GAC Matchmaking badly needed, but will never get

124Next

Replies

  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.

    So, you moved from: "Noone in their right mind would do it" to:"If more than half of top-20 does it it's a problem". Maybe there's still hope that one day you will realise that some players actually have fun developing their rosters with a focus on GAC - whether they have multiple GLs or none at all. I'm sure that the player who reaches top-3 regularly (often 1st) without any GL has a lot of fun strategising and battling to reach top ranks. Personally I have fun playing an alt of mine with no GL which sometimes reaches top-50. It's fun having different match-ups, using a different strategy and fighting different defenses than those I see on my main.
  • Well, this is a gatcha game but as soon they have introduced GAC / TW as a competitive game mode, some kind of game balance should have been introduced as well but they introduced GL and more power creep instead and breaking even more the little game balance we had (more p2w or you should hoard your gear/mods collections to focus on the right toons).
    Since they will not introduce game balance, matchmaking will never be fair for everyone.
    Some kind of mmr could be introduced but well .... sigh .... EA/CG, they have their own agenda.
  • 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.

    I think you really over estimate the cost to counter Rey especially. Vader, thrawn, and a 4 star wat with a zeta and two additional sith or empire will counter most Rey team. Not a huge investment.

    And if you face opponents with 2 more GLs than you and you haven't reliced vader and thrawn, that's on you.
  • 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.

    I haven't faced the Rey jawa team yet either, but I doubt it would stop a vader counter if the opponent knew how to use it.

    Jawa scavenger is fairly squishy so vader could merciless, aoe, and immediately saber throw scavenger to end the thermal threat and still have another saber throw for rey. It may be hard if they have an r6 scavenger but at g8 as the op suggested it would be an easy underdog win for Vader, thrawn, and wat. I probably wouldn't even bring in any other toons. (Maybe traya to get around l3's taunt) but most likely you could one shot her at g8 too so no worries there.
  • 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?

    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.

    If a player bloated their roster to the extent of having similar matchmaking gp as someone with 4 GLs and had no GLs (or counters for all 4 GLs), then they deserve to lose at GAC.

    GAC isn't just tactical, it's strategic. Part of that strategy is building a competitive roster.

    If you want a completely tactical game mode, that's fine. A solution for that would be to give everyone completely equal rosters and see who can win. But that isn't what GAC is or what it should be.

    Most of the matches are decided before either team sets defense. I can usually tell if I'm going to win or lose when I view my opponent. Short of forgetting to attack, my opponent forgetting to attack, or some really bad rng, it's usually pretty easy to predict.

    That's because 75% of the battle is building a proper roster. I have one GL (See) and some other meta teams. If I look at my opponents roster and see they can't beat or will struggle with see or my Darth revan team I will put one on each front wall. Very rarely am I surprised and they get through.

    Also if I see they have a hard team to beat, I make sure to save a counter.

    I made sure to farm counters for any teams I'm likely to face so as not to put me in an unwinnable situation. That is called strategy.

    Your suggestion takes all the strategy of roster building out of the equation. I personally would think that would be less fun.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.

    So, you moved from: "Noone in their right mind would do it" to:"If more than half of top-20 does it it's a problem". Maybe there's still hope that one day you will realise that some players actually have fun developing their rosters with a focus on GAC - whether they have multiple GLs or none at all. I'm sure that the player who reaches top-3 regularly (often 1st) without any GL has a lot of fun strategising and battling to reach top ranks. Personally I have fun playing an alt of mine with no GL which sometimes reaches top-50. It's fun having different match-ups, using a different strategy and fighting different defenses than those I see on my main.

    yes...I have moved on to my position, that apparently some people only want to play GAC and could care less about the arenas. I am not going to move on the position that a 2+ GL disparity is overkill.

    You created a second account to get variability, maybe instead of matchmaking, they expand the teams from 7 on defense to 10, or a different map, different banner point system. etc etc...

