GAC Matchmaking badly needed, but will never get

Replies

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    https://swgoh.gg/p/853873546/characters/

    well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.

    https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.

    tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo

    If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.

    The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.

    that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it

    actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.

    Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).
    Actually the point is that you chose how to develop your roster and you have had two years to adapt to matchmaking by GP and plenty of opportunities to rebalance your roster. If you failed to do so, that is your fault.

    we are going to agree to disagree
    Would you at least agree that at this point not having a GL is entirely your choice/fault?

    Even if you started the game when GLs were first added, you could have one by now if you made that your goal.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    https://swgoh.gg/p/853873546/characters/

    well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.

    https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.

    tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo

    If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.

    The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.

    that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it

    actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.

    Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).
    Actually the point is that you chose how to develop your roster and you have had two years to adapt to matchmaking by GP and plenty of opportunities to rebalance your roster. If you failed to do so, that is your fault.

    we are going to agree to disagree
    Would you at least agree that at this point not having a GL is entirely your choice/fault?

    Even if you started the game when GLs were first added, you could have one by now if you made that your goal.

    I think we already established that point...but I love when you consider it a fault, as if playing the game the way I choose to is wrong and I should be punished by being matched up against a player with 4 GLs.

    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a competitive balance and make the game enjoyable.
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    https://swgoh.gg/p/853873546/characters/

    well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.

    https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.

    tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo

    If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.

    The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.

    that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it

    actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.

    Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).
    Actually the point is that you chose how to develop your roster and you have had two years to adapt to matchmaking by GP and plenty of opportunities to rebalance your roster. If you failed to do so, that is your fault.

    we are going to agree to disagree
    Would you at least agree that at this point not having a GL is entirely your choice/fault?

    Even if you started the game when GLs were first added, you could have one by now if you made that your goal.

    I think we already established that point...but I love when you consider it a fault, as if playing the game the way I choose to is wrong and I should be punished by being matched up against a player with 4 GLs.

    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a competitive balance and make the game enjoyable.

    Play the game however you prefer and enjoy. There's no right or wrong way. However, your playstyle and choices will influence your results.

    It's also enjoyable when good roster management is rewarded. The current matchmaking has a good balance between even matches and rewarding good roster management.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a competitive balance and make the game enjoyable.
    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a semblance of balance across a wide variety of roster compositions. How competitive you are is dependent on the choices you make with your roster.

    SWGoH is as much about resource and roster management as it is about battle strategy and tactics. You need to pay attention to all of these aspects if you wish to be competitive.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a competitive balance and make the game enjoyable.
    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a semblance of balance across a wide variety of roster compositions. How competitive you are is dependent on the choices you make with your roster.

    SWGoH is as much about resource and roster management as it is about battle strategy and tactics. You need to pay attention to all of these aspects if you wish to be competitive.

    Being balanced means the algorithm has to match you with someone that is relatively close in your own strength. (RE: collegiate team vs a high school ).

    I don't think anyone playing the game casually is looking to win or get kyber every time. I do think the GL advantage is a fault of the game designer and not the player.
  • That’s exactly what the algorithm does, though.

    They match based on the GP of the top end of people’s rosters. You can disagree as to whether or not that is a fair comparison, but it’s the same for everyone
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a competitive balance and make the game enjoyable.
    They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a semblance of balance across a wide variety of roster compositions. How competitive you are is dependent on the choices you make with your roster.

    SWGoH is as much about resource and roster management as it is about battle strategy and tactics. You need to pay attention to all of these aspects if you wish to be competitive.

    Being balanced means the algorithm has to match you with someone that is relatively close in your own strength. (RE: collegiate team vs a high school ).

    That's your interpretation. Another interpretation is:

    Being balanced means the algorithm has to match you with someone who is relatively close in relevant GP.
    I don't think anyone playing the game casually is looking to win or get kyber every time. I do think the GL advantage is a fault of the game designer and not the player.

    With the current matchmaking algorithm casual players actually can reach Kyber every time. With the current algorithm it's not a matter of how fast you developed your roster how well you did it.

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    https://swgoh.gg/p/853873546/characters/

    well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.

    https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.

    tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo

    If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.

    The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.

    that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it

    actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.

    Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).

