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

Replies

  • 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?

    Never got beaten or have beaten by someone with 100k more or less effective gp than me, cause I never get matched with them.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    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?

    Never got beaten or have beaten by someone with 100k more or less effective gp than me, cause I never get matched with them.

    I don't believe you. I have gotten matched with people with 1m more gp then me.
  • He said "effective GP", so I assume he means Top 80. So while correct, a bit of a non sequitur. That or I misunderstood the post I was replying to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Effective gp is a meaningless distinction. If cg said they were only considering top 60 gp, people would claim only top 60 matters. There is nothing limiting people to only use specific characters in gac.
  • He said "effective GP", so I assume he means Top 80. So while correct, a bit of a non sequitur. That or I misunderstood the post I was replying to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Correct. Thus underlining the benefit of current system, while denying the importance of total gp and any system that only derives from it.
  • TVF
    25694 posts Member
    Forget GLs, it's even more unfair if they have a Jeff and you don't.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    26087 posts Moderator
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Effective gp is a meaningless distinction. If cg said they were only considering top 60 gp, people would claim only top 60 matters. There is nothing limiting people to only use specific characters in gac.

    they match based on 2x the number of defensive toons that can be placed. They do match people on 60 in the divisions that place less defensive units.

    it is in no way meaningless. its actually the key thing that players have to use when building an effective GAC roster.

    correct nothing is limiting which characters are used, but there is a effective range of the number used, which is based on winning with clean matches, and other factors.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Effective gp is a meaningless distinction. If cg said they were only considering top 60 gp, people would claim only top 60 matters. There is nothing limiting people to only use specific characters in gac.

    That's already the case, that's why most call it top X instead of top 80 and goes down from there depending on division. I'm pretty sure if cg adds new slots without changing mm system, they'll simply keep multiplying it with number of slots making it top 90, top 100 for new divisions etc.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Effective gp is a meaningless distinction. If cg said they were only considering top 60 gp, people would claim only top 60 matters. There is nothing limiting people to only use specific characters in gac.
    It is a far better measure of resources likely to be used in a match than full roster GP was.
  • It's great and refreshing to see a good thought out discussion on the MM system guys. I think we all can agree the current system is indeed better but can still use some refining here and there. I understand each sides argument and I think if they could just revamp the GP system to be more aligned with where the game is now versus where it was in the beginning. This week was one of the more challenging GAC's I've come across and is EXACTLY what I was looking forward to. Winning every match isn't fun and losing every match isn't fun either. Have to find that happy middle ground and they are close to it now.ise86p2ofxpo.png
    atdamxoh5ojg.jpeg
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Effective gp is a meaningless distinction. If cg said they were only considering top 60 gp, people would claim only top 60 matters. There is nothing limiting people to only use specific characters in gac.
    It is a far better measure of resources likely to be used in a match than full roster GP was.

    This is true. I feel like we've veered off the rails though. I don't recall anyone suggesting we revert to using full roster GP for matchmaking purposes.
  • 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?
    I have done both but the ability to bewt an opponent with a usable GP advantage is not unlimited and it you are considering two equally skilled players with significantly different usable GP, the player with the higher GP will be the clear favorite, if not the clear winner.

    If you are talking about matching on rank rather than GP then higher GP rosters will rise to the top ranks and lower GP rosters will be suppressed. It is a system which ranks GP over skill.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    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?
    I have done both but the ability to bewt an opponent with a usable GP advantage is not unlimited and it you are considering two equally skilled players with significantly different usable GP, the player with the higher GP will be the clear favorite, if not the clear winner.

    If you are talking about matching on rank rather than GP then higher GP rosters will rise to the top ranks and lower GP rosters will be suppressed. It is a system which ranks GP over skill.

