...
    This is the Way
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    @Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).


    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.

    I question how accurate the statement is about people being focused on TB and raids. Gearing someone like Pao to g12 or g13 because he helps 1 team do well in 1 phase of HSTR is not focused at all. It’s bloating you’re roster.

    Since joining my current guild, I’ve helped them complete HSTR while taking too 5 nearly every time, finished first In points in DS geoTB every time since its release, and made kyber every GAC but once (missed by less than 200 points). I’m also not a paying player. I focus on teams that do well across the board and gear them to the point they need to be geared to. DR team, for instance, does well in TB, can put up good scores in HSTR, and is still a top pvp team. I took them to R2-ish because any further progression would bloat my GP without providing additional benefits.

    Take a look at my profile if you question how focused it is/can be.
  • Nikoms565
    12763 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL.

    You'd think so - but that's not how the matchmaking algorithm seems to "work" (using the term very loosely). This round, my group has 1 guy with both GLs and one guy that doesn't have either. So clearly, the "bloat" created and the sheer GP from an ultimate GL (or two) is not properly accounted for. That's kinda the point of this entire thread. But again, we all know that the matchmaking doesn't create close matches (regardless as to what CG says the intent is) - so we live with it.

    did the player who didn't have them have toons geared towards unlocking one of them?

    Some, yes - but not all and none of the required at R7. Some not relic'd at all. In fact, the guy who doesn't have a GL also only has 7 at R7 total. The guy with both GLs has 11 R7. I am neither player, so don't have a vested interest in their particular rosters. But the guy with 0 GLs is going 0-3 this event. I don't care how "smart" he plays.

    Like I said - the matchmaking is what it is. But pretending or claiming it consistently creates "close matches" is nonsense.

    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Rath_Tarr
    3497 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).


    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.
  • Rath_Tarr
    3497 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).

    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.

    Tell that to the guy who has 7 R7, fewer relic'd characters no GL and his highest toon is 37k GP when he is in the same brackets with a guy with both GLs, 11 R7 and whose highest GP character is 49k+ . If GAC matchmaking consistently matched players with roughly even rosters, but punished those with less "meta-focused" (or suboptimal) gearing and relic levels, I'd agree. But it doesn't. That's the point people keep making - and people replying keep ignoring.
    Gladly.

    GAC matchmaking and GA matchmaking before it have ignored roster composition for over a year and a half. Since the beginning of GA over 18 months ago we have been matched on GP, not on whether we have certain meta toons or not.

    This not news. CG has never shown the slightest inclination to change it.

    Anybody who cares about GA/GAC but has not been paying attention to these facts and acting accordingly in their own interests after a year and a half has only themselves to blame.

    That is the point that people who keep complaining about matchmaking fail to grasp and people replying keep making.
  • Nikoms565
    12763 posts Member
    edited August 7
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).

    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.

    Tell that to the guy who has 7 R7, fewer relic'd characters no GL and his highest toon is 37k GP when he is in the same brackets with a guy with both GLs, 11 R7 and whose highest GP character is 49k+ . If GAC matchmaking consistently matched players with roughly even rosters, but punished those with less "meta-focused" (or suboptimal) gearing and relic levels, I'd agree. But it doesn't. That's the point people keep making - and people replying keep ignoring.
    Gladly.

    GAC matchmaking and GA matchmaking before it have ignored roster composition for over a year and a half. Since the beginning of GA over 18 months ago we have been matched on GP, not on whether we have certain meta toons or not.

    This not news. CG has never shown the slightest inclination to change it.

    Anybody who cares about GA/GAC but has not been paying attention to these facts and acting accordingly in their own interests after a year and a half has only themselves to blame.

    That is the point that people who keep complaining about matchmaking fail to grasp and people replying keep making.

    You didn't actually even read my post did you? Because your response (save for the first word) doesn't actually make sense if you did. Reading is a skill...you should work on it sometime.

    I'm done in this thread.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).

    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.

    Tell that to the guy who has 7 R7, fewer relic'd characters no GL and his highest toon is 37k GP when he is in the same brackets with a guy with both GLs, 11 R7 and whose highest GP character is 49k+ . If GAC matchmaking consistently matched players with roughly even rosters, but punished those with less "meta-focused" (or suboptimal) gearing and relic levels, I'd agree. But it doesn't. That's the point people keep making - and people replying keep ignoring.
    Gladly.

    GAC matchmaking and GA matchmaking before it have ignored roster composition for over a year and a half. Since the beginning of GA over 18 months ago we have been matched on GP, not on whether we have certain meta toons or not.

