Aside from being boring, turtling is rarely, if ever, a good strategy.
Thank you. What's fun for one may not be for the other. And I agree, turtling is boring and why I don't do it. The difference between is setting your best on defense without any kind of offense (turtling) and having a solid mixture of both(depth).
Those of you that want different match making and not to be paired vs people that will clearly best you, do you conceed that they should automatically be getting better rewards? Cause that's essentially what you would need to make it "fair" matchmaking...
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
On the previous algo the "disincentivizes roster growth" bit was much worse. While still not ideal, this one solved the fluff problem. I don't think most are against any improvement to it, just pointing out one can play optimally understanding the algo. CG has been absent on the matter completely after initial gac roll out.
There is not many good and simple suggestions as a solution out there either. Most people focus on meta vs. no meta matchups which cg won't be willing to do anything about due to obvious reasons (=meta chase is a major income source) and imo shouldn't be changed. The not so simple solutions that is capable of comparing rosters with various parameters, try to come up with one...
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
...
They didnt create a game mode or system or anything that disincentivizes roster growth. They created a game that in every level has always been about intelligent and thoughtful roster development. Resource management and development have always been a key to anything you do.
Even during the TB growth period, many realized that blind GP growth was only needed/good to a certain point. Much of the extra that many did ended up being fluff, and even "hurtful" as new game modes come out, but again that is just the growing pains and thoughtful development can overcome that as well. But the more thoughtful players were during that period the better off they were as they moved forward.
It will always be about planned development, each and every step.
GAC is no different, if you do not develop counters and other "key teams" you will not do better and may even start to do worse as other coming into your level(since you wont move up, if you dont develop) with key teams.
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
On the previous algo the "disincentivizes roster growth" bit was much worse. While still not ideal, this one solved the fluff problem. I don't think most are against any improvement to it, just pointing out one can play optimally understanding the algo. CG has been absent on the matter completely after initial gac roll out.
There is not many good and simple suggestions as a solution out there either. Most people focus on meta vs. no meta matchups which cg won't be willing to do anything about due to obvious reasons (=meta chase is a major income source) and imo shouldn't be changed. The not so simple solutions that is capable of comparing rosters with various parameters, try to come up with one...
The solution is to have a ladder or MMR or ELO ranking system that lasts more than 12 matches. You get matched based on your rank.
I agree that the current system is better than the original. But, to me, that's like asking which grit of sandpaper I want to be rubbed with.
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
On the previous algo the "disincentivizes roster growth" bit was much worse. While still not ideal, this one solved the fluff problem. I don't think most are against any improvement to it, just pointing out one can play optimally understanding the algo. CG has been absent on the matter completely after initial gac roll out.
There is not many good and simple suggestions as a solution out there either. Most people focus on meta vs. no meta matchups which cg won't be willing to do anything about due to obvious reasons (=meta chase is a major income source) and imo shouldn't be changed. The not so simple solutions that is capable of comparing rosters with various parameters, try to come up with one...
The solution is to have a ladder or MMR or ELO ranking system that lasts more than 12 matches. You get matched based on your rank.
Too rigid and undynamic and it won't solve the "problem". You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right away.
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
On the previous algo the "disincentivizes roster growth" bit was much worse. While still not ideal, this one solved the fluff problem. I don't think most are against any improvement to it, just pointing out one can play optimally understanding the algo. CG has been absent on the matter completely after initial gac roll out.
There is not many good and simple suggestions as a solution out there either. Most people focus on meta vs. no meta matchups which cg won't be willing to do anything about due to obvious reasons (=meta chase is a major income source) and imo shouldn't be changed. The not so simple solutions that is capable of comparing rosters with various parameters, try to come up with one...
The solution is to have a ladder or MMR or ELO ranking system that lasts more than 12 matches. You get matched based on your rank.
Too rigid and undynamic and it won't solve the "problem". You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right away.
I could not disagree more. Not sure how a rating that changes every match is too rigid. Especially since the exact parameters of the system can be adjusted to make it as rigid or fluid as desired.
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
...
They didnt create a game mode or system or anything that disincentivizes roster growth. They created a game that in every level has always been about intelligent and thoughtful roster development. Resource management and development have always been a key to anything you do.
