GAC matchmaking bad with new GL's? Update matchmaking please

Replies

  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

  • I guess the moral to the story is (still): don't level up toons that don't help you in gac, unless you are ok with not complaining about losing in gac

    I'm all for new ideas about matchmaking (except the silly "only gl v gl" stuff), but I have yet to hear of a better way, and I also doubt they would change it now bc too many people have crafted rosters according to those rules. It's like people complaining that they have to take more classes in college than someone who took a bunch of AP courses and levelled out of those classes.

    It is what it is, if you want to succeed, understand the rules and act accordingly. You don't have to like the rules, but if you ignore them then wonder why things aren't going your way, then...
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    That's why we have divisions (and need some more on top of div1), no? So a division 4 player with a very good ELO and 2.75m GP doesn't need to face a div 2 player with a comparable ELO but 4.25m GP.
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • Saada wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Akenno wrote: »
    Hey guys,

    I feel that the GAC matchmaking with ~80 top toons are not good enough once we get the new GL pairs.
    Top 80 would be too low. Some people out there got more than 120 Chars at G13.

    How can a match be fair once every 80 toons are maxed?

    If you only set 40 and only need 40 to attack, then it is fair. that doesn't change if they are maxed out. matchmaking should only be based on what you "should need".
    Akenno wrote: »

    We'd need higher top chars, more divisions and maybe full GP matchmaking.

    What do you think about it?

    more divisions would be good, but no need to change matchmaking past 2x the number of placed toons.

    I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face.....

    If someone has 120 g13 to 80. The person with 80 HAS to win in one shot or he's done (I know you don't have to clear to win but just as an example). The other person can wittle down let's say a kylo, use dr to get rid of the accompanying characters and use cls to finish off kylo whole the person who has 80 doesn't have this luxury and shows that those plus 40 g13 characters are an advantage and won't be included in match making.
    Now that aside.....with the new gls, people could have 3 or 4, 120 g13 and be matched with people who have 80 g13 and 1gl (this is possible with zetas, omegas, relicing to r7 etc). Now that's not a fair match, No matter how you want to spin it. In div 1 I think they should increase the 80 toons that is the base at the moment.
    Not that it's impossible to win since my last match was 88 g13 to 64, 6.6mil to 5.2mil (I know it doesn't matter but just shows depth beyond 80 characters, more mods etc), 2gls to 1 and I got over the line by going ultra defensive which meant I had to use toons outside my 80 and so did my opponents. With the new gls and increased relic'd characters the divide would be too big with the current mm if it stays at 80.

    The person with more g13 to be able to whittle down teams would be an advantage if you weren't penalized greatly for it. Winning with multiple tries isn't a viable strategy. It is better than not clearing but will not deliver the win in most cases. Having a lean top 80 that can set a tough defense and still full clear is much better for GAC.

    If someone that has a good top 80 is matched with someone that has 180 relics, it is still fair. The deciding factors will likely be mods or strategy not having extra teams to try again if you lose.
  • They need to weigh individual characters far more than anything else. Two characters can provide the same amount of GP but are most definitely not the same value. Matchmaking sucks

    That's where your choices come in. You choose which characters to relic. If you choose better characters, you have a better chance of winning. Match making does not and should not correct for players bad decisions.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    And I'm okay with that. Nobody with 1 GL who has been fighting all (or predominantly) opponents with 1 GL deserves to be ranked higher than guys who have been fighting 2 GLs unless they can beat that person head-to-head. And just to be clear, the change I am proposing would make my rank worse, not better. But I'd rather have a merit-based ranking than the **** we have now.
  • Saada wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Akenno wrote: »
    Hey guys,

    I feel that the GAC matchmaking with ~80 top toons are not good enough once we get the new GL pairs.
    Top 80 would be too low. Some people out there got more than 120 Chars at G13.

    How can a match be fair once every 80 toons are maxed?