    This not news. CG has never shown the slightest inclination to change it.

    Anybody who cares about GA/GAC but has not been paying attention to these facts and acting accordingly in their own interests after a year and a half has only themselves to blame.

    That is the point that people who keep complaining about matchmaking fail to grasp and people replying keep making.

    You didn't actually even read my post did you? Because your response (save for the first word) doesn't actually make sense if you did. Reading is a skill...you should work on it sometime.

    I'm done in this thread.

    Me: 51 g13 toons, 13 r7,0 r6, 18 r5, 2 GL
    You: 42 g13 toons, 6 r7, 4 r6, 12 r5, 0 GL

    Gotta make those r5+ count. Those r6 are like weight bags slowing you down. And until you finish your Rey requisites, you’re in danger of meeting a GL owner.
  • Nikoms565
    12763 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).

    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.

    Tell that to the guy who has 7 R7, fewer relic'd characters no GL and his highest toon is 37k GP when he is in the same brackets with a guy with both GLs, 11 R7 and whose highest GP character is 49k+ . If GAC matchmaking consistently matched players with roughly even rosters, but punished those with less "meta-focused" (or suboptimal) gearing and relic levels, I'd agree. But it doesn't. That's the point people keep making - and people replying keep ignoring.
    Gladly.

    GAC matchmaking and GA matchmaking before it have ignored roster composition for over a year and a half. Since the beginning of GA over 18 months ago we have been matched on GP, not on whether we have certain meta toons or not.

    This not news. CG has never shown the slightest inclination to change it.

    Anybody who cares about GA/GAC but has not been paying attention to these facts and acting accordingly in their own interests after a year and a half has only themselves to blame.

    That is the point that people who keep complaining about matchmaking fail to grasp and people replying keep making.

    You didn't actually even read my post did you? Because your response (save for the first word) doesn't actually make sense if you did. Reading is a skill...you should work on it sometime.

    I'm done in this thread.

    Me: 51 g13 toons, 13 r7,0 r6, 18 r5, 2 GL
    You: 42 g13 toons, 6 r7, 4 r6, 12 r5, 0 GL

    Gotta make those r5+ count. Those r6 are like weight bags slowing you down. And until you finish your Rey requisites, you’re in danger of meeting a GL owner.

    *sigh* I will post one last time in this thread since you also are having comprehension issues. I'll type slowly so Raph can understand too...

    I understand how the system works. It works poorly if the goal is "close matches" (which is what CG stated was the goal and has never stated otherwise). Your example above proves my point. There is no way the two opponents you list ("Me" and "You") would ever be a close match. Ever.

    That's it. Yes, that's the system we're stuck with. Yes, I understand how it works. And any system that matches the two examples you made up is doing a very poor job of creating "close matches."
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Ok I think the issue here may be what is considered close. CG considers it close if your top 80 gp is similar.

    Some people only consider it close if you have the exact same toons geared a d very similar mods.

    While the second option would result in more competitive matches there are several issues with a system that matches too closely.

    1. There are likely a very limited number of people with rosters that are close enough to be considered a close match with this system. So if you can only be matched with these people, it would end up being you facing the same small group of opponents. And that would get boring.

    2. It doesn't take into account that roster building is part of winning. Under the current system if you r7 a bunch of crap toons, you'll have a harder time because you face people who also have relics but chose better. People who use their gear wisely win more. That seems more fair than those that made poor decisions on their rosters having matchmaking fix it all for them.

    3. CG wants you chasing the new teams. As stated by those against the current system, if you face a GL and don't have one, you are likely to lose. (And yes, I know that is not always the case). That is by design. Having the newest teams maxed before they are ftp accessible (without hoarding) gives you an advantage in GAC. Just like it does in every other part of the game. That is not an accident. That is to encourage you to spend $ to get those teams even though you may already have a lot of good GAC teams.

    Let's say for example, you have GAS and every meta team before him maxed. But no GL. If the system were designed to never match you with GLs, then you really have no incentive (for GAC at least) to farm the GLs. After all you won't ever face them.

    But under the current system, you can face GLs because with more than 12 relics or so, you may have enough top 80 GP to be close enough. And when you face GLs without them, you have to either be really good or lose. Or buy a GL. That's the solution CG wants you to pick.

    The current system is close enough that you don't match lvl 70 g8 newer players against end game relic rosters but not close enough to remove incentives to chase the new shiny.

