This is comparable to all of college football playing only in their conference and then saying the national champion is in the MAC because they did really well against the other MAC teams. I guess it can be considered a strategy if you researched the game a lot before starting that you can "succeed" by keeping your roster crap, but this just doesn't make any sense. You are rewarding being not good.
Not really...it’d be like the best MAC team saying they were the MAC conference champion, which is usually how it works...because they didn’t win GAC, they won Division 9. If a MAC team plays an SEC team, the results are about the same as what you’d expect of someone in Div9 going up against Div1.
Just talking within the division though. Seems if a team doesn't have any powerful characters, then they don't have to go against any other teams with powerful characters. Even though the division does have teams with powerful characters.
So the main issue you have seems to be the gap in too large in division 9 for your liking. Or are you proposing that everyone in a division are just randomly matched with each other?
Both are likely to create more issues. I'll use division one as an example. If they just randomly matched people in division one, you'd have people with 4.5 mil gp and no GLs facing people with 8 mil gp and 4 GLs.
The complaining is bad enough when people who don't have GLs face those that do because they bloated their rosters. So that option doesn't work.
Division 1 definitely needs split up but at lower divisions, splitting them up too much would just make a ton of divisions for little benefit.
As far as the rewards go, being in the top 10 of kyber has relatively the same rewards as the top 1000 of kyber. You get a few hundred gac currency more.
Also, you will eventually hit the next division and be the small fish in the bigger pond. In the current system, you still have a chance to do well. In a system where you are matched against anyone that may have 500k effective go than you, you will eventually be the one with the lower go and the player you mention will eventually be the one with higher gp in a division potentially losing to a player with lower go.
So it all evens out in the end. It's not ideal but right now, I think they have a pretty good balance for matchmaking. Any potential solution to the issues you raise that I can think of would likely create worse problems than this one.
No, the power gap isn't that much. Besides, that gives you something to work towards. Some of the teams at the top have power near the top scale but still don't have well developed characters. I had much better when I entered the division. I actually finished in Kyber last season in the same division. This season I finished in Aurodium despite working to improve my roster and making a lot of very good improvements. I understand this is a strategy game, but should part of that strategy not be making teams that are good enough and powerful enough to compete against the others? If not, then why have power differences?
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
The divisions are based on total gp. The matchmaking is based on the gp of double the number of characters placed on defense. In div 1 that is top 80. In the lowest division it is only top 30 since you only set 3 teams. I'm not sure what it is in div 9 but probably around 40 or 50.
So what is happening is that the guy that only has g11 as his highest has more of his roster below his top 40 or so geared for tb or whatever reason. Maybe he wants to gear everything when he can.
But since his top 40 are a lower gp than yours, he is matched with others in div 9 that has a similar top 40 go. That is how it works
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division. Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.
I'm pretty new to the game at just under a year, so I understand it has all been said, but there is no excuse for the crap I see at the top of my GAC division. I am in Div 9 and I have not had an opponent that some of the top 10 would have any chance against. I understand the concept of matchmaking, but how can you give top spots and top rewards to players that have not developed a single good character, much less a single good team. I have not faced an opponent this time with less than 3 or 4 relics and I have seen over 10, yet the current #2 in the division has a best character as a Gear 11 Vader. I have not faced 1 opponent that roster with have any chance to beat. How can you try to improve when you see rosters so much worse than yours that are winning the GAC?
I have tried to develop so that I could compete in Arena, help my guild in TW/TB, and compete in GAC. I can't contribute a lot to a good guild right now, but at least I can somewhat help by picking up 3 or 4 wins. These crap teams are useless to a guild, useless in Arena, and if it were not for being put against only other otherwise useless rosters, then they would also be useless in GAC.
This is comparable to all of college football playing only in their conference and then saying the national champion is in the MAC because they did really well against the other MAC teams. I guess it can be considered a strategy if you researched the game a lot before starting that you can "succeed" by keeping your roster crap, but this just doesn't make any sense. You are rewarding being not good.