    If you only set 40 and only need 40 to attack, then it is fair. that doesn't change if they are maxed out. matchmaking should only be based on what you "should need".
    Akenno wrote: »

    We'd need higher top chars, more divisions and maybe full GP matchmaking.

    What do you think about it?

    more divisions would be good, but no need to change matchmaking past 2x the number of placed toons.

    I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face.....

    If someone has 120 g13 to 80. The person with 80 HAS to win in one shot or he's done (I know you don't have to clear to win but just as an example). The other person can wittle down let's say a kylo, use dr to get rid of the accompanying characters and use cls to finish off kylo whole the person who has 80 doesn't have this luxury and shows that those plus 40 g13 characters are an advantage and won't be included in match making.
    Now that aside.....with the new gls, people could have 3 or 4, 120 g13 and be matched with people who have 80 g13 and 1gl (this is possible with zetas, omegas, relicing to r7 etc). Now that's not a fair match, No matter how you want to spin it. In div 1 I think they should increase the 80 toons that is the base at the moment.
    Not that it's impossible to win since my last match was 88 g13 to 64, 6.6mil to 5.2mil (I know it doesn't matter but just shows depth beyond 80 characters, more mods etc), 2gls to 1 and I got over the line by going ultra defensive which meant I had to use toons outside my 80 and so did my opponents. With the new gls and increased relic'd characters the divide would be too big with the current mm if it stays at 80.

    I disagree with your premise and conclusion. 80 characters is appropriate as it stands now. If you don't want bad characters included in your MM, make better roster choices.

    Also, while it is likely the 120 g13 roster will beat the 80 g13 roster, this is not a guarantee, and is not necessarily a bad matchup. There is so much more to consider, but the top 80 is way better than whatever it was before. It is not perfect, but in my experience it does a pretty good job.

    That's silly. If you have 80 relicd characters, it doesn't matter about your choices even if you've chosen all meta characters besides the upcoming gls. If your not a huge whale or kraken who go on to get the next two gls straight away, you could be matched 120 to 80 and 4 gl to 2. Now roster choices can't change that if that's what your roster is now.....

    Also now is ok even when it's 80 to 120 but with the new gls it's going to be near impossible. People always relate to the "new meta" everyone always complains about but with 4 characters susupposedly on the same footing creating 4 meta teams at once is going to be a joke if you are matched 4gls to 1 or 2. It's like before going against a guy who has gas when he first came out and you dont but this time he has 2 or 3 gas squads to your none and are expected to have a chance of winning.

    I think you are working within a very selective situation, which is fine, but is not reality.

    you are talking about a scenario that could happen but would only have a very limited window of appearance and take a very particular set of players.

    yes if the 120 was able to get the 2 new GLs in a very short period of time and the 80 didn't do anything in that same period of time, then this situation starts to line up. but since there is a period of time that things take place in, it is unlikely that the 80 player would just be standing still while the 120 player built up 2 new teams with the new GLs.

    you also assume that there would be no counter teams, and that the 80 player wouldn't be able to build those counter teams from the 80 he already has. you also need to keep in mind that the 120 didn't get to place any more teams than he did previously, so he will be removing teams to replace them with new teams, which means counters are freed up. which is why basing this on the 2x number of placed toons is a good base theory for matchmaking numbers. expanding that out past that starts to hurt the 80 player as they could have mistakes or bad choices they have been working around to develop past and now they are counted against them.

    It's not that selective. I'm on 64 have kylo and no rey, chasing jkl then luke. I'll probably hit close 80 before I get luke which means I'll be in that selective group. I won't be standing still but working towards those gls means I'll slide into that situation without anything I can do about it.

    As for the not being able to set more teams is irrelevant. On the 70 we are using at the moment, He'll just set up 4 gls on defence plus droids, padme and bh. Keep strong offensive squads and counters for attack and be able to use his relicd depth to either clear me if I go defensive (where I'd probably not clear a sector with the new gls) or if I go offensive, I won't be able to mix and match squads for counters nor have enough depth on defence to win anyway.