    Why even bother having GP tiers? Why stop at 0 GL's vs 2, we should pin 0 GL's vs 4, because who doesn't have a GL clearly has no idea what they are doing.

    It doesn't make sense and is bad game design.


    Part of the strategy is building your roster. And they typically release new toons that are better (see being an exception). People chase these toons and pay an exorbitant amount of money to get them early.

    Now let's assume for a second you got your way and people who paid for the next new meta character that was amazing, only faced others that did the same in gac. Well it wouldn't be long before many of them realized that they paid for nothing when they could have just not bough the new amazing character and been just as well off.

    So you may not like it, but your suggestion would remove a reason for many people to spend on new characters. So CG is never going to change it to be that way.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    https://swgoh.gg/p/853873546/characters/

    well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.

    https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.

    tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo

    If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.

    The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.

    that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it

    actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.

    Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).

    Why even bother having GP tiers? Why stop at 0 GL's vs 2, we should pin 0 GL's vs 4, because who doesn't have a GL clearly has no idea what they are doing.

    It doesn't make sense and is bad game design.


    Part of the strategy is building your roster. And they typically release new toons that are better (see being an exception). People chase these toons and pay an exorbitant amount of money to get them early.

    Now let's assume for a second you got your way and people who paid for the next new meta character that was amazing, only faced others that did the same in gac. Well it wouldn't be long before many of them realized that they paid for nothing when they could have just not bough the new amazing character and been just as well off.

    So you may not like it, but your suggestion would remove a reason for many people to spend on new characters. So CG is never going to change it to be that way.

    I don't even know where to begin on how many things are off with this statement.

    But it sounds like your point is they should match a kraken with 4 GL's against a player with none to give them a variety in opponents. And you actually think that kraken is going to see value in what they spent because they could beat a crap roster.

    wow..
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    https://swgoh.gg/p/853873546/characters/

    well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.

    https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.

    tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo

    If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.

    The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.

    that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it

    actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.

    Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).

    Why even bother having GP tiers? Why stop at 0 GL's vs 2, we should pin 0 GL's vs 4, because who doesn't have a GL clearly has no idea what they are doing.

    It doesn't make sense and is bad game design.


    Part of the strategy is building your roster. And they typically release new toons that are better (see being an exception). People chase these toons and pay an exorbitant amount of money to get them early.

    Now let's assume for a second you got your way and people who paid for the next new meta character that was amazing, only faced others that did the same in gac. Well it wouldn't be long before many of them realized that they paid for nothing when they could have just not bough the new amazing character and been just as well off.

    So you may not like it, but your suggestion would remove a reason for many people to spend on new characters. So CG is never going to change it to be that way.

    I don't even know where to begin on how many things are off with this statement.

    But it sounds like your point is they should match a kraken with 4 GL's against a player with none to give them a variety in opponents. And you actually think that kraken is going to see value in what they spent because they could beat a crap roster.

    wow..
    Talk about a persecution complex.

    You are matched with people with similar GP for their top toons. Some of them have a GL, you don’t. That’s the bottom line. That’s all there is to it.

    If you choose to develop your top toon GP in such a way that you don’t own a GL, but keep getting matched against people that do, there’s only one person responsible for that.


  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    https://swgoh.gg/p/853873546/characters/

    well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.

    https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.

    tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo

    If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.

    The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.

    that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it

    actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.

    Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).

    Why even bother having GP tiers? Why stop at 0 GL's vs 2, we should pin 0 GL's vs 4, because who doesn't have a GL clearly has no idea what they are doing.

    It doesn't make sense and is bad game design.


    Part of the strategy is building your roster. And they typically release new toons that are better (see being an exception). People chase these toons and pay an exorbitant amount of money to get them early.

    Now let's assume for a second you got your way and people who paid for the next new meta character that was amazing, only faced others that did the same in gac. Well it wouldn't be long before many of them realized that they paid for nothing when they could have just not bough the new amazing character and been just as well off.

    So you may not like it, but your suggestion would remove a reason for many people to spend on new characters. So CG is never going to change it to be that way.

    I don't even know where to begin on how many things are off with this statement.