    I am not (nor ever have) argued the fun players have in developing a roster to focus on an aspect of the game. But that doesn't mean they should get the benefit of playing someone they clearly outmatch just for variability. That is not a good gaming experience. There isn't much strategy involved if someone has a 3GL advantage (maybe for the player without the GLs, but probably not as much for the player with the GLs).

    We can stop discussing now. We obviously see things differently.
  • 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?

    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.


    Most of the matches are decided before either team sets defense. I can usually tell if I'm going to win or lose when I view my opponent. Short of forgetting to attack, my opponent forgetting to attack, or some really bad rng, it's usually pretty easy to predict.

    .

    and this is the exact problem I have with the matchmaking. If it is that easy to predict, it will not only take out strategy, tactics but the fun in the game.

    Thank you for illustrating my point.
  • LukeDukem8 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?

    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.


    Most of the matches are decided before either team sets defense. I can usually tell if I'm going to win or lose when I view my opponent. Short of forgetting to attack, my opponent forgetting to attack, or some really bad rng, it's usually pretty easy to predict.

    .

    and this is the exact problem I have with the matchmaking. If it is that easy to predict, it will not only take out strategy, tactics but the fun in the game.

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

    You missed my point. The strategy is in building a competitive roster. That is how it was designed. And it's working as designed.

    I think a purely tactical game mode would be a fun one as well. But there's no monetizing that since for it to truly be tactical only, you would have to provide everyone with equal toons.

    Gac is designed to encourage spending as is any other game mode. You can spend on gear to have a competitive roster faster.

    If they fixed matchmaking where the majority of matches were decided by tactics, then there would be little incentive to spend for that game mode.

    And if they were going to implement a more tactical game mode, I would prefer they just add a new one where they just give you the teams to use. It would be much easier to mix it up that way rather than just having it based on your roster.

    The thought of facing rosters that are exactly similar to mine week after week just seems boring. After all, most rosters change pretty slowly.
  • LukeDukem8 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?

    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.


    Most of the matches are decided before either team sets defense. I can usually tell if I'm going to win or lose when I view my opponent. Short of forgetting to attack, my opponent forgetting to attack, or some really bad rng, it's usually pretty easy to predict.

    .

    and this is the exact problem I have with the matchmaking. If it is that easy to predict, it will not only take out strategy, tactics but the fun in the game.

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

    You missed my point. The strategy is in building a competitive roster. That is how it was designed. And it's working as designed.

    I think a purely tactical game mode would be a fun one as well. But there's no monetizing that since for it to truly be tactical only, you would have to provide everyone with equal toons.

    Gac is designed to encourage spending as is any other game mode. You can spend on gear to have a competitive roster faster.

    If they fixed matchmaking where the majority of matches were decided by tactics, then there would be little incentive to spend for that game mode.

    And if they were going to implement a more tactical game mode, I would prefer they just add a new one where they just give you the teams to use. It would be much easier to mix it up that way rather than just having it based on your roster.

    The thought of facing rosters that are exactly similar to mine week after week just seems boring. After all, most rosters change pretty slowly.

    So you don't get any fun in actually playing out the GAC? Your fun comes from building a roster and accepting the outcome of what the matchmaking algorithm decides?

    For me, this game mode has to have all of those components (roster building, defense/offense strategy and tactical execution). However two of those components (which is the actual playing of the game) are taken away when the outcome is predetermined.

    I don't think I mentioned anything about facing an exact same roster. But I would agree, if I had to face my roster as an opponent every week, it certainly would be boring.

  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    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.

    So, you moved from: "Noone in their right mind would do it" to:"If more than half of top-20 does it it's a problem". Maybe there's still hope that one day you will realise that some players actually have fun developing their rosters with a focus on GAC - whether they have multiple GLs or none at all. I'm sure that the player who reaches top-3 regularly (often 1st) without any GL has a lot of fun strategising and battling to reach top ranks. Personally I have fun playing an alt of mine with no GL which sometimes reaches top-50. It's fun having different match-ups, using a different strategy and fighting different defenses than those I see on my main.

    yes...I have moved on to my position, that apparently some people only want to play GAC and could care less about the arenas. I am not going to move on the position that a 2+ GL disparity is overkill.