    I am not saying increase for all divs. Even if it was just an increase for those over 6mil/div 1 only or forget about that and chuck in more divisions or maybe leagues.
    But I'll revisit this when the situation arrives

    A new division would correct this better than adjusting matchmaking. I would imagine anyone that gets both new GLs and already have the current 2 would be pushing 8 mil gp. My 4.8 mil gp roster isn't comparable to that so they do need to split div 1 a bit.

    The matchmaking already keeps me from facing them anyway so there's no reason not to create a 7 mil go and up div that has matchmaking based on the top 100 to 120 characters and requires two to four more defensive teams.
  • Saada wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Akenno wrote: »
    Hey guys,

    I feel that the GAC matchmaking with ~80 top toons are not good enough once we get the new GL pairs.
    Top 80 would be too low. Some people out there got more than 120 Chars at G13.

    How can a match be fair once every 80 toons are maxed?

    If you only set 40 and only need 40 to attack, then it is fair. that doesn't change if they are maxed out. matchmaking should only be based on what you "should need".
    Akenno wrote: »

    We'd need higher top chars, more divisions and maybe full GP matchmaking.

    What do you think about it?

    more divisions would be good, but no need to change matchmaking past 2x the number of placed toons.

    I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face.....

    If someone has 120 g13 to 80. The person with 80 HAS to win in one shot or he's done (I know you don't have to clear to win but just as an example). The other person can wittle down let's say a kylo, use dr to get rid of the accompanying characters and use cls to finish off kylo whole the person who has 80 doesn't have this luxury and shows that those plus 40 g13 characters are an advantage and won't be included in match making.
    Now that aside.....with the new gls, people could have 3 or 4, 120 g13 and be matched with people who have 80 g13 and 1gl (this is possible with zetas, omegas, relicing to r7 etc). Now that's not a fair match, No matter how you want to spin it. In div 1 I think they should increase the 80 toons that is the base at the moment.
    Not that it's impossible to win since my last match was 88 g13 to 64, 6.6mil to 5.2mil (I know it doesn't matter but just shows depth beyond 80 characters, more mods etc), 2gls to 1 and I got over the line by going ultra defensive which meant I had to use toons outside my 80 and so did my opponents. With the new gls and increased relic'd characters the divide would be too big with the current mm if it stays at 80.

    I disagree with your premise and conclusion. 80 characters is appropriate as it stands now. If you don't want bad characters included in your MM, make better roster choices.

    Also, while it is likely the 120 g13 roster will beat the 80 g13 roster, this is not a guarantee, and is not necessarily a bad matchup. There is so much more to consider, but the top 80 is way better than whatever it was before. It is not perfect, but in my experience it does a pretty good job.

    That's silly. If you have 80 relicd characters, it doesn't matter about your choices even if you've chosen all meta characters besides the upcoming gls. If your not a huge whale or kraken who go on to get the next two gls straight away, you could be matched 120 to 80 and 4 gl to 2. Now roster choices can't change that if that's what your roster is now.....

    Also now is ok even when it's 80 to 120 but with the new gls it's going to be near impossible. People always relate to the "new meta" everyone always complains about but with 4 characters susupposedly on the same footing creating 4 meta teams at once is going to be a joke if you are matched 4gls to 1 or 2. It's like before going against a guy who has gas when he first came out and you dont but this time he has 2 or 3 gas squads to your none and are expected to have a chance of winning.

    Why is 4 gl to 2 gl a problem? I guess you are in the camp of "I have no malak, I get matched with malak". No gl and 80+ relics isn't a thing, if there's such a player in abundance of resources, they should ask themselves why they have no gl. Also relics doesn't mean equal or similar gp either. Managing relic tiers goes a long way to get favorable matchups. GLs are gp monsters. I'm en route to pushing some of the relic 3s out of my top 80.