You mention the roster being crap but lack any details except that they don't have g12 or relics.
You mentioned vader but he is hardly a crap toon. In fact, he is probably one of the best characters in the game after his rework. So the statement about this guy only having crap toons is just false. He wouldn't be winning if he only had crap toons. The opposite is likely true. He likely has a very focused pvp roster but hasn't gotten to g12 or relics yet.
I'm sure your total gp is likely higher so you'll probably hit another division soon where your rewards will increase more sooner.
And on my alt account, I use vader under an ep lead we're with only the merciless zeta (it takes time to get more ftp). And with merciless massacre, I have beaten teams that have a relic character or two with a g10 vader as my strongest character. Mods make a huge difference. I knew how to farm mods early on and have a 274 speed thrawn so I can usually go first in that early of a shard. Between stuns, fracture, and fear from dark Bastilla, a fast ep team can hit above it's weight by quite a bit.
And on my main, I frequently use Vader to counter GLs in arena so he's definitely not useless.
I love Vader. I didn't mean Vader is crap, but he isn't going to have a chance against the high relics. He is my best character and at Relic 5. But a G11 Vader leading any team of of G11 and lower has 0 chance against the solid Relic 5-7 Padme or Bug teams I'm seeing that have good Mods as well.
Depends on mods. If a relic padme team is pretty slow, it is probably possible. The gear on thrawn doesn't matter that much since fracture still takes someone out of the battle temporarily. Ep can still mass stun at low gear with proper mods. Dark Bastilla still puts fear out at low gear.
All of th is can delay a relic team long enough for vader to one shot anakin and padme. At gear 11 he has enough offense to do so if he gets enough debuffs.
I have beaten padme teams with a g10 ep team in my arena even though they had some relics. It really comes down to mods. If they go quickly enough and get the stacks of courage and protection up, it doesn't work.
This is really a bit off topic at this point, but you are operating under the assumption that these high relic characters have very bad mods, which isn't the case. I can assure you that a set of mods that make a G11 Vader better than my R4 Vader do not exist.
I can assure you that people that play grand arena do in fact sometimes have teams modded worse than others. I also know from experience, that often when I am matched on my main account against opponents that have more relics, they often have worse mods.
It probably has to do with spending to get relics quicker often results in having a similar roster but less good mods.
But regardless of the reason, I have observed it often enough that it does happen.
And a set of mods to make a g10 vader beat an r4 vader absolutely exist. In fact it only relies on one stat. Speed. An r4 vader can't kill a g10 vader if he never goes. And with an ep team that is full g10 vs an ep team with an r4 vader, if thrawn in the lower gear team goes first and fracture vader, then the g10 vader can go and merciless the rest of the team. From there it is rather easy to keep the r4 vader locked down with stun, fear and ability block until you can kill him. And s g10 vader has ef enough offense to kill an r4 vader.
If you don't know that speed mods is often the deciding factor on teams that require a lot of control, then I'm not surprised that players that have lower gear characters are still doing better than you in grand arena.
I get all of that, but you are talking extreme cases there.
Just so you guys can see exactly what I'm talking about - the top row is the 3 teams I faced last round. The pics below are the top 4 in the division and another random top 15. With the exception that I actually faced the division winner last round, I think you can see the there is no way those top teams are seeing the competition I did. Those teams that finished at the top were not consistently playing that level opponent.
So I won 2 of 3 matches last round. Obviously the guy that won overall beat me. I can look at his team and see how I need to improve myself to have a better chance against him. Not the same with the others. They are clearly not facing the same competition.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division. Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.
It is set up so that the "weaker players" are matched against those with similar to 40 go. So they are matched against each other. The leader boards are based on number of banners won though. So if two "weaker players" fight each other and two "stronger players" fight each other the players that win those matches receive the same banners for the win. Even though if the weaker player was matched against the stronger player, they would likly lose.
