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

12346Next

Replies

  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    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.
    You don’t need to hear of anyone, the divisions are all visible in game.

    There are 11. 8misk1lxgnsy.png

  • Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.
    But... remember that all legendaries etc come with a list of requirements that also add GP. You can’t have r7 GAS in isolation, but you can have an r7 Jawa in isolation. So they already are worth more GP.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.
    So gear the legendary character instead of a relic 7 Jawa.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.
    But... remember that all legendaries etc come with a list of requirements that also add GP. You can’t have r7 GAS in isolation, but you can have an r7 Jawa in isolation. So they already are worth more GP.

    That is a good point.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.

    I don't agree, zetas and skills already changing their gp worth significantly. Even if they were the same gp, then don't r7 that jawa, put your resources where it's worth it.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.

    I don't agree, zetas and skills already changing their gp worth significantly. Even if they were the same gp, then don't r7 that jawa, put your resources where it's worth it.

    The problem with this is people who starting playing back when the game was starting. There was no reason not to upgrade characters you liked, there was no way to know that 4 years latter we would get harder matchups in gac. I hate so much that a main game mode punishes us for upgrading our roster.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.

    I don't agree, zetas and skills already changing their gp worth significantly. Even if they were the same gp, then don't r7 that jawa, put your resources where it's worth it.

    The problem with this is people who starting playing back when the game was starting. There was no reason not to upgrade characters you liked, there was no way to know that 4 years latter we would get harder matchups in gac. I hate so much that a main game mode punishes us for upgrading our roster.

    I'm a day 1 player as well. Almost all of these slided back due to having a top X mm though. This was horribad in GA times. Though anything g12+ is not such a slight of hand.
  • Yeah now a lot of people start new accounts to have focus roster to just win in GAC.
    Which is ridiculous as it means we cant win with our old accounts
  • Yeah now a lot of people start new accounts to have focus roster to just win in GAC.
    Which is ridiculous as it means we cant win with our old accounts

    We can't? Same number of people are winning everytime, who are these people then? I can tell you, one of them is me with a super fluffy bottom and all the baggage including g11 jawas and what not.

    Just push them out of your top 80, unmod them if they sure won't be used. If this hasn't happened for you yet, it will slowly happen. Such control was impossible during ga times.
  • 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.
    Division 1 currently ranges from 4.5m to 9m+ GP so a new entrant to division 1 would have to add 2m GP in order to even have a chance of being competitive. Clearly a ridiculous proposition.

    Such a system would promote sandbagging and suppression of roster development because it would be more.advantageous to remain at the top of a division than to promote to the bottom of the next division, particularly from division 2 to division 1.

    As for that certain player:
    1) he is no longer at the top of division 1
    2) he has 35 g13 toons, not 15
    3) his roster is an extreme example of min-maxing and in any system, someone will always go to such lengths
    4) the rest of the top 10 are also around 4.5-6m GP, though division 1 rosters range from 4.5m to 9+m GP suggesting that there is a larger issue in play here

    If the current system was working well I would expect to see players from across a division's GP range represented in the top ranks but this is not the case in division 1.

    Division 2 has a range of GPs at the top and division 3 has an even better distribution.

    So the distortion appears to be with division 1.
  • Case in example. 6.4m gp. Tarkin is my 80th. All of the ewoks with ridicilious zetas and 12+s I put on them are almost out, but one. The time to push lowbie relic gl/jkl chase toons is coming up as well. It doesn't particularly matter if anything is in top 80 though, the 80+-5 that I use in matches are not necessarily the top 80. It's still this many that gets me the win, if I'm exceeding it, I lose.

    bdbj45paojr5.png
  • Kyno
    25686 posts Moderator
    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.

    they are aware, and are looking at options. they needed a certain level of saturation to allow for a better setup. if they had done it too early, then new divisions would be less even or too few to get a good spread on matches.
  • I think we have 2 conversations going on here. Looks and sounds to me like some of you aren't wanting a matchmaking adjustment but rather a leaderboard adjustment. 2 totally different monsters bit I realized from the beginning that the current leaderboards system would be exactly how it is now. Would require a lot of work keeping everything lean and only using certain teams for offense ALWAYS. I don't like that playstyle so I decided I didn't want any part of it cause I like to change it up all the time and doing that hurts your banner count.