    This is not to say I don't think matchmaking can be improved. But it should never go in the way where meta toons are tried to be fit 1:1, all of these already add their gp which significantly effects matchmaking.

    Read what I said about people talking about just a "new meta" which is just what you did....
    I explained the difference since its not a you have malak and I have none situation with gls or is it you have 501st and I have none. It's more like you have 4 501st squads and I have one since there is going to be 4 meta squads bouncing around that will require breaking apart way to many squads to counter especially if you are down 80 g13 to 100+. If it comes out that a rebel squad can take down palp with thrawn then there is no issue but I don't think that's going to be the case...

    I'm pretty sure that GLs have significantly higher gp when maxed than most toons. So if an opponent has 4, it would be unlikely to match you against them if you have one or none.
  • Saada wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Akenno wrote: »
    Hey guys,

    I feel that the GAC matchmaking with ~80 top toons are not good enough once we get the new GL pairs.
    Top 80 would be too low. Some people out there got more than 120 Chars at G13.

    How can a match be fair once every 80 toons are maxed?

    If you only set 40 and only need 40 to attack, then it is fair. that doesn't change if they are maxed out. matchmaking should only be based on what you "should need".
    Akenno wrote: »

    We'd need higher top chars, more divisions and maybe full GP matchmaking.

    What do you think about it?

    more divisions would be good, but no need to change matchmaking past 2x the number of placed toons.

    I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face.....

    If someone has 120 g13 to 80. The person with 80 HAS to win in one shot or he's done (I know you don't have to clear to win but just as an example). The other person can wittle down let's say a kylo, use dr to get rid of the accompanying characters and use cls to finish off kylo whole the person who has 80 doesn't have this luxury and shows that those plus 40 g13 characters are an advantage and won't be included in match making.
    Now that aside.....with the new gls, people could have 3 or 4, 120 g13 and be matched with people who have 80 g13 and 1gl (this is possible with zetas, omegas, relicing to r7 etc). Now that's not a fair match, No matter how you want to spin it. In div 1 I think they should increase the 80 toons that is the base at the moment.
    Not that it's impossible to win since my last match was 88 g13 to 64, 6.6mil to 5.2mil (I know it doesn't matter but just shows depth beyond 80 characters, more mods etc), 2gls to 1 and I got over the line by going ultra defensive which meant I had to use toons outside my 80 and so did my opponents. With the new gls and increased relic'd characters the divide would be too big with the current mm if it stays at 80.

    I disagree with your premise and conclusion. 80 characters is appropriate as it stands now. If you don't want bad characters included in your MM, make better roster choices.

    Also, while it is likely the 120 g13 roster will beat the 80 g13 roster, this is not a guarantee, and is not necessarily a bad matchup. There is so much more to consider, but the top 80 is way better than whatever it was before. It is not perfect, but in my experience it does a pretty good job.

    That's silly. If you have 80 relicd characters, it doesn't matter about your choices even if you've chosen all meta characters besides the upcoming gls. If your not a huge whale or kraken who go on to get the next two gls straight away, you could be matched 120 to 80 and 4 gl to 2. Now roster choices can't change that if that's what your roster is now.....

    Also now is ok even when it's 80 to 120 but with the new gls it's going to be near impossible. People always relate to the "new meta" everyone always complains about but with 4 characters susupposedly on the same footing creating 4 meta teams at once is going to be a joke if you are matched 4gls to 1 or 2. It's like before going against a guy who has gas when he first came out and you dont but this time he has 2 or 3 gas squads to your none and are expected to have a chance of winning.

    Why is 4 gl to 2 gl a problem? I guess you are in the camp of "I have no malak, I get matched with malak". No gl and 80+ relics isn't a thing, if there's such a player in abundance of resources, they should ask themselves why they have no gl. Also relics doesn't mean equal or similar gp either. Managing relic tiers goes a long way to get favorable matchups. GLs are gp monsters. I'm en route to pushing some of the relic 3s out of my top 80.

