GAC Matchmaking badly needed, but will never get

Replies

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?

    Once again, I find myself arguing against people who aren't reading. I believe in variability and think a 1 GL differential has enough balance. Any more than that is not balanced because of how overpowered they are.

    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?

    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

  • TVF
    31053 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?

    Once again, I find myself arguing against people who aren't reading. I believe in variability and think a 1 GL differential has enough balance. Any more than that is not balanced because of how overpowered they are.

    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?

    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams

    Which team is Resistance Pilot on?
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?

    Once again, I find myself arguing against people who aren't reading.
    I am fairly certain everyone that has made a counter-argument to your point feels the same.

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    If a player takes a lot of characters to high relic level without being able to unlock a GL it's their own choice. You can't blame it on the matchmaking algorithm. Preparing for the next GA by building your roster is an important part/aspect of the GAC. Building a strong roster which may give you an advantage in GAC is fun. Using that roster is fun. There's not much fun in building a strong roster and then not benefitting from it afterwards.

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....
  • TVF
    31053 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    You don't need to be a whale to have three GL.

    Happy Holidays.

    They came out a year ago...5.4M gp in a year or so is whaling.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.

  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    Quick question...would you find it fun to play a player at level 85 with no relic toons who started around the same time as you? You played the game more often, you built a better roster and there is the variability of not playing a roster similar as yours. Do you really think that is going to be fun for you or for the player?

    The reason why you don't and shouldn't is because its an obvious disadvantage and the outcome would be a predictable win. Now apply the same logic only instead of that matchup to a 2+ GL advantage. Its not exactly the same (as I am trying to make my point), but the outcome is still the same....a predictable win.

    It doesn't matter how players build their rosters or how long/fast it took them to get there. The matchup should be competitive to give a fun/competitive/balanced gaming experience.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.

    All I am saying is that it's not a good experience for the players who built a strong roster if they cannot benefit from it - especially when they see players with weak rosters (same relevant GP / matchmaking GP) have easier matches and benefit. It's really that simple.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.

    All I am saying is that it's not a good experience for the players who built a strong roster if they cannot benefit from it - especially when they see players with weak rosters (same relevant GP / matchmaking GP) have easier matches and benefit. It's really that simple.

    is it easier for them? If it's a fair matchup, then it's just as much of a struggle for them. They aren't getting an easier matchup.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
    The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.

    For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
    The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.

    For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
    Even the most ridiculously min-maxed 2 GL roster has added around 3/4 of a million GP in matchmaking GP, most of which is bloat they would not otherwise have powered up.

    So anyone who actually manages to end up at a 2 GL disadvantage has made a right mess of their roster and that is their fault. Period. End of story.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
    The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.

    For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
    Even the most ridiculously min-maxed 2 GL roster has added around 3/4 of a million GP in matchmaking GP, most of which is bloat they would not otherwise have powered up.

    So anyone who actually manages to end up at a 2 GL disadvantage has made a right mess of their roster and that is their fault. Period. End of story.
    I agree. And that will likely lead to poor quality matches. I don’t think it should be changed.
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.

    All I am saying is that it's not a good experience for the players who built a strong roster if they cannot benefit from it - especially when they see players with weak rosters (same relevant GP / matchmaking GP) have easier matches and benefit. It's really that simple.

    is it easier for them? If it's a fair matchup, then it's just as much of a struggle for them. They aren't getting an easier matchup.

    It's simple logic that they will have easier matches if they will no longer have some of the hardest matches they can currently have. Simple logic. Let's not waste time discussing this.

    I don't agree it's fair. It's more even, yes, but not fair. It's fair that players who built a strong roster also benefit. It wouldn't be fair if they didn't.
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    Quick question...would you find it fun to play a player at level 85 with no relic toons who started around the same time as you? You played the game more often, you built a better roster and there is the variability of not playing a roster similar as yours. Do you really think that is going to be fun for you or for the player?