So which is it. Should it be random in th ef division (which leads to very uneven matches in some cases) or weighted as it is now (which leads to "weaker players" occasionally placing high on the leader boards)?
I'm pretty new to the game at just under a year, so I understand it has all been said, but there is no excuse for the crap I see at the top of my GAC division. I am in Div 9 and I have not had an opponent that some of the top 10 would have any chance against. I understand the concept of matchmaking, but how can you give top spots and top rewards to players that have not developed a single good character, much less a single good team. I have not faced an opponent this time with less than 3 or 4 relics and I have seen over 10, yet the current #2 in the division has a best character as a Gear 11 Vader. I have not faced 1 opponent that roster with have any chance to beat. How can you try to improve when you see rosters so much worse than yours that are winning the GAC?
I have tried to develop so that I could compete in Arena, help my guild in TW/TB, and compete in GAC. I can't contribute a lot to a good guild right now, but at least I can somewhat help by picking up 3 or 4 wins. These crap teams are useless to a guild, useless in Arena, and if it were not for being put against only other otherwise useless rosters, then they would also be useless in GAC.
This is comparable to all of college football playing only in their conference and then saying the national champion is in the MAC because they did really well against the other MAC teams. I guess it can be considered a strategy if you researched the game a lot before starting that you can "succeed" by keeping your roster crap, but this just doesn't make any sense. You are rewarding being not good.
You mention the roster being crap but lack any details except that they don't have g12 or relics.
You mentioned vader but he is hardly a crap toon. In fact, he is probably one of the best characters in the game after his rework. So the statement about this guy only having crap toons is just false. He wouldn't be winning if he only had crap toons. The opposite is likely true. He likely has a very focused pvp roster but hasn't gotten to g12 or relics yet.
I'm sure your total gp is likely higher so you'll probably hit another division soon where your rewards will increase more sooner.
And on my alt account, I use vader under an ep lead we're with only the merciless zeta (it takes time to get more ftp). And with merciless massacre, I have beaten teams that have a relic character or two with a g10 vader as my strongest character. Mods make a huge difference. I knew how to farm mods early on and have a 274 speed thrawn so I can usually go first in that early of a shard. Between stuns, fracture, and fear from dark Bastilla, a fast ep team can hit above it's weight by quite a bit.
And on my main, I frequently use Vader to counter GLs in arena so he's definitely not useless.
I love Vader. I didn't mean Vader is crap, but he isn't going to have a chance against the high relics. He is my best character and at Relic 5. But a G11 Vader leading any team of of G11 and lower has 0 chance against the solid Relic 5-7 Padme or Bug teams I'm seeing that have good Mods as well.
Depends on mods. If a relic padme team is pretty slow, it is probably possible. The gear on thrawn doesn't matter that much since fracture still takes someone out of the battle temporarily. Ep can still mass stun at low gear with proper mods. Dark Bastilla still puts fear out at low gear.
All of th is can delay a relic team long enough for vader to one shot anakin and padme. At gear 11 he has enough offense to do so if he gets enough debuffs.
I have beaten padme teams with a g10 ep team in my arena even though they had some relics. It really comes down to mods. If they go quickly enough and get the stacks of courage and protection up, it doesn't work.
This is really a bit off topic at this point, but you are operating under the assumption that these high relic characters have very bad mods, which isn't the case. I can assure you that a set of mods that make a G11 Vader better than my R4 Vader do not exist.
I can assure you that people that play grand arena do in fact sometimes have teams modded worse than others. I also know from experience, that often when I am matched on my main account against opponents that have more relics, they often have worse mods.
It probably has to do with spending to get relics quicker often results in having a similar roster but less good mods.
But regardless of the reason, I have observed it often enough that it does happen.