    This is not to say I don't think matchmaking can be improved. But it should never go in the way where meta toons are tried to be fit 1:1, all of these already add their gp which significantly effects matchmaking.

    Read what I said about people talking about just a "new meta" which is just what you did....
    I explained the difference since its not a you have malak and I have none situation with gls or is it you have 501st and I have none. It's more like you have 4 501st squads and I have one since there is going to be 4 meta squads bouncing around that will require breaking apart way to many squads to counter especially if you are down 80 g13 to 100+. If it comes out that a rebel squad can take down palp with thrawn then there is no issue but I don't think that's going to be the case...

    I think I already answered that on principle. How are you getting matched with a 4 gl player with your 1 gl while their top most part of the roster drives their top 80 gp like crazy? The gp difference will be significant unless you are r6-7ing unnecessary portions of your top 80.

    We can go off of current cases, I sometimes get matched with 2gls to my 1 (and won against one such player last round). Since I curate my top 80 this is not the norm. Everything in my top 80 is g12+ being a veteran and all. On all the 3 cases this happened to me I found out their top 80s drop to g11s at the bottom of the 80. They are probably much newer players who never drove their g12 count up and immediately went for the cream of the crop meta teams of last 2 years.

    This give and take equilibrium makes sense to me. I don't see the 4:1 hypothetical case happening unless the 1gl player is sabotaging themselves even though they know how current mm works and bloat their top 80 with relic extremities.

    New divs+new slots should completely change this equation hopefully and you'll even be in an advantegous spot with slimmer top X bottom.

    Read what I said about my "64 relic characters chasing jkl then luke" to kyno cause I can't be bothered writing it all again.
    I could definitely be matched 4 to 1 without "sabotaging" myself (again explained in that post. Zetas and going to r7 can make up the difference of someone who has 4 gl to 1. There was no way of knowing who the next batch of gls were going to be. I have my bh well prepared and if now they decided to drop a bh gl then they're not a waste but they instead drop palp for example that needs lots of empire toons that I don't have relicd or geared. Would I love to switch my bh for those characters for palp... Yep. But I'm stuck with them cause I had no idea what they were going to release.

    It just sounds like you're preemptively complaining about unfair matchmaking that hasn't happened. You have one gl as you stated. Getting matched with someone with two is the same as getting matched against any new meta character you don't have. It sucks but isn't unfair.

    Getting matched against four GLs is hypothetical at this point since the new GLs aren't even out yet.

    Hopefully they add divisions since it is needed at this point anyway. That would likely prevent any issues. And they may be planning on doing just that. Who knows.

    But I still think you are unlikely to be matched 4 gls to 1 even under the current system.
  • Nobody with 1 GL who has been fighting all (or predominantly) opponents with 1 GL deserves to be ranked higher than guys who have been fighting 2 GLs unless they can beat that person head-to-head.

    Depends on your definition of merit. It's a strategy game, so if the best strategist manage to put him/herself in a position when he has easy battles, I'm ok with that. That's the whole point of strategy, starting the battle flanking your opponent 10 to 1. As long as everyone has access to the same resources (like resources used to equip top 80 characters in this case), it's fair game imo.
    If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the better tactician deserves to be ranked higher, because he/she won more challenging match ups versus stronger opponents. It's a perfectly fair way to view GAC imo, but it doesn't mean that the actual way, which rewards strategy (even if tactics also plays a part), is unfair. It's just different.
    Maybe I didn't understand you correctly and you mean that the players able to beat the strongest opponents, whatever his/her GP may be, deserves to be ranked higher. In this case I would disagree, because it would rewards those having access to the most resources (time and/or money and/or friends (guilds)) and not the ones using resources with efficiency.
    Or maybe you meant something else entirely, then sorry for paraphrasing and please explain again ^^
  • Legend91 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    That's why we have divisions (and need some more on top of div1), no? So a division 4 player with a very good ELO and 2.75m GP doesn't need to face a div 2 player with a comparable ELO but 4.25m GP.