    The reason why you don't and shouldn't is because its an obvious disadvantage and the outcome would be a predictable win.

    The only way I could possibly be matched with a player without any relics at all would be if I myself had none or only few myself. We're all matched by relevant GP, remember?

    If I had taken my Sith Empire and 501st team to g13 (or low relic level) while my opponent instead had taken tusken, jawa and phoenix to g12/g13 then yes, it would be fun for me. I would enjoy the easy match knowing that I wouldn't see such easy matches in the next 3 GAs when the effect of leagues would increase. I would enjoy the benefits of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    Now apply the same logic only instead of that matchup to a 2+ GL advantage. Its not exactly the same (as I am trying to make my point), but the outcome is still the same....a predictable win.

    Yes, the outcome would most likely predictable but the logic would be the same:

    I would enjoy the benefit of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    It doesn't matter how players build their rosters or how long/fast it took them to get there. The matchup should be competitive to give a fun/competitive/balanced gaming experience.

    What you suggest would not be a competitive gaming experience. It would be the exact opposite. What you suggest would remove the competitive element from the roster building.

    I doubt it would be fun to build a strong roster if there's no benefit.

    With the current matchmaking system there's a good balance between having fairly even matches and the effect of how you build your roster.

  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
    The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.

    For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
    Even the most ridiculously min-maxed 2 GL roster has added around 3/4 of a million GP in matchmaking GP, most of which is bloat they would not otherwise have powered up.

    So anyone who actually manages to end up at a 2 GL disadvantage has made a right mess of their roster and that is their fault. Period. End of story.

    Lol, so cg should just stick it to them and have them face 4 GLs? Hey player, you have to play by our your rules or we will not just make it hard but pretty much screw you over. Too bad for you, but keep playing our game! This makes no sense at all.

    What about the balance of other players that don`t get a 2 GL lead and easy victories? Is that fair to them?

    I dont know who in their right mind would try and game the system and not get GLs, only to get easy wins in GAC. Mind you they made their life infinitely harder in arena. The rewards arent even that great to try and avoid building your roster. Sorry, but this just isnt happening.

    As i said so many times, variability is good and having a 1 gl disparity is good for the game. 2+ doesnt make sense to me, its overkill.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    Quick question...would you find it fun to play a player at level 85 with no relic toons who started around the same time as you? You played the game more often, you built a better roster and there is the variability of not playing a roster similar as yours. Do you really think that is going to be fun for you or for the player?

    The reason why you don't and shouldn't is because its an obvious disadvantage and the outcome would be a predictable win.

    The only way I could possibly be matched with a player without any relics at all would be if I myself had none or only few myself. We're all matched by relevant GP, remember?

    If I had taken my Sith Empire and 501st team to g13 (or low relic level) while my opponent instead had taken tusken, jawa and phoenix to g12/g13 then yes, it would be fun for me. I would enjoy the easy match knowing that I wouldn't see such easy matches in the next 3 GAs when the effect of leagues would increase. I would enjoy the benefits of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    Now apply the same logic only instead of that matchup to a 2+ GL advantage. Its not exactly the same (as I am trying to make my point), but the outcome is still the same....a predictable win.

    Yes, the outcome would most likely predictable but the logic would be the same:

    I would enjoy the benefit of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    It doesn't matter how players build their rosters or how long/fast it took them to get there. The matchup should be competitive to give a fun/competitive/balanced gaming experience.

    What you suggest would not be a competitive gaming experience. It would be the exact opposite. What you suggest would remove the competitive element from the roster building.

    I doubt it would be fun to build a strong roster if there's no benefit.

    With the current matchmaking system there's a good balance between having fairly even matches and the effect of how you build your roster.

    What exactly is the benefit?

    Have you ever played sports in your life, collegiate or professional? I mean this seriously. I would rather play a game where myself/team lost by 1 point because it was a great even match, then play in a blowout. There is no benefit when there is no balance in competition.