    I wouldn't mind if they had a separate mode that was basically what some of you are asking for. The person at the top ACTUALLY is the best player playing the game currently. But I'm against mixing that in with GAC. GAC for me is all about the experience and challenge that comes with it. The more challenging it is, the more enjoyable it is. But again, totally for some sort of monthly tournament mode. That would be pretty cool to see.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.

    I don't agree, zetas and skills already changing their gp worth significantly. Even if they were the same gp, then don't r7 that jawa, put your resources where it's worth it.

    It's a video game man and supposed to be fun. Leveling up a favorite toon or faction of yours shouldn't "penalize" you in any type of way.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.

    I don't agree, zetas and skills already changing their gp worth significantly. Even if they were the same gp, then don't r7 that jawa, put your resources where it's worth it.

    It's a video game man and supposed to be fun. Leveling up a favorite toon or faction of yours shouldn't "penalize" you in any type of way.

    Why not? I've been playing video games for 33 years, most of them penalise....or rather rewards you for the choices. When you go into an rpg game, the first thing is to check builds. If you don't want to be competetive though, that's super fine and you can simply do anything you want to as this is an endless game with no win condition. Doing what it takes to be competetive is what's fun for me. And it has enough wiggle room to go after weirdo theorycraft things that are not meta. Then there are plethora of outright bad toons, work on them at your own expense. Just different mindsets.
  • yankeeh8er wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.

    I don't agree, zetas and skills already changing their gp worth significantly. Even if they were the same gp, then don't r7 that jawa, put your resources where it's worth it.

    The problem with this is people who starting playing back when the game was starting. There was no reason not to upgrade characters you liked, there was no way to know that 4 years latter we would get harder matchups in gac. I hate so much that a main game mode punishes us for upgrading our roster.
    The flaw with this post is that you’ve rewritten history slightly.

    Anyone playing in the era where there was no downside to levelling / gearing all your toons might have g11 Jawas, but you can’t claim anyone with one or more r7 Jawas is a victim of the goalposts changing.

    Some people are genetically predisposed to look for reasons outwith their control for their performance. Anyone still blaming their roster fluff for their GAC failings is missing something more obvious.

    And in the interests of honesty, I’m not exactly free of roster bloat myself https://swgoh.gg/p/343174317/


  • I appreciate your takes. I think the reason we don't see eye to eye is this:

    "I give 0 damns about who gets top 50, there is no specific importance of being top when getting kyber does just fine."

    I do give a lot of damns about that. And I think that is why we disagree so much about what constitutes a fair system.
  • I appreciate your takes. I think the reason we don't see eye to eye is this:

    "I give 0 damns about who gets top 50, there is no specific importance of being top when getting kyber does just fine."

    I do give a lot of damns about that. And I think that is why we disagree so much about what constitutes a fair system.

    Why do you give a **** about it? Are the rewards significantly different or even only for -the winner-?

    This is not a yearly event, it's something we do each month with only a weeks break. Everyone wins to some degree. We can't even browse beyond top 50. Kyber itself is elite.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    I appreciate your takes. I think the reason we don't see eye to eye is this:

    "I give 0 damns about who gets top 50, there is no specific importance of being top when getting kyber does just fine."

    I do give a lot of damns about that. And I think that is why we disagree so much about what constitutes a fair system.

    Why do you give a **** about it? Are the rewards significantly different or even only for -the winner-?

    This is not a yearly event, it's something we do each month with only a weeks break. Everyone wins to some degree. We can't even browse beyond top 50. Kyber itself is elite.

    Vanity, that is all.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    This is not a yearly event, it's something we do each month with only a weeks break. Everyone wins to some degree. We can't even browse beyond top 50. Kyber itself is elite.
    I really do like that aspect of the current setup. Resetting after 4 weeks lets you start with a clean slate and a fresh set of opponents, at least for most players.