    They made the new mm mostly to solve the fluff problem. Divisions are made with total gp. When the current mm is lifted, any fluffed bottom roster gets the previous disadvantage/unevenness back.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    Legend91 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    That's why we have divisions (and need some more on top of div1), no? So a division 4 player with a very good ELO and 2.75m GP doesn't need to face a div 2 player with a comparable ELO but 4.25m GP.

    They made the new mm mostly to solve the fluff problem. Divisions are made with total gp. When the current mm is lifted, any fluffed bottom roster gets the previous disadvantage/unevenness back.

    No, because an ELO system would take care of that. Someone wants to have fun and not chase every new meta but instead gear up his Jawas and Ewoks? Sure, he'll get horribly beaten in the first weeks when everyone starts in the same ELO range and it'll probably take a while to sort itself (1-2 full seasons maybe) but eventually he'll get opponents that have a similar "fluffed up" roster (filled with C-D teams) and GAC "success" because of their low ELO.
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • Saada wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Saada wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Akenno wrote: »
    Hey guys,

    I feel that the GAC matchmaking with ~80 top toons are not good enough once we get the new GL pairs.
    Top 80 would be too low. Some people out there got more than 120 Chars at G13.

    How can a match be fair once every 80 toons are maxed?

    If you only set 40 and only need 40 to attack, then it is fair. that doesn't change if they are maxed out. matchmaking should only be based on what you "should need".
    Akenno wrote: »

    We'd need higher top chars, more divisions and maybe full GP matchmaking.

    What do you think about it?

    more divisions would be good, but no need to change matchmaking past 2x the number of placed toons.

    I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face.....

    If someone has 120 g13 to 80. The person with 80 HAS to win in one shot or he's done (I know you don't have to clear to win but just as an example). The other person can wittle down let's say a kylo, use dr to get rid of the accompanying characters and use cls to finish off kylo whole the person who has 80 doesn't have this luxury and shows that those plus 40 g13 characters are an advantage and won't be included in match making.
    Now that aside.....with the new gls, people could have 3 or 4, 120 g13 and be matched with people who have 80 g13 and 1gl (this is possible with zetas, omegas, relicing to r7 etc). Now that's not a fair match, No matter how you want to spin it. In div 1 I think they should increase the 80 toons that is the base at the moment.
    Not that it's impossible to win since my last match was 88 g13 to 64, 6.6mil to 5.2mil (I know it doesn't matter but just shows depth beyond 80 characters, more mods etc), 2gls to 1 and I got over the line by going ultra defensive which meant I had to use toons outside my 80 and so did my opponents. With the new gls and increased relic'd characters the divide would be too big with the current mm if it stays at 80.

    I disagree with your premise and conclusion. 80 characters is appropriate as it stands now. If you don't want bad characters included in your MM, make better roster choices.

    Also, while it is likely the 120 g13 roster will beat the 80 g13 roster, this is not a guarantee, and is not necessarily a bad matchup. There is so much more to consider, but the top 80 is way better than whatever it was before. It is not perfect, but in my experience it does a pretty good job.

    That's silly. If you have 80 relicd characters, it doesn't matter about your choices even if you've chosen all meta characters besides the upcoming gls. If your not a huge whale or kraken who go on to get the next two gls straight away, you could be matched 120 to 80 and 4 gl to 2. Now roster choices can't change that if that's what your roster is now.....

    Also now is ok even when it's 80 to 120 but with the new gls it's going to be near impossible. People always relate to the "new meta" everyone always complains about but with 4 characters susupposedly on the same footing creating 4 meta teams at once is going to be a joke if you are matched 4gls to 1 or 2. It's like before going against a guy who has gas when he first came out and you dont but this time he has 2 or 3 gas squads to your none and are expected to have a chance of winning.