    Yup. Compared to what we have now (seriously, go look at the roster on #1), that sounds great to me. If you're a highly skilled player, your GP will be lower than those with similar rank. If you're a bad player but whale a lot, your GP will be higher than those with similar rank. If you're skilled and have a monster roster, you'll go to the top. Is that bad?
  • It's great and refreshing to see a good thought out discussion on the MM system guys. I think we all can agree the current system is indeed better but can still use some refining here and there. I understand each sides argument and I think if they could just revamp the GP system to be more aligned with where the game is now versus where it was in the beginning. This week was one of the more challenging GAC's I've come across and is EXACTLY what I was looking forward to. Winning every match isn't fun and losing every match isn't fun either. Have to find that happy middle ground and they are close to it now.ise86p2ofxpo.png
    atdamxoh5ojg.jpeg

    Wow.

    I'm not even mad,just impressed.

    I'm 5mil gp,haven't faced anyone less than 5.5mil gp,just finished 12-0. But I have 2 GL and have faced more 0 GL than 2 GL (0)
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    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?
    I have done both but the ability to bewt an opponent with a usable GP advantage is not unlimited and it you are considering two equally skilled players with significantly different usable GP, the player with the higher GP will be the clear favorite, if not the clear winner.

    If you are talking about matching on rank rather than GP then higher GP rosters will rise to the top ranks and lower GP rosters will be suppressed. It is a system which ranks GP over skill.

    Yup. Compared to what we have now (seriously, go look at the roster on #1), that sounds great to me. If you're a highly skilled player, your GP will be lower than those with similar rank. If you're a bad player but whale a lot, your GP will be higher than those with similar rank. If you're skilled and have a monster roster, you'll go to the top. Is that bad?
    I assume you are talking about the top of division 1 since people tend to ignore the lower divisions in these discussions. And as I have said repeatedly, locking lower GP rosters out of the top ranks merely leaves you with a championship which measures GP. Might as well rename it Whale Arena Championships. And yes, that is bad.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    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?
    I have done both but the ability to bewt an opponent with a usable GP advantage is not unlimited and it you are considering two equally skilled players with significantly different usable GP, the player with the higher GP will be the clear favorite, if not the clear winner.

    If you are talking about matching on rank rather than GP then higher GP rosters will rise to the top ranks and lower GP rosters will be suppressed. It is a system which ranks GP over skill.

    Yup. Compared to what we have now (seriously, go look at the roster on #1), that sounds great to me. If you're a highly skilled player, your GP will be lower than those with similar rank. If you're a bad player but whale a lot, your GP will be higher than those with similar rank. If you're skilled and have a monster roster, you'll go to the top. Is that bad?
    I assume you are talking about the top of division 1 since people tend to ignore the lower divisions in these discussions. And as I have said repeatedly, locking lower GP rosters out of the top ranks merely leaves you with a championship which measures GP. Might as well rename it Whale Arena Championships. And yes, that is bad.

    You are only half right. Yes, the top would be high Top 80 GP accounts. But I'm sure there are plenty of 6M ballers that could beat some of the 7M and 8M guys. Right now, those are the guys facing the toughest opposition. And it's a lot harder to get great scores when your opponent can afford to set a decent defense. Those guys are getting screwed in the current ranking system.

    My opinion. Someone who hasn't faced and beaten a single double GL account does not deserve to be top 100 (much less top 10) until they do.

    If you think this player's victories warrant crowning him the D1 champ, then we are not going to find common ground on how players should be ranked.
    https://swgoh.gg/p/887416736/gac-history/
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    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?
    I have done both but the ability to bewt an opponent with a usable GP advantage is not unlimited and it you are considering two equally skilled players with significantly different usable GP, the player with the higher GP will be the clear favorite, if not the clear winner.

    If you are talking about matching on rank rather than GP then higher GP rosters will rise to the top ranks and lower GP rosters will be suppressed. It is a system which ranks GP over skill.