    This is really interesting that your perspective is a benefit.
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    Quick question...would you find it fun to play a player at level 85 with no relic toons who started around the same time as you? You played the game more often, you built a better roster and there is the variability of not playing a roster similar as yours. Do you really think that is going to be fun for you or for the player?

    The reason why you don't and shouldn't is because its an obvious disadvantage and the outcome would be a predictable win.

    The only way I could possibly be matched with a player without any relics at all would be if I myself had none or only few myself. We're all matched by relevant GP, remember?

    If I had taken my Sith Empire and 501st team to g13 (or low relic level) while my opponent instead had taken tusken, jawa and phoenix to g12/g13 then yes, it would be fun for me. I would enjoy the easy match knowing that I wouldn't see such easy matches in the next 3 GAs when the effect of leagues would increase. I would enjoy the benefits of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    Now apply the same logic only instead of that matchup to a 2+ GL advantage. Its not exactly the same (as I am trying to make my point), but the outcome is still the same....a predictable win.

    Yes, the outcome would most likely predictable but the logic would be the same:

    I would enjoy the benefit of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    It doesn't matter how players build their rosters or how long/fast it took them to get there. The matchup should be competitive to give a fun/competitive/balanced gaming experience.

    What you suggest would not be a competitive gaming experience. It would be the exact opposite. What you suggest would remove the competitive element from the roster building.

    I doubt it would be fun to build a strong roster if there's no benefit.

    With the current matchmaking system there's a good balance between having fairly even matches and the effect of how you build your roster.

    What exactly is the benefit?

    Have you ever played sports in your life, collegiate or professional? I mean this seriously. I would rather play a game where myself/team lost by 1 point because it was a great even match, then play in a blowout. There is no benefit when there is no balance in competition.

    This is really interesting that your perspective is a benefit.

    Are you serious? The benefit of having built a strong roster is easier matches, more wins, more rewards.

    Regarding your sports analogy:
    I'm quite sure LA Lakers, 49'ers and Real Madrid would all prefer winning rather than losing all their matches by one point/goal in an even match up. Every competitive athlete strives to improve and perform better than their competitors. Yes, they can still appreciate and enjoy an even match but their goal is to win.

    It's interesting that you want to eliminate the challenge and fun in-between joining the GAs. Where's the fun if in the end it doesn't matter how you build your roster and how you prepare for the GA? Where's the fun if you see players with weak rosters (same matchmaking GP) cruise through to Kyber while you're stuck in Chromium with your strong roster and 12 1-banner losses?

    It's really interesting that from your perspective it's fun.
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    edited December 2020
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
    The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.

    For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
    Even the most ridiculously min-maxed 2 GL roster has added around 3/4 of a million GP in matchmaking GP, most of which is bloat they would not otherwise have powered up.

    So anyone who actually manages to end up at a 2 GL disadvantage has made a right mess of their roster and that is their fault. Period. End of story.

    Lol, so cg should just stick it to them and have them face 4 GLs? Hey player, you have to play by our your rules or we will not just make it hard but pretty much screw you over. Too bad for you, but keep playing our game! This makes no sense at all.

    What about the balance of other players that don`t get a 2 GL lead and easy victories? Is that fair to them?

    It's fair, yes. We all knew how matchmaking works long before GLs were introduced. It's just as fair as it is for players who use non-GL teams in squad arena.
    I dont know who in their right mind would try and game the system and not get GLs, only to get easy wins in GAC.

    You never checked the leader boards by the end of a Championship, did you? You should check div. 1, Kyber next week.
    Post edited by Waqui on
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.

    Giving more GP weight to GL is understanble and seems fair. However, what about the useless toons you relic'd to unlock the GL ? Should they GP weight be reduced because they value far less than a good toon relic'd ? It would be only fair too. And if you do, you might as well leave things as they are.