    Why is 4 gl to 2 gl a problem? I guess you are in the camp of "I have no malak, I get matched with malak". No gl and 80+ relics isn't a thing, if there's such a player in abundance of resources, they should ask themselves why they have no gl. Also relics doesn't mean equal or similar gp either. Managing relic tiers goes a long way to get favorable matchups. GLs are gp monsters. I'm en route to pushing some of the relic 3s out of my top 80.

    This is not to say I don't think matchmaking can be improved. But it should never go in the way where meta toons are tried to be fit 1:1, all of these already add their gp which significantly effects matchmaking.

    Read what I said about people talking about just a "new meta" which is just what you did....
    I explained the difference since its not a you have malak and I have none situation with gls or is it you have 501st and I have none. It's more like you have 4 501st squads and I have one since there is going to be 4 meta squads bouncing around that will require breaking apart way to many squads to counter especially if you are down 80 g13 to 100+. If it comes out that a rebel squad can take down palp with thrawn then there is no issue but I don't think that's going to be the case...

    I'm pretty sure that GLs have significantly higher gp when maxed than most toons. So if an opponent has 4, it would be unlikely to match you against them if you have one or none.

    While extreme gp of gls and the extra 10k that comes from ulti pushes them apart, to be fair saada has too many high relics which makes it pretty likely for him to get matched with a more reservedly reliced roster with more gls.
  • GAC matchmaking should simply be winner moves up, loser moves down the ladder. Eventually we will find out who is the best.
  • Legend91 wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Legend91 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    That's why we have divisions (and need some more on top of div1), no? So a division 4 player with a very good ELO and 2.75m GP doesn't need to face a div 2 player with a comparable ELO but 4.25m GP.

    They made the new mm mostly to solve the fluff problem. Divisions are made with total gp. When the current mm is lifted, any fluffed bottom roster gets the previous disadvantage/unevenness back.

    No, because an ELO system would take care of that. Someone wants to have fun and not chase every new meta but instead gear up his Jawas and Ewoks? Sure, he'll get horribly beaten in the first weeks when everyone starts in the same ELO range and it'll probably take a while to sort itself (1-2 full seasons maybe) but eventually he'll get opponents that have a similar "fluffed up" roster (filled with C-D teams) and GAC "success" because of their low ELO.

    I can't agree less. This is the very same discussion made countless times when the problem was there in GA times. Fluffed bottom in no way means worse choices or worse functional fighting power where it matters. While the fluff will push those players up higher divisions, no additional qualifier besides success will push their success low in those divisions. It's back to lean is the best times.

    You can advocate this all you want, but since cg saw eye to eye why this is a problem, it won't come back.
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    1772 posts Member
    edited September 2020
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Nobody with 1 GL who has been fighting all (or predominantly) opponents with 1 GL deserves to be ranked higher than guys who have been fighting 2 GLs unless they can beat that person head-to-head.

    Depends on your definition of merit. It's a strategy game, so if the best strategist manage to put him/herself in a position when he has easy battles, I'm ok with that. That's the whole point of strategy, starting the battle flanking your opponent 10 to 1. As long as everyone has access to the same resources (like resources used to equip top 80 characters in this case), it's fair game imo.
    If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the better tactician deserves to be ranked higher, because he/she won more challenging match ups versus stronger opponents. It's a perfectly fair way to view GAC imo, but it doesn't mean that the actual way, which rewards strategy (even if tactics also plays a part), is unfair. It's just different.
    Maybe I didn't understand you correctly and you mean that the players able to beat the strongest opponents, whatever his/her GP may be, deserves to be ranked higher. In this case I would disagree, because it would rewards those having access to the most resources (time and/or money and/or friends (guilds)) and not the ones using resources with efficiency.
    Or maybe you meant something else entirely, then sorry for paraphrasing and please explain again ^^

    To put it simply, I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. So I guess that's a combination of roster strength and skill. I don't really care what system gets us there. I think the system we have now gets us nowhere near this. I proposed 3 (MMR, ELO, ladder) that I am somewhat familiar with that I think would do a better job.