Even during the TB growth period, many realized that blind GP growth was only needed/good to a certain point. Much of the extra that many did ended up being fluff, and even "hurtful" as new game modes come out, but again that is just the growing pains and thoughtful development can overcome that as well. But the more thoughtful players were during that period the better off they were as they moved forward.
It will always be about planned development, each and every step.
GAC is no different, if you do not develop counters and other "key teams" you will not do better and may even start to do worse as other coming into your level(since you wont move up, if you dont develop) with key teams.
I've seen this speech a 100 times. It's not factually wrong. I'm not disputing the facts. I'm saying that the system sucks and should be improved. I don't have enough data to say whether I'm in the majority or not. But on my guild and arena shards, almost nobody likes the MM or points system we currently have.
Hey another one of these threads. I'm actually looking forward to this match this week myself. Should be a tough one and anyone by chance have an extra Thrawn I can borrow f got a few?
The title of this thread should be changed to "Don't relic NS and BH if you want to win in GAC".
And hoard gear for GL requirements, but don't equip it until you're actually ready to get them.
My observation is that most of the players that freely reliced all decent teams (at that point) are mid-long term high spenders, going from there they also got everything afterwards and play on their own league in gac.
Then there's the newer spenders who can easily outshoot their range if not careful, cause overrelicing(read cc swiping) pushes them in a pool of older players that are over get1 problems.
But adding to that quality of a mod roster has next to no impact on mm and many give into to the lure of gearing stuff over this rather invisible component. Actually I don't mean they are not putting in the work for mods, it's just more expensive to get the average depth of a long term player's mod roster that their overgearing matches them with.
Exactly this. I've seen GAC matchups where people were trying to run before they could walk. Dumped a lot into gear for a few top teams and the gear outpaced their ability to get good mods.
Look at fivethirtyeight's ELO ratings for NFL. That's a 16 game season and allows for plenty of movement.
They ran a test batch a while ago and ELO doesnt work for in this scenario. It ended up with 2 larger groups that just kept getting more separated. So basically F2P fall further behind and P2P keep moving forward.
Look at fivethirtyeight's ELO ratings for NFL. That's a 16 game season and allows for plenty of movement.
They ran a test batch a while ago and ELO doesnt work for in this scenario. It ended up with 2 larger groups that just kept getting more separated. So basically F2P fall further behind and P2P keep moving forward.
Why is that bad? I don't think I belong in the same group as the top guys.
P.S. It makes me feel better that they ar least experimented with other systems. I may disagree on what constitutes a healthy system. But I do appreciate the idea that they tried something. I wish they had made a dev post about it, however.
Sport anologies don't work, don't wanna go on that thread. I don't see how an elo system will work better in this game. Currently there is a qualified (top 80) that restricts whom I can possibly get matched with. On an elo system the more successful I am, the more monstrous rosters what are way beyond mine I will get matched with. They are too hard for me, I'm too easy for them. There is nothing I can do about it besides going kraken and having an all maxed roster. If we are talking about some sense of fairness, current system is infinitely more fair than a such one that has no distinction of active roster quality.
I wish the devs kept the mm more flexible starting from the time gac was established. They promised they will keep making tweaks, but after revamping the inter division problem, they never touched it. The more the time passes, the more status quo gets solidified under the current paradigm. Even though I adapted to it and became a consistent kyber player, I wouldn't mind them to try various things until we get a better one.
Sport anologies don't work, don't wanna go on that thread. I don't see how an elo system will work better in this game. Currently there is a qualified (top 80) that restricts whom I can possibly get matched with. On an elo system the more successful I am, the more monstrous rosters what are way beyond mine I will get matched with. They are too hard for me, I'm too easy for them. There is nothing I can do about it besides going kraken and having an all maxed roster. If we are talking about some sense of fairness, current system is infinitely more fair than a such one that has no distinction of active roster quality.
Sounds like we agree on the impact but disagree about what is a fair result. I don't think your rank should be higher than anyone you have zero chance of beating head-to-head. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
On the previous algo the "disincentivizes roster growth" bit was much worse. While still not ideal, this one solved the fluff problem. I don't think most are against any improvement to it, just pointing out one can play optimally understanding the algo. CG has been absent on the matter completely after initial gac roll out.