    Usually I have a GL advantage in my games because I built my roster to be efficient in GAC, being very stingy with my Relics and Zetas. I made strategic decisions, it's a strategy game, so I'm rewarded with easy battles, which is the whole point of strategy: starting the battle flanking your opponent 10 to 1 and by surprised. When you're matched against a general with as good strategic skills as you, that's where tactical choices come into play.

    GAC is not only about tactics, it's mainly about strategy, and resource management is a big part of strategy. It's completely understandable that some players don't want that and would prefer a more tactical game mode, where it's how you use equivalent forces. In GAC it's about how you use equivalent resources. Current matchmaking does a good job putting people with equivalent resources against one another.

    The frustration of not being able to gear characters as you want in order to stay competitive in GAC is understandable and totally legit imo, however I don't see any other way in order to play a competitive mode that rewards strategic decisions and smart roster building.

    A different game mode, more focus on tactics (like a sealed/draft mode), would be the solution imo, but not changing the core of GAC. Again, current matchmaking does a good job putting people with equivalent resources against one another.

    Sidenote: I got matched this GAC versus a player who had 0 GL when I have 2 and lost. He had a very good roster built on strong characters and counters. We both clean house but he was more efficient than me. He earned that victory big time.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
    The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.

    For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
    Even the most ridiculously min-maxed 2 GL roster has added around 3/4 of a million GP in matchmaking GP, most of which is bloat they would not otherwise have powered up.

    So anyone who actually manages to end up at a 2 GL disadvantage has made a right mess of their roster and that is their fault. Period. End of story.

    Lol, so cg should just stick it to them and have them face 4 GLs? Hey player, you have to play by our your rules or we will not just make it hard but pretty much screw you over. Too bad for you, but keep playing our game! This makes no sense at all.
    This, ultimately, is where we have a difference of opinion.

    People need to build a roster that suits the various game modes. If someone is attempting LSTB with their relic Jawas, relic weak Jedi and relic weak resistance toons, they are not going to perform well. A different player, who has made more sensible investments with their gear / relic material, will perform far better and so they should.

    GAC is a game mode that rewards developing your roster in a particular way.

    People subjected to a 2 GL difference are not “unlucky”. They’ve put themselves in the position to face such matchups as a result of how they’ve developed their roster. That’s the way it is, and the way it has been for over a year now.
    I dont know who in their right mind would try and game the system and not get GLs, only to get easy wins in GAC. Mind you they made their life infinitely harder in arena. The rewards arent even that great to try and avoid building your roster. Sorry, but this just isnt happening.
    I’m afraid it absolutely is happening. There’s 4 players in top 9 of div1 Kyber right now who don’t own a GL. These players are successful because they are managing their matchmaking GP.
    As i said so many times, variability is good and having a 1 gl disparity is good for the game. 2+ doesnt make sense to me, its overkill.
    I don’t disagree that matches with 2 or more GL difference are most likely not good matches. But, as I’ve said many times, a player needs to develop their roster in a particular way to be at risk of this happening to them. It’s not happening randomly and indiscriminately, so there is no reason to change anything.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    Quick question...would you find it fun to play a player at level 85 with no relic toons who started around the same time as you? You played the game more often, you built a better roster and there is the variability of not playing a roster similar as yours. Do you really think that is going to be fun for you or for the player?

    The reason why you don't and shouldn't is because its an obvious disadvantage and the outcome would be a predictable win.

    The only way I could possibly be matched with a player without any relics at all would be if I myself had none or only few myself. We're all matched by relevant GP, remember?

    If I had taken my Sith Empire and 501st team to g13 (or low relic level) while my opponent instead had taken tusken, jawa and phoenix to g12/g13 then yes, it would be fun for me. I would enjoy the easy match knowing that I wouldn't see such easy matches in the next 3 GAs when the effect of leagues would increase. I would enjoy the benefits of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    Now apply the same logic only instead of that matchup to a 2+ GL advantage. Its not exactly the same (as I am trying to make my point), but the outcome is still the same....a predictable win.