    I do sympathize with the guy with 3.5M GP who is really good at the game and crushing his similarly-powered opponents with superior strategy. I used to be that guy. And based on my personal experience, mastering the JKR or DR meta was a lot easier than the current GL metas.
  • Going off the ideas here, a better system would be a looser top x matchmaking+an elo system. Currently top x gets matched very tightly (like 15k gp differences at most), if this had a larger threshold like 100-200k top x difference, elo qualifier would have enough room to play with.

    Of course more divisions, better rewards for new divisions and more slots for new divisions are seperate but something most of us can agree on besides any other changes.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Legend91 wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    That's why we have divisions (and need some more on top of div1), no? So a division 4 player with a very good ELO and 2.75m GP doesn't need to face a div 2 player with a comparable ELO but 4.25m GP.

    We have divisions now, yes. Did you read Ragnarok's suggestion? Did you understand it? With his system players with 3M GP and players with 9M GP would be grouped together (ie. no divisions).
  • I did say you wouldn't need divisions for matchmaking. But, given that the number of squads placed changes with division, I suppose you would need some.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    And I'm okay with that.

    So you agree that top ranks would dominated by high GP rosters. Cool :-)
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    GAC matchmaking should simply be winner moves up, loser moves down the ladder. Eventually we will find out who is the best.

    I like that ranks are reset after every 4th GA. Makes it a more dynamic system.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    Ignoring GP will lead to higher GP rosters rather than better players dominating the top ranks.

    So you are complaining about a system where more powerful rosters have an advantage and proposing to replace it with a system which amplifies that situation.

    I've beaten plenty of guys with 500k GP on me and lost to plenty with less GP than me. I want people ranked in a manner consistent with how they would fare in head-to-head matches. Period. Not the current system where much of the top 50 would lose to plenty of people who didn't even make Kyber.
    500k GP isn't a big deal in division 1 but in division 5 it's a big difference and a new entrant to division 1 with 4.5m GP has no chance against a top end roster with 9m+ GP.

    Higher GP does not equal better player.

    The only way those 2 players get matched is if they have similar MMR (ELO, whatever). The only way that happens is if they're beating and losing to similar opponents. If that's the case, I see no reason not to match them up.
    So in your proposed system, the higher ranks are dominated by higher GP rosters and lower GP rosters are locked out regardless of player skill.

    You probably wouldn't see many 3 or 4M guys near the top. But I dont see why a highly skilled 5 or 6M player with a super focused roster couldn't beat an average skilled 9M player.

    At the start of this thread, people were telling OP how being down 500k in GP or 20 G13 toons wasn't a big deal because "only the top 80 matter." 80 maxed toons is like 2.5-2.75M GP.

    Exactly. All those unused characters don't matter. However, still the top ranks will be dominated by high GP rosters (with high GP well built top-X characters). Many of those low GP rosters you currently see at the top of Kyber league also have weak top-X characters (compared to other high GP high ranking players). With an ELO system those rosters won't stand a chance to reach top ranks. I doubt you would see many 5k GP rosters in top ranks.

    And I'm okay with that.

    So you agree that top ranks would dominated by high GP rosters. Cool :-)

    Yes. I joined this conversation by sympathizing with OP that it is tough when your opponent has 500k GP on you.
  • GAC matchmaking should simply be winner moves up, loser moves down the ladder. Eventually we will find out who is the best.
    No, you would just find out who has the most GP.
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    1772 posts Member
    edited September 2020
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    GAC matchmaking should simply be winner moves up, loser moves down the ladder. Eventually we will find out who is the best.
    No, you would just find out who has the most GP.

    So you've never beaten anyone with more GP than you? And you've never lost to someone with less GP than you?
Sign In or Register to comment.