    You created a second account to get variability, maybe instead of matchmaking, they expand the teams from 7 on defense to 10, or a different map, different banner point system. etc etc...

    I am not (nor ever have) argued the fun players have in developing a roster to focus on an aspect of the game. But that doesn't mean they should get the benefit of playing someone they clearly outmatch just for variability. That is not a good gaming experience. There isn't much strategy involved if someone has a 3GL advantage (maybe for the player without the GLs, but probably not as much for the player with the GLs).

    We can stop discussing now. We obviously see things differently.

    There's plenty of strategy involved if a player gets a 3 GL advantage over their opponent. You won't get such an advantage without a good strategy for developing your roster. You don't get those match ups just for variability. You earn them through you strategy - by building a strong roster.

    Yes, you did argue over the aspect of fun. Check our conversation. You argued that there's no fun when building a strong roster pays off and you have the advantage roster wise. I disagree.

    Yes, we see things differently:

    I believe it's fair that players benefit from their efforts to build a strong roster. You don't.
    I believe that's part of the fun. You don't.
    I believe getting great advantages in your match-up requires strategy. You believe it happens by chance.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 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?

    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.


    Most of the matches are decided before either team sets defense. I can usually tell if I'm going to win or lose when I view my opponent. Short of forgetting to attack, my opponent forgetting to attack, or some really bad rng, it's usually pretty easy to predict.

    .

    and this is the exact problem I have with the matchmaking. If it is that easy to predict, it will not only take out strategy, tactics but the fun in the game.

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

    You missed my point. The strategy is in building a competitive roster. That is how it was designed. And it's working as designed.

    I think a purely tactical game mode would be a fun one as well. But there's no monetizing that since for it to truly be tactical only, you would have to provide everyone with equal toons.

    Gac is designed to encourage spending as is any other game mode. You can spend on gear to have a competitive roster faster.

    If they fixed matchmaking where the majority of matches were decided by tactics, then there would be little incentive to spend for that game mode.

    And if they were going to implement a more tactical game mode, I would prefer they just add a new one where they just give you the teams to use. It would be much easier to mix it up that way rather than just having it based on your roster.

    The thought of facing rosters that are exactly similar to mine week after week just seems boring. After all, most rosters change pretty slowly.

    So you don't get any fun in actually playing out the GAC? Your fun comes from building a roster and accepting the outcome of what the matchmaking algorithm decides?

    For me, this game mode has to have all of those components (roster building, defense/offense strategy and tactical execution). However two of those components (which is the actual playing of the game) are taken away when the outcome is predetermined.

    I don't think I mentioned anything about facing an exact same roster. But I would agree, if I had to face my roster as an opponent every week, it certainly would be boring.

    I don't see impossible to beat or extremely easy wins all the time. It does vary as it should. However after a glance at the mods and roster of my opponent, it is fairly easy to predict the winner.

    That isn't to say that tactics don't come into play but once you get your tactics down, it is pretty easy to anticipate how a round will go.

    I never said that tactics play no role. Just that it was 75% strategy and roster building. And with their business model, it makes sense that it is more about roster building than tactics.

    And I'm ok with the current balance. Making matchmaking provide extremely close matches would just get boring anyway.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    For me, this game mode has to have all of those components (roster building, defense/offense strategy and tactical execution). However two of those components (which is the actual playing of the game) are taken away when the outcome is predetermined.

    Let's call those 3 levels Strategical (roster building), Operational (defense/offense strategy), Tactical (tactical execution).

    You're totally right, Operational and Tactical levels are useless if you are vastly outsmart on the Strategical level. However, it's inherent to Strategy; it's the backbone of all the rest. As soon as you bring strategy to the table, it's usually the most important thing.