And a set of mods to make a g10 vader beat an r4 vader absolutely exist. In fact it only relies on one stat. Speed. An r4 vader can't kill a g10 vader if he never goes. And with an ep team that is full g10 vs an ep team with an r4 vader, if thrawn in the lower gear team goes first and fracture vader, then the g10 vader can go and merciless the rest of the team. From there it is rather easy to keep the r4 vader locked down with stun, fear and ability block until you can kill him. And s g10 vader has ef enough offense to kill an r4 vader.
If you don't know that speed mods is often the deciding factor on teams that require a lot of control, then I'm not surprised that players that have lower gear characters are still doing better than you in grand arena.
I get all of that, but you are talking extreme cases there.
Not really. I see it in my arena shard on my alt all day long. My thrawn only needs 1 more speed than both their thrawn and vader (after bonuses) to make relics on an enemy vader meaningless.
I will choose a relic vader as an opponent any day vs one with merciless Zetaed that is too fast for me to control.
Just so you guys can see exactly what I'm talking about - the top row is the 3 teams I faced last round. The pics below are the top 4 in the division and another random top 15. With the exception that I actually faced the division winner last round, I think you can see the there is no way those top teams are seeing the competition I did. Those teams that finished at the top were not consistently playing that level opponent.
So I won 2 of 3 matches last round. Obviously the guy that won overall beat me. I can look at his team and see how I need to improve myself to have a better chance against him. Not the same with the others. They are clearly not facing the same competition.
We already know that is the case. It's how matchmaking is designed. Your top 40 of your roster probably has double the gp as the weaker roster. But both your overall go (which determines divisions) is close enough that you're in the same division.
But the matchmaking is specifically designed to avoid matching those with a ton of relics at the top with those that don't have as ton of relics at the top.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division.
No thanx - for very obvious reasons:
1. This would result in far more uneven matches.
2. It would give players incentive to leave every unused character at lvl 1, g1 and put players who didn't at a significant disadvantage.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.
If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
Just so you guys can see exactly what I'm talking about - the top row is the 3 teams I faced last round. The pics below are the top 4 in the division and another random top 15. With the exception that I actually faced the division winner last round, I think you can see the there is no way those top teams are seeing the competition I did. Those teams that finished at the top were not consistently playing that level opponent.
So I won 2 of 3 matches last round. Obviously the guy that won overall beat me. I can look at his team and see how I need to improve myself to have a better chance against him. Not the same with the others. They are clearly not facing the same competition.
Still: The players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by which characters they have or their "ability to put together decent teams". Players are matched by the GP of their top-X characters - disregarding what teams or characters they have avaliable. X is the number of defensive squad slots multiplied by 10 - and fleet GP also plays some role.
A player with low matchmaking GP is matched with other players of low matchmaking GP - never with players with high matchmaking GP. That's why you see the matches and leader boards you see.
Just so you guys can see exactly what I'm talking about - the top row is the 3 teams I faced last round. The pics below are the top 4 in the division and another random top 15. With the exception that I actually faced the division winner last round, I think you can see the there is no way those top teams are seeing the competition I did. Those teams that finished at the top were not consistently playing that level opponent.
So I won 2 of 3 matches last round. Obviously the guy that won overall beat me. I can look at his team and see how I need to improve myself to have a better chance against him. Not the same with the others. They are clearly not facing the same competition.
Still: The players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by which characters they have or their "ability to put together decent teams". Players are matched by the GP of their top-X characters - disregarding what teams or characters they have avaliable. X is the number of defensive squad slots multiplied by 10 - and fleet GP also plays some role.
A player with low matchmaking GP is matched with other players of low matchmaking GP - never with players with high matchmaking GP. That's why you see the matches and leader boards you see.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division. Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.
It is set up so that the "weaker players" are matched against those with similar to 40 go. So they are matched against each other. The leader boards are based on number of banners won though. So if two "weaker players" fight each other and two "stronger players" fight each other the players that win those matches receive the same banners for the win. Even though if the weaker player was matched against the stronger player, they would likly lose.