There is not many good and simple suggestions as a solution out there either. Most people focus on meta vs. no meta matchups which cg won't be willing to do anything about due to obvious reasons (=meta chase is a major income source) and imo shouldn't be changed. The not so simple solutions that is capable of comparing rosters with various parameters, try to come up with one...
The solution is to have a ladder or MMR or ELO ranking system that lasts more than 12 matches. You get matched based on your rank.
Too rigid and undynamic and it won't solve the "problem". You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right away.
I could not disagree more. Not sure how a rating that changes every match is too rigid.
It's quite simple. As previously stated:
You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right
To elaborate:
Player A and B have the same ELO rating by the end of a GA. Player A had a huge amount of gear and relic materials on stock which he then equips on his GAC teams. Player B doesn't upgrade his roster. Players A and B may still be matched in the next GA (matching ELO rating) even though player A supposedly has a significant advantage.
I don't see how an ELO system will eliminate uneven matches. If you do please explain how.
- restructure the divisions (slightly reduce the GP range to avoid people having to face an opponent within their division that has a lot more GP that could come into play when we're aiming for close matches)
- add more divisions at the top
- set up a proper ELO system
- let the thing run for 1-2 full seasons and see how it goes
I'm very sure the majority of players would find more enjoyment in GAC again.
Look at fivethirtyeight's ELO ratings for NFL. That's a 16 game season and allows for plenty of movement.
They ran a test batch a while ago and ELO doesnt work for in this scenario. It ended up with 2 larger groups that just kept getting more separated. So basically F2P fall further behind and P2P keep moving forward.
Years ago they also ran tests of a TM overflow system where speed would decide who went first in case of ties. They said it would make turn order too unpredictable - even more unpredictable than the coin flip with no TM overflow.
Sport anologies don't work, don't wanna go on that thread. I don't see how an elo system will work better in this game. Currently there is a qualified (top 80) that restricts whom I can possibly get matched with. On an elo system the more successful I am, the more monstrous rosters what are way beyond mine I will get matched with. They are too hard for me, I'm too easy for them. There is nothing I can do about it besides going kraken and having an all maxed roster. If we are talking about some sense of fairness, current system is infinitely more fair than a such one that has no distinction of active roster quality.
Sounds like we agree on the impact but disagree about what is a fair result. I don't think your rank should be higher than anyone you have zero chance of beating head-to-head. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
So what you want is basically a best roster system where the best of the best has maxed everything.
Look at fivethirtyeight's ELO ratings for NFL. That's a 16 game season and allows for plenty of movement.
They ran a test batch a while ago and ELO doesnt work for in this scenario. It ended up with 2 larger groups that just kept getting more separated. So basically F2P fall further behind and P2P keep moving forward.
Why is that bad? I don't think I belong in the same group as the top guys.
We are talking about rewards, the group of haves pull away from the group of have nots.... that should never be the goal.
If a player can improve their perfomance they should be able to reach the top. In that system what happened was the later group could never make progress on the leading group. That is bad, for many reasons, but one being that newer players are always in the later group.
Also, this sentiment and the other one about people liking the system, make for odd points about what changes should be made.
Just like in a good negotiation, at the end, no one should be happy. The system should be blind, and allow players choices and skills to shine through.
In the end the general improvements that make sense are ones that lead to more even matches (not one for one, but "fair"), anything else more specific than that only helps specific players, and really shouldn't be a goal.
Also we have to keep in mind that all things in this game are designed with the end game in mind, meaning they are balanced and looked at from a perspective that everyone will max things out (whatever that max is at the time)
Every time one of these posts comes up, someone is upset because their roster makeup is punitive to the current MM algorithm. Then a bunch of other people say, "Lol. Feels bad, bro. Build your roster properly for GAC or shut up."
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
On the previous algo the "disincentivizes roster growth" bit was much worse. While still not ideal, this one solved the fluff problem. I don't think most are against any improvement to it, just pointing out one can play optimally understanding the algo. CG has been absent on the matter completely after initial gac roll out.
There is not many good and simple suggestions as a solution out there either. Most people focus on meta vs. no meta matchups which cg won't be willing to do anything about due to obvious reasons (=meta chase is a major income source) and imo shouldn't be changed. The not so simple solutions that is capable of comparing rosters with various parameters, try to come up with one...