    If you're vastly outsmart on the Strategical level, Operational and Tactical are (almost) useless.
    If you're not but are vastly outsmart on the Operational level, Tactical is (almost) useless.
    If you're not, then it will be decided on the Tactical level.

    I totally understand that it's hard to be the underdog, but MM as it is now is a fair way to test strategical skills. You may still win thanks to vastly superior Operational and Tactical skills though. It happens.

    The "fun" factor is fairly subjective, to each his own I guess ;)
  • Waqui
    8570 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 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?

    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.


    Most of the matches are decided before either team sets defense. I can usually tell if I'm going to win or lose when I view my opponent. Short of forgetting to attack, my opponent forgetting to attack, or some really bad rng, it's usually pretty easy to predict.

    .

    and this is the exact problem I have with the matchmaking. If it is that easy to predict, it will not only take out strategy, tactics but the fun in the game.

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

    You missed my point. The strategy is in building a competitive roster. That is how it was designed. And it's working as designed.

    I think a purely tactical game mode would be a fun one as well. But there's no monetizing that since for it to truly be tactical only, you would have to provide everyone with equal toons.

    Gac is designed to encourage spending as is any other game mode. You can spend on gear to have a competitive roster faster.

    If they fixed matchmaking where the majority of matches were decided by tactics, then there would be little incentive to spend for that game mode.

    And if they were going to implement a more tactical game mode, I would prefer they just add a new one where they just give you the teams to use. It would be much easier to mix it up that way rather than just having it based on your roster.

    The thought of facing rosters that are exactly similar to mine week after week just seems boring. After all, most rosters change pretty slowly.

    So you don't get any fun in actually playing out the GAC? Your fun comes from building a roster and accepting the outcome of what the matchmaking algorithm decides?

    For me, this game mode has to have all of those components (roster building, defense/offense strategy and tactical execution). However two of those components (which is the actual playing of the game) are taken away when the outcome is predetermined.

    You do realize that you can have fun both by building roster and by playing out the actual GAC, right? One doesn't rule out the other.

    You do realize that all the elements you request are still there when you have the stronger roster, right? Especially if you try to complete feats and maximize your score. Have you never had the stronger roster?
  • LukeDukem8
    536 posts Member
    edited December 2020
    [/quote]

    For me, this game mode has to have all of those components (roster building, defense/offense strategy and tactical execution). However two of those components (which is the actual playing of the game) are taken away when the outcome is predetermined. [/quote]
    [/quote]

    You do realize that you can have fun both by building roster and by playing out the actual GAC, right? One doesn't rule out the other.

    You do realize that all the elements you request are still there when you have the stronger roster, right? Especially if you try to complete feats and maximize your score. Have you never had the stronger roster?[/quote]

    I think what I am realizing is that you are an extremist who:

    1.) is not reading responses thoroughly.
    2.) not actually taking the time to understand where the other side is coming from.
    3.) cant let this go

    I understand your perspective and we have all made our counter arguments and at the end of the day, we just see things differently. Take a couple of deep breaths and realize I am not your enemy, I am just a person who has a different perspective.

  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    I think what I am realizing is that you are an extremist who:

    1.) is not reading responses thoroughly.
    2.) not actually taking the time to understand where the other side is coming from.
    3.) cant let this go
    4yhwz33vhf9w.png
  • TVF
    31050 posts Member
    OP started this thread in September and last visited in September lol.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    OP started this thread in September and last visited in September lol.
    Yup. At this point what we have is an extremist who:

    1.) is not reading responses thoroughly.
    2.) not actually taking the time to understand where the other side is coming from.
    3.) cant let this go
  • TVF
    31050 posts Member
    I think if you all ignored them the thread would die the death it deserves.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • To be honest, this thread deserves to be merged with 2 GL threads.
  • EA_Joz
    4056 posts EA Staff (retired)
    Hello everyone! Please make sure to keep things friendly and on topic.

    EA_Joz
Sign In or Register to comment.