So which is it. Should it be random in th ef division (which leads to very uneven matches in some cases) or weighted as it is now (which leads to "weaker players" occasionally placing high on the leader boards)?
I should have the occasional mismatch. Then the player that would lose that match could see what they needed to do in order to improve and be more competitive.
I'm pretty new to the game at just under a year, so I understand it has all been said, but there is no excuse for the crap I see at the top of my GAC division. I am in Div 9 and I have not had an opponent that some of the top 10 would have any chance against. I understand the concept of matchmaking, but how can you give top spots and top rewards to players that have not developed a single good character, much less a single good team. I have not faced an opponent this time with less than 3 or 4 relics and I have seen over 10, yet the current #2 in the division has a best character as a Gear 11 Vader. I have not faced 1 opponent that roster with have any chance to beat. How can you try to improve when you see rosters so much worse than yours that are winning the GAC?
I have tried to develop so that I could compete in Arena, help my guild in TW/TB, and compete in GAC. I can't contribute a lot to a good guild right now, but at least I can somewhat help by picking up 3 or 4 wins. These crap teams are useless to a guild, useless in Arena, and if it were not for being put against only other otherwise useless rosters, then they would also be useless in GAC.
This is comparable to all of college football playing only in their conference and then saying the national champion is in the MAC because they did really well against the other MAC teams. I guess it can be considered a strategy if you researched the game a lot before starting that you can "succeed" by keeping your roster crap, but this just doesn't make any sense. You are rewarding being not good.
You mention the roster being crap but lack any details except that they don't have g12 or relics.
You mentioned vader but he is hardly a crap toon. In fact, he is probably one of the best characters in the game after his rework. So the statement about this guy only having crap toons is just false. He wouldn't be winning if he only had crap toons. The opposite is likely true. He likely has a very focused pvp roster but hasn't gotten to g12 or relics yet.
I'm sure your total gp is likely higher so you'll probably hit another division soon where your rewards will increase more sooner.
And on my alt account, I use vader under an ep lead we're with only the merciless zeta (it takes time to get more ftp). And with merciless massacre, I have beaten teams that have a relic character or two with a g10 vader as my strongest character. Mods make a huge difference. I knew how to farm mods early on and have a 274 speed thrawn so I can usually go first in that early of a shard. Between stuns, fracture, and fear from dark Bastilla, a fast ep team can hit above it's weight by quite a bit.
And on my main, I frequently use Vader to counter GLs in arena so he's definitely not useless.
I love Vader. I didn't mean Vader is crap, but he isn't going to have a chance against the high relics. He is my best character and at Relic 5. But a G11 Vader leading any team of of G11 and lower has 0 chance against the solid Relic 5-7 Padme or Bug teams I'm seeing that have good Mods as well.
Depends on mods. If a relic padme team is pretty slow, it is probably possible. The gear on thrawn doesn't matter that much since fracture still takes someone out of the battle temporarily. Ep can still mass stun at low gear with proper mods. Dark Bastilla still puts fear out at low gear.
All of th is can delay a relic team long enough for vader to one shot anakin and padme. At gear 11 he has enough offense to do so if he gets enough debuffs.
I have beaten padme teams with a g10 ep team in my arena even though they had some relics. It really comes down to mods. If they go quickly enough and get the stacks of courage and protection up, it doesn't work.
This is really a bit off topic at this point, but you are operating under the assumption that these high relic characters have very bad mods, which isn't the case. I can assure you that a set of mods that make a G11 Vader better than my R4 Vader do not exist.
I can assure you that people that play grand arena do in fact sometimes have teams modded worse than others. I also know from experience, that often when I am matched on my main account against opponents that have more relics, they often have worse mods.
It probably has to do with spending to get relics quicker often results in having a similar roster but less good mods.
But regardless of the reason, I have observed it often enough that it does happen.