The solution is to have a ladder or MMR or ELO ranking system that lasts more than 12 matches. You get matched based on your rank.
Too rigid and undynamic and it won't solve the "problem". You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right away.
I could not disagree more. Not sure how a rating that changes every match is too rigid.
It's quite simple. As previously stated:
You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right
To elaborate:
Player A and B have the same ELO rating by the end of a GA. Player A had a huge amount of gear and relic materials on stock which he then equips on his GAC teams. Player B doesn't upgrade his roster. Players A and B may still be matched in the next GA (matching ELO rating) even though player A supposedly has a significant advantage.
I don't see how an ELO system will eliminate uneven matches. If you do please explain how.
Okay. I understand your point better now. I will cede that you would likely get on a bit of a win streak after unlocking a big meta toon. I would also say that's fine and a much better reward than I got when I unlocked GLR.
Also, just to make sure we're clear, I would eliminate the brackets. Your rating would change every match. So it shouldn't take too long to get back to equilibrium.
Look at fivethirtyeight's ELO ratings for NFL. That's a 16 game season and allows for plenty of movement.
They ran a test batch a while ago and ELO doesnt work for in this scenario. It ended up with 2 larger groups that just kept getting more separated. So basically F2P fall further behind and P2P keep moving forward.
Why is that bad? I don't think I belong in the same group as the top guys.
We are talking about rewards, the group of haves pull away from the group of have nots.... that should never be the goal.
If a player can improve their perfomance they should be able to reach the top. In that system what happened was the later group could never make progress on the leading group. That is bad, for many reasons, but one being that newer players are always in the later group.
Rewards structure can be changed too. Right now, it's quite stress inducing that each loss basically costs me a zeta. I'd much rather have rewards flattened and focused on participation. And give us a meaningful rank for bragging/pride/sense of accomplishment.
I'm not trying to say I have all the answers or even the best ideas. I do strongly believe a shake up could inject some life and enthusiasm back into GAC.
Replies
Aside from being boring, turtling is rarely, if ever, a good strategy.
Thank you. What's fun for one may not be for the other. And I agree, turtling is boring and why I don't do it. The difference between is setting your best on defense without any kind of offense (turtling) and having a solid mixture of both(depth).
If you don't have a GL, and aren't getting one, then just git gud.
Those of you that want different match making and not to be paired vs people that will clearly best you, do you conceed that they should automatically be getting better rewards? Cause that's essentially what you would need to make it "fair" matchmaking...
I don't get it. Why 'update matchmaking please' ? Oo
Does no one else see a problem with that? Did CG intend to create a game mode that disincentivizes roster growth (and therefore perhaps spending)?
I've brought it up a few times. But I've yet to hear a good reason why we have the cur system besides laziness on CG's part. Is this a competitive game mode? If so, give us a MM and ranking system that fosters competition instead of roster development shenanigans. Is it just giving us some content to keep us busy? If so, shift points system more towards participation (maybe, I dunno).
Also, how can people say having 120 G13 to 80 is not an advantage? I've been in @Saada shoes a lot this GAC. I have zero wiggle room whatsoever unless my opponent sets garbage D. And considering the number of different GL comps that can be set on D that require you to keep various counter comps for, which breaks up more teams... I've been in D1 for over a year, and I've never felt stretched as thin as I am now.
On the previous algo the "disincentivizes roster growth" bit was much worse. While still not ideal, this one solved the fluff problem. I don't think most are against any improvement to it, just pointing out one can play optimally understanding the algo. CG has been absent on the matter completely after initial gac roll out.
There is not many good and simple suggestions as a solution out there either. Most people focus on meta vs. no meta matchups which cg won't be willing to do anything about due to obvious reasons (=meta chase is a major income source) and imo shouldn't be changed. The not so simple solutions that is capable of comparing rosters with various parameters, try to come up with one...
Nearly everbody is Division 1 now.
They didnt create a game mode or system or anything that disincentivizes roster growth. They created a game that in every level has always been about intelligent and thoughtful roster development. Resource management and development have always been a key to anything you do.