    Yup. Compared to what we have now (seriously, go look at the roster on #1), that sounds great to me. If you're a highly skilled player, your GP will be lower than those with similar rank. If you're a bad player but whale a lot, your GP will be higher than those with similar rank. If you're skilled and have a monster roster, you'll go to the top. Is that bad?
    I assume you are talking about the top of division 1 since people tend to ignore the lower divisions in these discussions. And as I have said repeatedly, locking lower GP rosters out of the top ranks merely leaves you with a championship which measures GP. Might as well rename it Whale Arena Championships. And yes, that is bad.

    You are only half right. Yes, the top would be high Top 80 GP accounts. But I'm sure there are plenty of 6M ballers that could beat some of the 7M and 8M guys. Right now, those are the guys facing the toughest opposition. And it's a lot harder to get great scores when your opponent can afford to set a decent defense. Those guys are getting screwed in the current ranking system.

    My opinion. Someone who hasn't faced and beaten a single double GL account does not deserve to be top 100 (much less top 10) until they do.

    If you think this player's victories warrant crowning him the D1 champ, then we are not going to find common ground on how players should be ranked.
    https://swgoh.gg/p/887416736/gac-history/

    Your example is a player that's top only due to lack of any top divisions (which majority agrees on are needed). If there were 3 more, he deserves to be the top dog of div 4.

    Can't say I get the 6m underdog facing 7-8m example. Are you saying it should happen or it's happening and 6m-er is at a bad state due to this?
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    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?
    I have done both but the ability to bewt an opponent with a usable GP advantage is not unlimited and it you are considering two equally skilled players with significantly different usable GP, the player with the higher GP will be the clear favorite, if not the clear winner.

    If you are talking about matching on rank rather than GP then higher GP rosters will rise to the top ranks and lower GP rosters will be suppressed. It is a system which ranks GP over skill.

    Yup. Compared to what we have now (seriously, go look at the roster on #1), that sounds great to me. If you're a highly skilled player, your GP will be lower than those with similar rank. If you're a bad player but whale a lot, your GP will be higher than those with similar rank. If you're skilled and have a monster roster, you'll go to the top. Is that bad?
    I assume you are talking about the top of division 1 since people tend to ignore the lower divisions in these discussions. And as I have said repeatedly, locking lower GP rosters out of the top ranks merely leaves you with a championship which measures GP. Might as well rename it Whale Arena Championships. And yes, that is bad.

    You are only half right. Yes, the top would be high Top 80 GP accounts. But I'm sure there are plenty of 6M ballers that could beat some of the 7M and 8M guys. Right now, those are the guys facing the toughest opposition. And it's a lot harder to get great scores when your opponent can afford to set a decent defense. Those guys are getting screwed in the current ranking system.

    My opinion. Someone who hasn't faced and beaten a single double GL account does not deserve to be top 100 (much less top 10) until they do.

    If you think this player's victories warrant crowning him the D1 champ, then we are not going to find common ground on how players should be ranked.
    https://swgoh.gg/p/887416736/gac-history/

    Your example is a player that's top only due to lack of any top divisions (which majority agrees on are needed). If there were 3 more, he deserves to be the top dog of div 4.

    Can't say I get the 6m underdog facing 7-8m example. Are you saying it should happen or it's happening and 6m-er is at a bad state due to this?

    I agree that more divisions would help a lot.

    Regarding 6 vs 7/8. I'm saying if ranking was based on head-to-head performance (MMR, ELO, ladder, etc) that there would be no reason to check GP for matchmaking. You'd simply get matched with someone within some range of your rating. And in that system, a highly skilled 6M player would sometimes get matched against a 7/8M player. And because their ratings are similar, it should usually be a reasonably close match.
  • RandomSithLord
    1894 posts Member
    edited September 22
    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.
    That's not entirely accurate. In theory, a well-developed ~6.5m GP could beat anyone upwards, as long as they have both GLs and proper counters.