    But it sounds like your point is they should match a kraken with 4 GL's against a player with none to give them a variety in opponents. And you actually think that kraken is going to see value in what they spent because they could beat a crap roster.

    wow..
    But that's the catch. You are not being matched with a kraken (unless you are one yourself), rather with someone that spent roughly the same amount of resources but allocated them in a more efficient way.
  • This is my matchmaking GP cost for SLKR. If I had not gone for him, I would just have one FO squad around g11 - g12 with maybe KRU g13 and Palp probably g12.

    0tp7jbv0a34c.png

    If you have bloated the top end of your roster like this without acquiring a GL then that is on you.
  • People here seem to think that the argument is about the choices someone makes and how it's their own fault that they are getting matched up with someone who has 2 GLS.

    The key argument here is BALANCE and game play (at the end of the day we are playing a game here). We have already seen examples of extreme mismatches where someone with 0 GLs is matched up against someone with 2. and the only counter I have heard is "well they were smarter".

    It shouldn't matter how smart someone plays or what toons they did or did not farm. Good game design would match two people of equal inventories (not just on GP math). This makes for a better experience for BOTH players.

    I have never disagreed about personal choices, I have never even disagreed that the players who are more focused on GAC are probably set up for more success. (as they should be)

    But the thought that someone is playing the game 'wrong" and how it makes total sense for a kraken with 4 GLs should or could be matched with someone with 0 is good for the game because the kraken gets variety is insanely stupid.



  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    People here seem to think that the argument is about the choices someone makes and how it's their own fault that they are getting matched up with someone who has 2 GLS.

    The key argument here is BALANCE and game play (at the end of the day we are playing a game here). We have already seen examples of extreme mismatches where someone with 0 GLs is matched up against someone with 2. and the only counter I have heard is "well they were smarter".

    It shouldn't matter how smart someone plays or what toons they did or did not farm. Good game design would match two people of equal inventories (not just on GP math). This makes for a better experience for BOTH players.

    I have never disagreed about personal choices, I have never even disagreed that the players who are more focused on GAC are probably set up for more success. (as they should be)

    But the thought that someone is playing the game 'wrong" and how it makes total sense for a kraken with 4 GLs should or could be matched with someone with 0 is good for the game because the kraken gets variety is insanely stupid.
    What if there was nobody with an “equal inventory” to you?
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    It shouldn't matter how smart someone plays or what toons they did or did not farm. Good game design would match two people of equal inventories (not just on GP math). This makes for a better experience for BOTH players.

    I have never disagreed about personal choices, I have never even disagreed that the players who are more focused on GAC are probably set up for more success. (as they should be)

    But the thought that someone is playing the game 'wrong" and how it makes total sense for a kraken with 4 GLs should or could be matched with someone with 0 is good for the game because the kraken gets variety is insanely stupid.

    How would your experience be if every GAC would consist of 12 mirror matches with players of equal inventories? I would become bored pretty quickly.

    Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself. "Good game design would match two people of equal inventories" but at the same time "players who are more focused on GAC should be set up for more success". How would players who build their roster well for GAC be set up for more success if they are matched with players with equal inventorie?

    Noone is playing the game wrong. There's no right or wrong way. However, a player who chooses to relic Phoenix, tusken and ewok instead of unlocking a GL will have a hard time in GAC - as they should. How you build your roster influences your chances of success. It's no different than other game modes.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    It shouldn't matter how smart someone plays or what toons they did or did not farm. Good game design would match two people of equal inventories (not just on GP math). This makes for a better experience for BOTH players.

    I have never disagreed about personal choices, I have never even disagreed that the players who are more focused on GAC are probably set up for more success. (as they should be)

    But the thought that someone is playing the game 'wrong" and how it makes total sense for a kraken with 4 GLs should or could be matched with someone with 0 is good for the game because the kraken gets variety is insanely stupid.

    How would your experience be if every GAC would consist of 12 mirror matches with players of equal inventories? I would become bored pretty quickly.

    Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself. "Good game design would match two people of equal inventories" but at the same time "players who are more focused on GAC should be set up for more success". How would players who build their roster well for GAC be set up for more success if they are matched with players with equal inventorie?

    Noone is playing the game wrong. There's no right or wrong way. However, a player who chooses to relic Phoenix, tusken and ewok instead of unlocking a GL will have a hard time in GAC - as they should. How you build your roster influences your chances of success. It's no different than other game modes.