And a set of mods to make a g10 vader beat an r4 vader absolutely exist. In fact it only relies on one stat. Speed. An r4 vader can't kill a g10 vader if he never goes. And with an ep team that is full g10 vs an ep team with an r4 vader, if thrawn in the lower gear team goes first and fracture vader, then the g10 vader can go and merciless the rest of the team. From there it is rather easy to keep the r4 vader locked down with stun, fear and ability block until you can kill him. And s g10 vader has ef enough offense to kill an r4 vader.
If you don't know that speed mods is often the deciding factor on teams that require a lot of control, then I'm not surprised that players that have lower gear characters are still doing better than you in grand arena.
I get all of that, but you are talking extreme cases there.
Not really. I see it in my arena shard on my alt all day long. My thrawn only needs 1 more speed than both their thrawn and vader (after bonuses) to make relics on an enemy vader meaningless.
I will choose a relic vader as an opponent any day vs one with merciless Zetaed that is too fast for me to control.
You are kind of at an extreme still. Unless your arena is very young, then nobody should be using a Vader without a Merciless Zeta.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division.
No thanx - for very obvious reasons:
1. This would result in far more uneven matches.
2. It would give players incentive to leave every unused character at lvl 1, g1 and put players who didn't at a significant disadvantage.
Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.
Did you check the title of your discussion? Or did you change your mind about it?
I didn't change my mind, I left out a word. *so that the weaker players 'don't' ONLY play other....
weighted - so maybe they have more matches against the other less powerful squads, but they can't duck the powerful squads completely. Or maybe after these players are 9-0 or 8-1 after the 1st 3 rounds it triggers something to bump them up?
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.
If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.
I'm pretty sure I am defining "ability to put together decent teams" the same as having high matchmaking GP. I don't have the ability or desire to provide you "proof" of anything as that would require hacking into their program and showing you matchmaking algorithm.
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.
Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.
The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.
If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.
I'm pretty sure I am defining "ability to put together decent teams" the same as having high matchmaking GP.
It could be defined in many ways and your whole discussion about "crap teams" vs "decent teams" doesn't really suggest that you refer to matchmaking GP. Players with the same matchmaking GP can have very different "ability to put together decent teams". One player in your division 9 could have invested in g12 Empire and clones while their opponent could have invested in g12 Phoenix and jawa.
I hope you have a better understanding of how MM works and why you see the matches and leader boards you see.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division.
No thanx - for very obvious reasons:
1. This would result in far more uneven matches.
2. It would give players incentive to leave every unused character at lvl 1, g1 and put players who didn't at a significant disadvantage.
Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.
Did you check the title of your discussion? Or did you change your mind about it?
I didn't change my mind, I left out a word. *so that the weaker players 'don't' ONLY play other....
That little negation makes a significant difference. I can only comment on what you post - not on what you meant to post.
But ok:
As it is now weaker players DON'T only play other weak players. They play other players with matching division, league and matchmaking GP - disregarding whether they built a strong roster or a weak one. Some of them may have strong rosters - others may have weak ones.
weighted - so maybe they have more matches against the other less powerful squads, but they can't duck the powerful squads completely. Or maybe after these players are 9-0 or 8-1 after the 1st 3 rounds it triggers something to bump them up?
Isn't this what leagues are supposed to do? F.ex. if you end up in chromium league after the first GA in the second GA you will only be matched with other players who went 3-0 in their first GA. If you end up in bronzium after the first GA you can be matched with players who went 3-0 in the first GA as well as players who went 0-3.
The effect of leagues grows as you progress through the championship.
I'm pretty new to the game at just under a year, so I understand it has all been said, but there is no excuse for the crap I see at the top of my GAC division. I am in Div 9 and I have not had an opponent that some of the top 10 would have any chance against. I understand the concept of matchmaking, but how can you give top spots and top rewards to players that have not developed a single good character, much less a single good team. I have not faced an opponent this time with less than 3 or 4 relics and I have seen over 10, yet the current #2 in the division has a best character as a Gear 11 Vader. I have not faced 1 opponent that roster with have any chance to beat. How can you try to improve when you see rosters so much worse than yours that are winning the GAC?