    Somehow a player like that being rank 1 in division 1 seems more accurrate than the current champion (not even the first time) with like 15 g13 who has never seen a single GL before.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    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?
    I have done both but the ability to bewt an opponent with a usable GP advantage is not unlimited and it you are considering two equally skilled players with significantly different usable GP, the player with the higher GP will be the clear favorite, if not the clear winner.

    If you are talking about matching on rank rather than GP then higher GP rosters will rise to the top ranks and lower GP rosters will be suppressed. It is a system which ranks GP over skill.

    Yup. Compared to what we have now (seriously, go look at the roster on #1), that sounds great to me. If you're a highly skilled player, your GP will be lower than those with similar rank. If you're a bad player but whale a lot, your GP will be higher than those with similar rank. If you're skilled and have a monster roster, you'll go to the top. Is that bad?
    I assume you are talking about the top of division 1 since people tend to ignore the lower divisions in these discussions. And as I have said repeatedly, locking lower GP rosters out of the top ranks merely leaves you with a championship which measures GP. Might as well rename it Whale Arena Championships. And yes, that is bad.

    You are only half right. Yes, the top would be high Top 80 GP accounts. But I'm sure there are plenty of 6M ballers that could beat some of the 7M and 8M guys. Right now, those are the guys facing the toughest opposition. And it's a lot harder to get great scores when your opponent can afford to set a decent defense. Those guys are getting screwed in the current ranking system.

    My opinion. Someone who hasn't faced and beaten a single double GL account does not deserve to be top 100 (much less top 10) until they do.

    If you think this player's victories warrant crowning him the D1 champ, then we are not going to find common ground on how players should be ranked.
    https://swgoh.gg/p/887416736/gac-history/

    Your example is a player that's top only due to lack of any top divisions (which majority agrees on are needed). If there were 3 more, he deserves to be the top dog of div 4.

    Can't say I get the 6m underdog facing 7-8m example. Are you saying it should happen or it's happening and 6m-er is at a bad state due to this?

    I agree that more divisions would help a lot.

    Regarding 6 vs 7/8. I'm saying if ranking was based on head-to-head performance (MMR, ELO, ladder, etc) that there would be no reason to check GP for matchmaking. You'd simply get matched with someone within some range of your rating. And in that system, a highly skilled 6M player would sometimes get matched against a 7/8M player. And because their ratings are similar, it should usually be a reasonably close match.

    Don't see why it would be a reasonably close match when one side has way worse weaponry to use and always trying to stick at the rating against the odds. What would make it reasonable is an additional qualifier (that is already present in current mm) as illustrated above. Otherwise just cancel gac and distribute rewards based on gp. You are saying nobody is arguing for a full gp based mm, but this is exactly what it is.

    Lastly what's optimal behaviour under elo+divisions only system is foreseeable. That is -back to lean-. Simply by keeping in as low a division as possible, a player will be able to get the easiest matchups possible. Those that both keep lean and keep close to highest edge of their division as long as possible will be king. Way worse then it currently is.
  • 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.
    That's not entirely accurate. In theory, a well-developed ~6.5m GP could beat anyone upwards, as long as they have both GLs and proper counters.

    Somehow a player like that being rank 1 in division 1 seems more accurrate than the current champion (not even the first time) with like 15 g13 who has never seen a single GL before.

    That's not accurate either. Very soon there will be 4 gls in play. The lowbie side at most will have the bare minimum at that gp point while the other side can have flat r7s with everything.
  • 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.
    That's not entirely accurate. In theory, a well-developed ~6.5m GP could beat anyone upwards, as long as they have both GLs and proper counters.

    Somehow a player like that being rank 1 in division 1 seems more accurrate than the current champion (not even the first time) with like 15 g13 who has never seen a single GL before.