    I think you are taking the balanced/equal comment to a bit extreme. There will always be variances. However the GL disparity takes things to a new level that compromises (my belief) of the spirit of the game mode, not to mention overall game enjoyment by both sides. (again my position).

    Let's be honest about the difficulty in facing a GL on defense and how it would eat up significant resources to a player who doesn't have a GL, much less a 2 GL disparity.

    As for those that are GAC focused, there are other factors to consider than just toons. Mods, factions, theory crafting design that (should) come more into play beyond just having a GL advantage or not.
  • Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    It shouldn't matter how smart someone plays or what toons they did or did not farm. Good game design would match two people of equal inventories (not just on GP math). This makes for a better experience for BOTH players.

    I have never disagreed about personal choices, I have never even disagreed that the players who are more focused on GAC are probably set up for more success. (as they should be)

    But the thought that someone is playing the game 'wrong" and how it makes total sense for a kraken with 4 GLs should or could be matched with someone with 0 is good for the game because the kraken gets variety is insanely stupid.

    How would your experience be if every GAC would consist of 12 mirror matches with players of equal inventories? I would become bored pretty quickly.

    Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself. "Good game design would match two people of equal inventories" but at the same time "players who are more focused on GAC should be set up for more success". How would players who build their roster well for GAC be set up for more success if they are matched with players with equal inventorie?

    Noone is playing the game wrong. There's no right or wrong way. However, a player who chooses to relic Phoenix, tusken and ewok instead of unlocking a GL will have a hard time in GAC - as they should. How you build your roster influences your chances of success. It's no different than other game modes.

    I think you are taking the balanced/equal comment to a bit extreme. There will always be variances. However the GL disparity takes things to a new level that compromises (my belief) of the spirit of the game mode, not to mention overall game enjoyment by both sides. (again my position).

    Let's be honest about the difficulty in facing a GL on defense and how it would eat up significant resources to a player who doesn't have a GL, much less a 2 GL disparity.

    As for those that are GAC focused, there are other factors to consider than just toons. Mods, factions, theory crafting design that (should) come more into play beyond just having a GL advantage or not.

    Even with only little variances it would be boring.

    It's not a new level of disparity. We've seen the same kind of complaints with f.ex. Malak the first few months after he was released - and even with Han's Falcon which was quite easy to unlock. The complaints usually stop as more and more players unlock the new META characters or build their counters. Players that put their mind to it will unlock the new GLs or build their counters as well one by one. Players that don't put their mind to it may have a harder time in GAC.

    Let's be honest about the difficulty in facing a GL on defense: There are non-GL counters. Yes, some of them require key characters from two or more factions but they are out there.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
  • TVF
    31050 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).

    The player with no GLs made poor choices.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.
  • TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).

    The player with no GLs made poor choices.

    What about a player with 1 GL vs 3? Same thing
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    The reality of the situation is that GL counter suck up a TON of valuable resources. Consider having to fight Rey and JML. Both of them have overlapping toons to counter OR require the player to use mostly meta toon counters, which leave practically nothing on defense.

    Roster bloat is not actually a counter argument since the algorithm (supposedly) only takes into consideration the top 80ish toons (maybe more or less who knows).

    So even with a 1M GP disparity, it shouldn't matter. The point is there is no balance or competition in a 2 GL disparity and shouldn't happen and is (in my opinion) poor game design.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
    Still the same.

    Why would it be any different?
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
    Still the same.

    Why would it be any different?

    see above... high counter cost, not enough quality toons for defense, have you actually played against an opponent with 2 additional GLS?
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
    Still the same.

    Why would it be any different?

    see above... high counter cost, not enough quality toons for defense, have you actually played against an opponent with 2 additional GLS?
    No, because I’ve applied GP in such a way as to avoid that happening.

    See above... GLs come with around 300k GP baggage. Anyone whose matchmaking GP pits them against someone with 2 more GLs than they have has made their own bed.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
    Still the same.

    Why would it be any different?

    see above... high counter cost, not enough quality toons for defense, have you actually played against an opponent with 2 additional GLS?
    No, because I’ve applied GP in such a way as to avoid that happening.