I have tried to develop so that I could compete in Arena, help my guild in TW/TB, and compete in GAC. I can't contribute a lot to a good guild right now, but at least I can somewhat help by picking up 3 or 4 wins. These crap teams are useless to a guild, useless in Arena, and if it were not for being put against only other otherwise useless rosters, then they would also be useless in GAC.
This is comparable to all of college football playing only in their conference and then saying the national champion is in the MAC because they did really well against the other MAC teams. I guess it can be considered a strategy if you researched the game a lot before starting that you can "succeed" by keeping your roster crap, but this just doesn't make any sense. You are rewarding being not good.
You mention the roster being crap but lack any details except that they don't have g12 or relics.
You mentioned vader but he is hardly a crap toon. In fact, he is probably one of the best characters in the game after his rework. So the statement about this guy only having crap toons is just false. He wouldn't be winning if he only had crap toons. The opposite is likely true. He likely has a very focused pvp roster but hasn't gotten to g12 or relics yet.
I'm sure your total gp is likely higher so you'll probably hit another division soon where your rewards will increase more sooner.
And on my alt account, I use vader under an ep lead we're with only the merciless zeta (it takes time to get more ftp). And with merciless massacre, I have beaten teams that have a relic character or two with a g10 vader as my strongest character. Mods make a huge difference. I knew how to farm mods early on and have a 274 speed thrawn so I can usually go first in that early of a shard. Between stuns, fracture, and fear from dark Bastilla, a fast ep team can hit above it's weight by quite a bit.
And on my main, I frequently use Vader to counter GLs in arena so he's definitely not useless.
I love Vader. I didn't mean Vader is crap, but he isn't going to have a chance against the high relics. He is my best character and at Relic 5. But a G11 Vader leading any team of of G11 and lower has 0 chance against the solid Relic 5-7 Padme or Bug teams I'm seeing that have good Mods as well.
Depends on mods. If a relic padme team is pretty slow, it is probably possible. The gear on thrawn doesn't matter that much since fracture still takes someone out of the battle temporarily. Ep can still mass stun at low gear with proper mods. Dark Bastilla still puts fear out at low gear.
All of th is can delay a relic team long enough for vader to one shot anakin and padme. At gear 11 he has enough offense to do so if he gets enough debuffs.
I have beaten padme teams with a g10 ep team in my arena even though they had some relics. It really comes down to mods. If they go quickly enough and get the stacks of courage and protection up, it doesn't work.
This is really a bit off topic at this point, but you are operating under the assumption that these high relic characters have very bad mods, which isn't the case. I can assure you that a set of mods that make a G11 Vader better than my R4 Vader do not exist.
I can assure you that people that play grand arena do in fact sometimes have teams modded worse than others. I also know from experience, that often when I am matched on my main account against opponents that have more relics, they often have worse mods.
It probably has to do with spending to get relics quicker often results in having a similar roster but less good mods.
But regardless of the reason, I have observed it often enough that it does happen.
And a set of mods to make a g10 vader beat an r4 vader absolutely exist. In fact it only relies on one stat. Speed. An r4 vader can't kill a g10 vader if he never goes. And with an ep team that is full g10 vs an ep team with an r4 vader, if thrawn in the lower gear team goes first and fracture vader, then the g10 vader can go and merciless the rest of the team. From there it is rather easy to keep the r4 vader locked down with stun, fear and ability block until you can kill him. And s g10 vader has ef enough offense to kill an r4 vader.
If you don't know that speed mods is often the deciding factor on teams that require a lot of control, then I'm not surprised that players that have lower gear characters are still doing better than you in grand arena.
I get all of that, but you are talking extreme cases there.
Not really. I see it in my arena shard on my alt all day long. My thrawn only needs 1 more speed than both their thrawn and vader (after bonuses) to make relics on an enemy vader meaningless.