    In short, the matchmaking is working as CG intended. So you may not like it but it isn't going to change to exclude the whale advantage.
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).

    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.

    Tell that to the guy who has 7 R7, fewer relic'd characters no GL and his highest toon is 37k GP when he is in the same brackets with a guy with both GLs, 11 R7 and whose highest GP character is 49k+ . If GAC matchmaking consistently matched players with roughly even rosters, but punished those with less "meta-focused" (or suboptimal) gearing and relic levels, I'd agree. But it doesn't. That's the point people keep making - and people replying keep ignoring.
    Gladly.

    GAC matchmaking and GA matchmaking before it have ignored roster composition for over a year and a half. Since the beginning of GA over 18 months ago we have been matched on GP, not on whether we have certain meta toons or not.

    This not news. CG has never shown the slightest inclination to change it.

    Anybody who cares about GA/GAC but has not been paying attention to these facts and acting accordingly in their own interests after a year and a half has only themselves to blame.

    That is the point that people who keep complaining about matchmaking fail to grasp and people replying keep making.

    You didn't actually even read my post did you? Because your response (save for the first word) doesn't actually make sense if you did. Reading is a skill...you should work on it sometime.

    I'm done in this thread.

    Me: 51 g13 toons, 13 r7,0 r6, 18 r5, 2 GL
    You: 42 g13 toons, 6 r7, 4 r6, 12 r5, 0 GL

    Gotta make those r5+ count. Those r6 are like weight bags slowing you down. And until you finish your Rey requisites, you’re in danger of meeting a GL owner.

    *sigh* I will post one last time in this thread since you also are having comprehension issues. I'll type slowly so Raph can understand too...

    I understand how the system works. It works poorly if the goal is "close matches" (which is what CG stated was the goal and has never stated otherwise). Your example above proves my point. There is no way the two opponents you list ("Me" and "You") would ever be a close match. Ever.

    That's it. Yes, that's the system we're stuck with. Yes, I understand how it works. And any system that matches the two examples you made up is doing a very poor job of creating "close matches."
    Thanks again for the “typing slowly” jibe. Always nice when someone resorts to an insult when they are incapable of disagreeing like an adult.

    I’m not suggesting you or I should be matched together.

    I’m trying to highlight why you get matched with people that you think are not a close match. You have a very large amount of g13 toons for someone that does not have a GL (though you seem to have unlocked Rey since posting this). I have 9 more than you, and I’ve got both GL.

    You complained about being the guy with 7 r7 (I only see 6 in your roster) being matched with someone who has 11 r7. When you have 4 toons at r6 this goes some way to explain it.

    Also, since you have now unlocked Rey, I imagine your perspective will change. Part of the “fun” of owning a GL is that horrible moment when you have taken 12 toons to relic level but haven’t yet unlocked the GL toon. All GL owners have been there and I hope that GAC becomes more enjoyable for you now you’re through it.
  • Bkb
    19 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    @Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).


    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.

    I question how accurate the statement is about people being focused on TB and raids. Gearing someone like Pao to g12 or g13 because he helps 1 team do well in 1 phase of HSTR is not focused at all. It’s bloating you’re roster.

    Since joining my current guild, I’ve helped them complete HSTR while taking too 5 nearly every time, finished first In points in DS geoTB every time since its release, and made kyber every GAC but once (missed by less than 200 points). I’m also not a paying player. I focus on teams that do well across the board and gear them to the point they need to be geared to. DR team, for instance, does well in TB, can put up good scores in HSTR, and is still a top pvp team. I took them to R2-ish because any further progression would bloat my GP without providing additional benefits.

    Take a look at my profile if you question how focused it is/can be.

    Hi. Might you share your swgoh.gg link? I am a rather new player (1M-ish) and wish to learn GAC more. Thanks in advance.
  • Waqui
    7666 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    @Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).


    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC.

    LOL. Please point out where I said this (or stop your nonsense)
    There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC.

    Those who really wanted to turn their rosters around have had almost 2 years to do so. If they didn't by now it's on themselves.
  • Rath_Tarr
    3497 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).

    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.

    Tell that to the guy who has 7 R7, fewer relic'd characters no GL and his highest toon is 37k GP when he is in the same brackets with a guy with both GLs, 11 R7 and whose highest GP character is 49k+ . If GAC matchmaking consistently matched players with roughly even rosters, but punished those with less "meta-focused" (or suboptimal) gearing and relic levels, I'd agree. But it doesn't. That's the point people keep making - and people replying keep ignoring.
    Gladly.