    Yes, the outcome would most likely predictable but the logic would be the same:

    I would enjoy the benefit of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
    It doesn't matter how players build their rosters or how long/fast it took them to get there. The matchup should be competitive to give a fun/competitive/balanced gaming experience.

    What you suggest would not be a competitive gaming experience. It would be the exact opposite. What you suggest would remove the competitive element from the roster building.

    I doubt it would be fun to build a strong roster if there's no benefit.

    With the current matchmaking system there's a good balance between having fairly even matches and the effect of how you build your roster.

    What exactly is the benefit?

    Have you ever played sports in your life, collegiate or professional? I mean this seriously. I would rather play a game where myself/team lost by 1 point because it was a great even match, then play in a blowout. There is no benefit when there is no balance in competition.

    This is really interesting that your perspective is a benefit.

    Are you serious? The benefit of having built a strong roster is easier matches, more wins, more rewards.
    Regarding your sports analogy:
    I'm quite sure LA Lakers, 49'ers and Real Madrid would all prefer winning rather than losing all their matches by one point/goal in an even match up. Every competitive athlete strives to improve and perform better than their competitors. Yes, they can still appreciate and enjoy an even match but their goal is to win.

    It's interesting that you want to eliminate the challenge and fun in-between joining the GAs. Where's the fun if in the end it doesn't matter how you build your roster and how you prepare for the GA? Where's the fun if you see players with weak rosters (same matchmaking GP) cruise through to Kyber while you're stuck in Chromium with your strong roster and 12 1-banner losses?

    It's really interesting that from your perspective it's fun.

    I really didn't think I needed to state the obvious that everyone wants to win. My point was that true competitors would rather be in a close match, then in a blowout (as long as money is not on the line).

    Of course any competitor is going to get more enjoyment/benefit out of beating a player that is better than them rather than beating up on a weaker roster for an easy win. However, what I don't enjoy is going into a match where I have little or no chance of winning.

    This is where we clearly are different and probably won't see things the same. To each his own.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.



    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.
    GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.

    Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
    Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
    I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.

    As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.

    I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
    You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.

    2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.

    - Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose.
    - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win
    - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself
    - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.

    False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.

    Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.

    A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.

    Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
    Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.

    And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.

    I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.

    And the analogy you gave is a poor one.

    A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.

    Happy holidays....

    @DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.

    It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.

    The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.

    Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).

    In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..

    and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.

    Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.

    All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
    Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.

    We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.

    Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.

    well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
    The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.

    For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
    Even the most ridiculously min-maxed 2 GL roster has added around 3/4 of a million GP in matchmaking GP, most of which is bloat they would not otherwise have powered up.

    So anyone who actually manages to end up at a 2 GL disadvantage has made a right mess of their roster and that is their fault. Period. End of story.

    Lol, so cg should just stick it to them and have them face 4 GLs? Hey player, you have to play by our your rules or we will not just make it hard but pretty much screw you over. Too bad for you, but keep playing our game! This makes no sense at all.

    What about the balance of other players that don`t get a 2 GL lead and easy victories? Is that fair to them?

    It's fair, yes. We all knew how matchmaking works long before GLs were introduced. It's just as fair as it is for players who use non-GL teams in squad arena.
    I dont know who in their right mind would try and game the system and not get GLs, only to get easy wins in GAC.

    You never checked the leader boards by the end of a Championship, did you? You should check div. 1, Kyber next week.

    I see only 2 right now without GLs and both of them are arena ranked over 100 (one is 313). So they get miniscule rewards for GAC, but made their arena that much more difficult. sorry, but to me that is not a good tradeoff.

    If this is truly happening where MOST of the top 20 are without GLs and they are gaming the system, then they should fix the reward structure, not the matchmaking.
Sign In or Register to comment.