    I'd say it's not even that much about the # of g13 chars and zetas but more about the teams that he faces as a result of this intentionally undergeared roster. Stuff like Ackbar/Jyn rebels, phoenix, ewoks and carth teams that you can solo with Malak, Wampa, Nest and Kylo for 63/64 banners each. No way to compete for the top spot against these MM exploiters when they constantly score 1950+ each round where you might be happy to get a 1920+ against 1-2 GL's and other meta teams. Right now the best shot for the top kyber spot is in 3v3 GAC's as there are less bonus points for undersized wins.
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    That's not entirely accurate. In theory, a well-developed ~6.5m GP could beat anyone upwards, as long as they have both GLs and proper counters.

    Somehow a player like that being rank 1 in division 1 seems more accurrate than the current champion (not even the first time) with like 15 g13 who has never seen a single GL before.

    That's not accurate either. Very soon there will be 4 gls in play. The lowbie side at most will have the bare minimum at that gp point while the other side can have flat r7s with everything.
    Unless someone severely underestimates a relic 7 Aurra I don't see that as an issue. A combination of r3-5 does fairly well against a full r7 team of the characters they are supposed to counter. Exceptions being GL counters of course, where you can't really go cheap by trying to avoid upgrading anyone to r7.

    With that being said, the major difference in that case would be mod depth, filler characters at relics are not really relevant for the match as long as you have your 14 teams (+1-2 for safety) decently geared, which is achievable on a focused 6.5m account.
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    85 posts Member
    edited September 22
    @MaruMaru I can't tell if we're talking past each other or don't agree. What do you think is a fair and equitable ranking system? Like I told rath tar, if it's what we have now, we're not going to agree on much.

    A few other points of yours to address:

    The reason the 6M player would have a chance is because he has a similar rating to the 8M player. Which means both players are winning and losing to similar opponents. So either the 8M guy has bad mods, is less skilled, or just doesn't try very hard.

    Yes, Divisions+Elo would result in people trying to stay under division thresholds. Unless you also revamp rewards. Make last place in D1 give better rewards than 1st place in D2. Or, as I would like, eliminate divisions. I've yet to hear a criticism of a better ranking system that doesn't have an easy solution.
    Post edited by Ragnarok_COTF on
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.
    That's not entirely accurate. In theory, a well-developed ~6.5m GP could beat anyone upwards, as long as they have both GLs and proper counters.

    Somehow a player like that being rank 1 in division 1 seems more accurrate than the current champion (not even the first time) with like 15 g13 who has never seen a single GL before.

    That's not accurate either. Very soon there will be 4 gls in play. The lowbie side at most will have the bare minimum at that gp point while the other side can have flat r7s with everything.
    Unless someone severely underestimates a relic 7 Aurra I don't see that as an issue. A combination of r3-5 does fairly well against a full r7 team of the characters they are supposed to counter. Exceptions being GL counters of course, where you can't really go cheap by trying to avoid upgrading anyone to r7.

    With that being said, the major difference in that case would be mod depth, filler characters at relics are not really relevant for the match as long as you have your 14 teams (+1-2 for safety) decently geared, which is achievable on a focused 6.5m account.

    Given that most is asking for the new divisions first and foremost the needs for gps way past div 1 entry point will increase. Currently it's not 14 teams on all gac templates btw, the next one should be the pure team one which needs 16 as such.

    I don't fully agree with this either:
    "A combination of r3-5 does fairly well against a full r7 team of the characters they are supposed to counter."
    It's very situational and you are risking a loss on each such match. The totality of these differences is very significant even before getting to the mods difference.
  • I don't know if anyone here listens to the gambit podcast but the do a gac focused podcast, and they are both extremely high level gac players. Their most recent podcast they mentioned how desperatly the game needs more gac divisions. It was episode #58.
  • I mean look at the top 2 players in GAC Kyber division 1. It s the same as last time and both have 0 GL. They should be in division 1,5 not division 1.
    Or create division 0 with people with GL
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    I don't know if anyone here listens to the gambit podcast but the do a gac focused podcast, and they are both extremely high level gac players. Their most recent podcast they mentioned how desperatly the game needs more gac divisions. It was episode #58.
    I don’t think any reasonable person could dispute the need for more divisions.