    GAC matchmaking and GA matchmaking before it have ignored roster composition for over a year and a half. Since the beginning of GA over 18 months ago we have been matched on GP, not on whether we have certain meta toons or not.

    This not news. CG has never shown the slightest inclination to change it.

    Anybody who cares about GA/GAC but has not been paying attention to these facts and acting accordingly in their own interests after a year and a half has only themselves to blame.

    That is the point that people who keep complaining about matchmaking fail to grasp and people replying keep making.

    You didn't actually even read my post did you? Because your response (save for the first word) doesn't actually make sense if you did. Reading is a skill...you should work on it sometime.
    That's all you've got left huh? Pitiful.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    I'm done in this thread.
    Uh-huh...
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    *sigh* I will post one last time in this thread ...
    Yeah, that's what I thought.
  • Nikoms565
    12763 posts Member
    edited August 8
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Such an ELO system would be much more static than what we have currently. With the current system all ranks are reset once every month. If you improved your roster significantly since the previous reset (month) f.ex. by unlocking/gearing the latest META team you will almost immediately be able to climb to a better overall rank. With an ELO system if you made the same improvements to your roster it would still take long time before you reach the same higher ranks.

    Not sure I agree. The way new toons are unlocked these days, the GP bloat from unlocking a GL often means you get matched against others who unlocked a GL. Which, again, is fine from a matchmaking perspective, in my opinion. But it means your rank isn't going to necessarily improve because you went from facing mostly other opponents with GAS and DR as their best teams to mostly other opponents with a GL as their best team.

    And, counter to this, let's say you take a detour to run your NS to r4 from G12. You aren't going to gain any edge because you will just be matched against people with similar GP. Which means your new opponents are tougher than the previous.

    So, I'm not buying the argument that improving your roster leads to an improvement in GAC rank. Bus74 is in my shard chat. He builds his roster around GAC performance. And what do you know? He doesn't chase metas or relics because it would hurt his GAC ranking. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

    Regarding the rate at which ELO or MMR scores change. Why do you think it would be too slow? I don't believe there's a universal algorithm for these methods. The rate at which victories/losses cause rank to rise/fall is something that can be tuned.

    Kyno Glad to hear that I'm wrong about GAC development being dead. I must have missed some announcement or tidbit in a Q&A. Can anyone point me to something?

    I'm talking improving your roster from a GAC perspective. Mentioning improvements that don't help you much in GAC is besides the point. (context, mate).

    Well, so you agree that after the introduction of GAC it was very difficult to switch from any roster delevopment strategy to a strategy focused on GAC. There are many people who were focused on TB and raids and never were able to catch up in GAC. Given how important the rewards from GAC are for further developing your roster it is questionable whether it was good for the game and players to exclude a large group or at least make it extremely difficult for them to succeed.
    On the contrary, by the time GAC was introduced, we had already had months of GA to contemplate roster balance. The switch from full roster GP matchmwking to top {x} GP was a huge improvement for anyone with bloat further down their rosters and freed us all from worrying about lower level gearing projects.

    And the subsequent introduction of g13 and GP-heavy relics gave us a golden opportunity to rebalance the top end of our rosters in a more GAC-friendly fashion. Unfortunately many people blindly pushed all their g13 characters up to r7 without considering the effect on their GAC matchmaking but that was their failing, the opportunity was there for everyone.

    Tell that to the guy who has 7 R7, fewer relic'd characters no GL and his highest toon is 37k GP when he is in the same brackets with a guy with both GLs, 11 R7 and whose highest GP character is 49k+ . If GAC matchmaking consistently matched players with roughly even rosters, but punished those with less "meta-focused" (or suboptimal) gearing and relic levels, I'd agree. But it doesn't. That's the point people keep making - and people replying keep ignoring.
    Gladly.

    GAC matchmaking and GA matchmaking before it have ignored roster composition for over a year and a half. Since the beginning of GA over 18 months ago we have been matched on GP, not on whether we have certain meta toons or not.

    This not news. CG has never shown the slightest inclination to change it.

    Anybody who cares about GA/GAC but has not been paying attention to these facts and acting accordingly in their own interests after a year and a half has only themselves to blame.

    That is the point that people who keep complaining about matchmaking fail to grasp and people replying keep making.

    You didn't actually even read my post did you? Because your response (save for the first word) doesn't actually make sense if you did. Reading is a skill...you should work on it sometime.

    I'm done in this thread.