    It also allows for different formats, though we don't seem to see as much of that as we used to. It's the same 4-sone map with either 5v5 + fleet or 3v3 + fleet these days. Not sure when we last had a squad-only GAC and they seem to have abandoned to 2-zone map. (We never did see 3- or 5-sone variants)
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    I appreciate your takes. I think the reason we don't see eye to eye is this:

    "I give 0 damns about who gets top 50, there is no specific importance of being top when getting kyber does just fine."

    I do give a lot of damns about that. And I think that is why we disagree so much about what constitutes a fair system.

    Why do you give a **** about it? Are the rewards significantly different or even only for -the winner-?

    This is not a yearly event, it's something we do each month with only a weeks break. Everyone wins to some degree. We can't even browse beyond top 50. Kyber itself is elite.

    getting that champion title is deifnitely something very competetive players can strive for as getting to kyber is incredibly easy (at least when fleets are in play and we get that 1600 pts for the win in 5v5)
    unfortunately the top spots are mostly "locked" by MM exploiters
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • Legend91 wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    I appreciate your takes. I think the reason we don't see eye to eye is this:

    "I give 0 damns about who gets top 50, there is no specific importance of being top when getting kyber does just fine."

    I do give a lot of damns about that. And I think that is why we disagree so much about what constitutes a fair system.

    Why do you give a **** about it? Are the rewards significantly different or even only for -the winner-?

    This is not a yearly event, it's something we do each month with only a weeks break. Everyone wins to some degree. We can't even browse beyond top 50. Kyber itself is elite.

    getting that champion title is deifnitely something very competetive players can strive for as getting to kyber is incredibly easy (at least when fleets are in play and we get that 1600 pts for the win in 5v5)
    unfortunately the top spots are mostly "locked" by MM exploiters
    The top spots are lower GP rosters (at least for the 4.5-9m range of division 1) but they are not all min-maxed by any means.
  • Starslayer
    284 posts Member
    edited September 22
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    yankeeh8er wrote: »
    Man I think that just weighting characters more heavily would help a lot to. A legendary character at r7 is worth a lot more then an r7 Jawa.

    I don't agree, zetas and skills already changing their gp worth significantly. Even if they were the same gp, then don't r7 that jawa, put your resources where it's worth it.

    The problem with this is people who starting playing back when the game was starting. There was no reason not to upgrade characters you liked, there was no way to know that 4 years latter we would get harder matchups in gac. I hate so much that a main game mode punishes us for upgrading our roster.

    If I recall correctly, GAC started late june 2019 and Relics late september 2019. For long time players, non-relic'd characters have only a marginal effect on MM, as you take into account top 80 heroes. Relic territory is where it all happens for MM.
    So if you chose to upgrade the "meh" characters you like up to relic level, you knew (or could have known) it would be a burden for GAC. Not saying you shouldn't do it, to each is own, but it's a choice.
    Can only feel your pain about "a main game mode punishes us for upgrading our roster" though. This game mode doesn't exactly punish you for upgrading your roster, but it does punish you for upgrading suboptimal characters, even if you like them :(
    I guess it's hard to make everyone happy in a strategy game which also is a collection game, as those 2 don't always match.
  • Legend91 wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    I appreciate your takes. I think the reason we don't see eye to eye is this:

    "I give 0 damns about who gets top 50, there is no specific importance of being top when getting kyber does just fine."

    I do give a lot of damns about that. And I think that is why we disagree so much about what constitutes a fair system.

    Why do you give a **** about it? Are the rewards significantly different or even only for -the winner-?

    This is not a yearly event, it's something we do each month with only a weeks break. Everyone wins to some degree. We can't even browse beyond top 50. Kyber itself is elite.

    getting that champion title is deifnitely something very competetive players can strive for as getting to kyber is incredibly easy (at least when fleets are in play and we get that 1600 pts for the win in 5v5)
    unfortunately the top spots are mostly "locked" by MM exploiters

    Then as soon as division 1 is broken (which will obviously happen), this rationale will expire to be a mm change excuse.
Sign In or Register to comment.