    And I don’t really see why the devs have taken so long to implement them. I mean, someone could tell me the devs are carefully considering where to set the thresholds for each new division, but when you look at the existing thresholds I highly doubt there was a great deal of thought went into them.
  • It is crazy that 5m and 8m can be in the same division. I believe currently there are 8 divisions, at least I haven't heard or anyone being lower then division 8. Let's add 2 more divisions into what is currently division 1 and that would help a lot.
  • @MaruMaru I can't tell if we're talking past each other or don't agree. What do you think is a fair and equitable ranking system? Like I told rath tar, if it's what we have now, we're not going to agree on much.

    A few other points of yours to address:

    The reason the 6M player would have a chance is because he has a similar rating to the 8M player. Which means both players are winning and losing to similar opponents. So either the 8M guy has bad mods, is less skilled, or just doesn't try very hard.

    Yes, Divisions+Elo would result in people trying to stay under division thresholds. Unless you also revamp rewards. Make last place in D1 give better rewards than 1st place in D2. Or, as I would like, eliminate divisions. I've yet to hear a criticism of a better ranking system that doesn't have an easy solution.

    To sum my main opinions about the subject:

    - The assumption that everyone hates current gac mm is wrong, I don't think it's majority either, if it was last 2 weeks wouldn't be so challenging with folks perfectly suited for the occasion. It's a pretty adaptible system with edge cases caused by players who are ignoring what will happen when they develop in certain ways.

    Besides that it's quite competetive starting from aerodium where match results aren't predetermined whatsoever. Players that threw their hands and aren't trying their best on principle (cuz gac mm sucks etc. rationale) don't get to see this. I give 0 damns about who gets top 50, there is no specific importance of being top when getting kyber does just fine.

    - Current system works in a very blunt way=a single number. This encourages top X leaning and is somewhat of a detriment to pushing it as much as you can. A hypothetical better system shouldn't leave anything to such player tweaks and manages to match a player with decent competition, this doesn't mean self similar rosters. The more the result is dependent on skill and better choices, the better. By better choices I don't mean -having it all-, I mean interesting team make ups that can throw the opponent off guard and well tuned modding etc.

    - To achieve a better mm there would be few options. If I was to go to the drawing board, I would first revamp GP tables. Current tables aren't suited for the purpose they are used for now. They don't calculate the gp of a toon corresponding to anything. If this thing to base it on is investment, then they have to be remade. You can see this GP table disparity by looking at investment into a g7 and g12 and how little current difference in between them is (on any toon). I doubt CG will be willing to completely revamp GP calculation though because of the knee **** response they will get.

    - Without completely divorcing current mm, another way would be patch the problem of GP calculation via putting some weighted contributions to other parameters, like the ones we are regularly able to see on discord bots.

    - Coming from the previous batch of messages, I also agree that there can be success based qualifier. However it can't be the only qualifier which I'm rather sure will be way worse than it is. Just NO to that.

    One example system I gave for this was looser top X range (to give the algorithm wiggle room) like one that allows 100k top x differences AND an elo qualifier that works within that range.

    - A much easier, but more blunt alternative to the above is already in the game. We all have grand totals throughout the seasons recorded. Use current mm, loose it a bit if necessary and use these totals when matchmaking starting from first week.


    - Not directly related: however the system can be improved, I'm firmly against seperating -haves- vs. -have not-s. This is to my detriment mind you, being f2p and all. I think some player being able to grab the latest&best should be to their intrinsic advantage. This will hold true as long as CG is capable of releasing the latest metas at least with soft counters (which is something they managed till now)

    - In the short term, we need 3-4 more divisions with better reward structure. I would be ok for the current mm to stay if this happens and believe it will alleviate most of the current absurdities (not all). I'm not the gatekeeper of current mm, I'm ok with it changing for the better and many options being on trial till that spot is hit as long as CG is willing to come out of the shell and pursue this goal.
Sign In or Register to comment.