    Me: 51 g13 toons, 13 r7,0 r6, 18 r5, 2 GL
    You: 42 g13 toons, 6 r7, 4 r6, 12 r5, 0 GL

    Gotta make those r5+ count. Those r6 are like weight bags slowing you down. And until you finish your Rey requisites, you’re in danger of meeting a GL owner.

    *sigh* I will post one last time in this thread since you also are having comprehension issues. I'll type slowly so Raph can understand too...

    I understand how the system works. It works poorly if the goal is "close matches" (which is what CG stated was the goal and has never stated otherwise). Your example above proves my point. There is no way the two opponents you list ("Me" and "You") would ever be a close match. Ever.

    That's it. Yes, that's the system we're stuck with. Yes, I understand how it works. And any system that matches the two examples you made up is doing a very poor job of creating "close matches."
    Thanks again for the “typing slowly” jibe. Always nice when someone resorts to an insult when they are incapable of disagreeing like an adult.

    I’m not suggesting you or I should be matched together.

    I’m trying to highlight why you get matched with people that you think are not a close match. You have a very large amount of g13 toons for someone that does not have a GL (though you seem to have unlocked Rey since posting this). I have 9 more than you, and I’ve got both GL.

    You complained about being the guy with 7 r7 (I only see 6 in your roster) being matched with someone who has 11 r7. When you have 4 toons at r6 this goes some way to explain it.

    Also, since you have now unlocked Rey, I imagine your perspective will change. Part of the “fun” of owning a GL is that horrible moment when you have taken 12 toons to relic level but haven’t yet unlocked the GL toon. All GL owners have been there and I hope that GAC becomes more enjoyable for you now you’re through it.

    Once again, please read. I am not "the guy" in the grouping with 0 GL and only 7 R7. I have Rey. I get to Kyber most of the time. I am not the one being mismatched. I'm fine being in the groupings I'm in.

    As I said, I have Rey and have faced (and beaten. Every. Time.) anyone who doesn't have a GL. Several times now. My perspective is precisely because I have had those easy wins. The current matchmaking works to my advantage - but I am still willing to say it's broken in regards to "close matches" - because integrity matters.

    ETA : The typing slowly jab wasn't aimed at you.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The typing slowly jab wasn't aimed at you.
    "You're typing to me ? Well i'm the only one here..."

  • I have yet to have a single GA where I was outclassed/rostered. Every single GA loss, including this 1, has been my fault.

    I can certainly say that the opposite was not true. There have been opponents I felt so bad for that I told them where I was placing my defenses beforehand. I don't want a match where 1 of the players actually does not stand a chance.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    2) I didn't say "one of" the best. I said THE best. And you know full well that the person who finishes top would not stand a chance against some of the others in Division 1. Particularly last time out. I'm not saying that they're not good. I'm saying they're not THE best.
    There are two aspects to SWGoH:
    1) roster management
    2) combat

    The best players will excel at both. Higher GP does not equal better player.
    Allow me expand on that. There are 3 aspects in GAC:

    1) Strategy
    Roster management. That's probably where we spend most of our time in the game. We farm resources and allocate them.

    2) Tactic
    Choosing which teams to put on defense/keep for offense, which team to use against which one, undersizing, positioning in the front/back row.

    3) Operational
    Actual combat. Which skill to use and select targets.

    Matchmaking rewards the 'Strategy' aspect, which is probably the most important aspect of the game. The matchs are usually 'close' in the sense that you faced an opponent who allocated roughly the same resources to develop his/her top 80 characters. However, one player using a Strategy best suited for ga than the other could make aspects 2 and 3 trivial to the point that the player with the strategic disadvantage should be much, much, much better in Tactics than his opponents to be able to have a shot at winning. Si if you have a clear strategic advantage, the rest of the fight isn't close.

    However, it doesn't mean that matchmaking is flawed. Just that it underlignes that swgoh is at core, a Strategy game.
  • What people who think the matchmaking is ok don't seem to realize is it doesn't just hurt the people who built their rosters "wrong" People who are unfortunate enough to get matched against others who built their rosters "right" have a harder time getting to kyber than those who get easy matchups. Plus there is little incentive for those who have bloated rosters to fully participate which increases the number of people who join and forget about it.

    For me, the issue with mm is that the experience is lessened. In arena not having the meta means someone finishes lower and gets less rewards but the mode itself is the same. In gac I can actually get better rewards for a worse experience. By excluding wins and losses they create the opportunity for mismatches straight through. With more divisions and brackets within the divisions, the mode could be better.
Sign In or Register to comment.