Even during the TB growth period, many realized that blind GP growth was only needed/good to a certain point. Much of the extra that many did ended up being fluff, and even "hurtful" as new game modes come out, but again that is just the growing pains and thoughtful development can overcome that as well. But the more thoughtful players were during that period the better off they were as they moved forward.
It will always be about planned development, each and every step.
GAC is no different, if you do not develop counters and other "key teams" you will not do better and may even start to do worse as other coming into your level(since you wont move up, if you dont develop) with key teams.
The solution is to have a ladder or MMR or ELO ranking system that lasts more than 12 matches. You get matched based on your rank.
I agree that the current system is better than the original. But, to me, that's like asking which grit of sandpaper I want to be rubbed with.
Too rigid and undynamic and it won't solve the "problem". You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right away.
I could not disagree more. Not sure how a rating that changes every match is too rigid. Especially since the exact parameters of the system can be adjusted to make it as rigid or fluid as desired.
I've seen this speech a 100 times. It's not factually wrong. I'm not disputing the facts. I'm saying that the system sucks and should be improved. I don't have enough data to say whether I'm in the majority or not. But on my guild and arena shards, almost nobody likes the MM or points system we currently have.
Exactly this. I've seen GAC matchups where people were trying to run before they could walk. Dumped a lot into gear for a few top teams and the gear outpaced their ability to get good mods.
They ran a test batch a while ago and ELO doesnt work for in this scenario. It ended up with 2 larger groups that just kept getting more separated. So basically F2P fall further behind and P2P keep moving forward.
Why is that bad? I don't think I belong in the same group as the top guys.
Sounds like we agree on the impact but disagree about what is a fair result. I don't think your rank should be higher than anyone you have zero chance of beating head-to-head. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
It's quite simple. As previously stated:
You may still be matched with players who just made significant improvements (f. Ex. unlocking/gearing the newest GL / META character/team) between two GAs. With the ELO system it won't influence the MM until later. With the current system it will influence MM right
To elaborate:
Player A and B have the same ELO rating by the end of a GA. Player A had a huge amount of gear and relic materials on stock which he then equips on his GAC teams. Player B doesn't upgrade his roster. Players A and B may still be matched in the next GA (matching ELO rating) even though player A supposedly has a significant advantage.
I don't see how an ELO system will eliminate uneven matches. If you do please explain how.
- add more divisions at the top
- set up a proper ELO system
- let the thing run for 1-2 full seasons and see how it goes
I'm very sure the majority of players would find more enjoyment in GAC again.
Years ago they also ran tests of a TM overflow system where speed would decide who went first in case of ties. They said it would make turn order too unpredictable - even more unpredictable than the coin flip with no TM overflow.
How often do NFL teams improve their teams (rosters) with new players during the season?
So what you want is basically a best roster system where the best of the best has maxed everything.
We are talking about rewards, the group of haves pull away from the group of have nots.... that should never be the goal.
If a player can improve their perfomance they should be able to reach the top. In that system what happened was the later group could never make progress on the leading group. That is bad, for many reasons, but one being that newer players are always in the later group.
Also, this sentiment and the other one about people liking the system, make for odd points about what changes should be made.
Just like in a good negotiation, at the end, no one should be happy. The system should be blind, and allow players choices and skills to shine through.
In the end the general improvements that make sense are ones that lead to more even matches (not one for one, but "fair"), anything else more specific than that only helps specific players, and really shouldn't be a goal.
Also we have to keep in mind that all things in this game are designed with the end game in mind, meaning they are balanced and looked at from a perspective that everyone will max things out (whatever that max is at the time)
Okay. I understand your point better now. I will cede that you would likely get on a bit of a win streak after unlocking a big meta toon. I would also say that's fine and a much better reward than I got when I unlocked GLR.
Also, just to make sure we're clear, I would eliminate the brackets. Your rating would change every match. So it shouldn't take too long to get back to equilibrium.
Rewards structure can be changed too. Right now, it's quite stress inducing that each loss basically costs me a zeta. I'd much rather have rewards flattened and focused on participation. And give us a meaningful rank for bragging/pride/sense of accomplishment.
I'm not trying to say I have all the answers or even the best ideas. I do strongly believe a shake up could inject some life and enthusiasm back into GAC.