    See above... GLs come with around 300k GP baggage. Anyone whose matchmaking GP pits them against someone with 2 more GLs than they have has made their own bed.

    wow, if you truly believe that you can manipulate the algorithm to never get matched with a 2 GL disadvantage, then this discussion is going nowhere.

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
    Still the same.

    Why would it be any different?

    see above... high counter cost, not enough quality toons for defense, have you actually played against an opponent with 2 additional GLS?
    No, because I’ve applied GP in such a way as to avoid that happening.

    See above... GLs come with around 300k GP baggage. Anyone whose matchmaking GP pits them against someone with 2 more GLs than they have has made their own bed.

    wow, if you truly believe that you can manipulate the algorithm to never get matched with a 2 GL disadvantage, then this discussion is going nowhere.
    You’re probably right.

    Here’s something for you to chew on...

    In my current GA match, my opponent has been matched against someone with 2 more GLs (I have 3, he has 1).
    dy7o9dyrys8z.jpeg
    There’s an overview of his roster.
    gstg4j3nvwvh.jpeg
    And there’s mine.

    He has 35 toons at r7+. I have 16.
    He has 69 toons at r5+. I have 49.
    The zeta and mod differential speaks for itself.

    Now, from closer scrutiny of his roster he has all the JML requirements ready except JKL, so presumably within 6-8 days time he’ll have 2 GLs. But he’s nowhere near SEE or Rey requirements.

    The point I’m trying to make is that GLs come with a sizeable GP baggage. For a player to have a roster that sees them matched with someone with 2 more GLs than them is possible, but only if they invest heavily in relics.

    I have 49 toons at r5+: 30 of them are GL requirements and 3 of them are GLs themselves. Of the other 16, most of them are either arena teams past / present or important fleet units.

    He has 69 toons at r5+. More than half of them are not GL requirements. It appears that this player just slaps relics on characters as and when he acquires the materials to do so.

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.

    If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.

    Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.

    If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.

    Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
    That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.

    2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.

    If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.

    Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
    Still the same.

    Why would it be any different?

    see above... high counter cost, not enough quality toons for defense, have you actually played against an opponent with 2 additional GLS?
    No, because I’ve applied GP in such a way as to avoid that happening.

    See above... GLs come with around 300k GP baggage. Anyone whose matchmaking GP pits them against someone with 2 more GLs than they have has made their own bed.

    wow, if you truly believe that you can manipulate the algorithm to never get matched with a 2 GL disadvantage, then this discussion is going nowhere.
    You’re probably right.

    Here’s something for you to chew on...

    In my current GA match, my opponent has been matched against someone with 2 more GLs (I have 3, he has 1).
    dy7o9dyrys8z.jpeg
    There’s an overview of his roster.
    gstg4j3nvwvh.jpeg
    And there’s mine.

    He has 35 toons at r7+. I have 16.
    He has 69 toons at r5+. I have 49.
    The zeta and mod differential speaks for itself.

    Now, from closer scrutiny of his roster he has all the JML requirements ready except JKL, so presumably within 6-8 days time he’ll have 2 GLs. But he’s nowhere near SEE or Rey requirements.

    The point I’m trying to make is that GLs come with a sizeable GP baggage. For a player to have a roster that sees them matched with someone with 2 more GLs than them is possible, but only if they invest heavily in relics.

    I have 49 toons at r5+: 30 of them are GL requirements and 3 of them are GLs themselves. Of the other 16, most of them are either arena teams past / present or important fleet units.

    He has 69 toons at r5+. More than half of them are not GL requirements. It appears that this player just slaps relics on characters as and when he acquires the materials to do so.

    I understand how the algorithm currently works, and I understand your example. My entire point is that GL's should be weighted differently in the calculation and when there is a >1 GL difference the match is no longer competitive.

    The cost to counter GL's (especially Rey and GML) will either reduce the offense banner points putting them at a disadvantage or leaving them too vulnerable on defense.

    (once again), it's my position that it's a fault of the algorithm and the game designers not allowing for proper balancing and is a poor game experience. But yet, you and everyone else seem to think its the fault of the player and therefore they should be punished with a poor game experience.

    They are probably going to be at a disadvantage no matter who they play, but in the end, a 2 GL disadvantage shouldn't ever happen.

Sign In or Register to comment.