I will choose a relic vader as an opponent any day vs one with merciless Zetaed that is too fast for me to control.
You are kind of at an extreme still. Unless your arena is very young, then nobody should be using a Vader without a Merciless Zeta.
That is on my alt account. There are many teams that have a few Zetas. I have ep lead and merciless on vader as my only two Zetas on that account (I just hit level 85 a week or 2 ago. Without the hyperdrive bundle, it takes awhile). But it isn't all that hard to take out relic teams with a g11 vader. In fact, I have found many teams in my shard that think that relics make up for poor team comp and mods.
I saw and beat a vader lead (with 2 zetas), scavenger Rey, boba, kru, and I think tarkin was the 5th. But the team was full relic 7 but had poor mods and as you can see that isn't a good team comp. I beat it easily with a team that had 1 g11 and the rest g10 or below.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.
If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.
I'm pretty sure I am defining "ability to put together decent teams" the same as having high matchmaking GP. I don't have the ability or desire to provide you "proof" of anything as that would require hacking into their program and showing you matchmaking algorithm.
But matchmaking is determined off of gp. There will be players that have high matchmaking gp that put together good teams and ones that put together bad teams. The same is true for the low matchmaking gp.
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.
Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.
The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.
I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).
But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.
Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.
The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.
I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).
But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.
They actually started GA that way, before it evolved into GAC.
The problem with matching on total GP is that it encourages complete suppression of unnecessary roster development, far more so than anything we are seeing today, and it punishes those who star, level and gear the low end of their roster even though those toons are of absolutely no use in GA.
The general consensus on the forums after the shift to top {x} GP was that match quality improved.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.
If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.
I'm pretty sure I am defining "ability to put together decent teams" the same as having high matchmaking GP.
It could be defined in many ways and your whole discussion about "crap teams" vs "decent teams" doesn't really suggest that you refer to matchmaking GP. Players with the same matchmaking GP can have very different "ability to put together decent teams". One player in your division 9 could have invested in g12 Empire and clones while their opponent could have invested in g12 Phoenix and jawa.
I hope you have a better understanding of how MM works and why you see the matches and leader boards you see.
I understand MM, I just don't think it's right. Again, if you spent all your GP on farming and gearing less effective teams, then....you didn't do well, deal with it and try to improve.
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?
The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.
The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.
The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.
Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.
They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division.
No thanx - for very obvious reasons:
1. This would result in far more uneven matches.
2. It would give players incentive to leave every unused character at lvl 1, g1 and put players who didn't at a significant disadvantage.
Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.
Did you check the title of your discussion? Or did you change your mind about it?
I didn't change my mind, I left out a word. *so that the weaker players 'don't' ONLY play other....
That little negation makes a significant difference. I can only comment on what you post - not on what you meant to post.
But ok:
As it is now weaker players DON'T only play other weak players. They play other players with matching division, league and matchmaking GP - disregarding whether they built a strong roster or a weak one. Some of them may have strong rosters - others may have weak ones.
weighted - so maybe they have more matches against the other less powerful squads, but they can't duck the powerful squads completely. Or maybe after these players are 9-0 or 8-1 after the 1st 3 rounds it triggers something to bump them up?
Isn't this what leagues are supposed to do? F.ex. if you end up in chromium league after the first GA in the second GA you will only be matched with other players who went 3-0 in their first GA. If you end up in bronzium after the first GA you can be matched with players who went 3-0 in the first GA as well as players who went 0-3.
The effect of leagues grows as you progress through the championship.
I didn't mean bumped up to play other teams that went 3-0 against other teams that also went 3-0 against teams with less geared characters. I meant maybe they should get bumped up to play the teams with more developed characters. If these players are skilled, then maybe they could use their skill to beat these teams with more developed characters with their expanded rosters. I'm guessing they wouldn't, which would have the effect of knocking them down the leader boards.
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.
Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.
The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.
I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).
But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.
So maybe that is where each division could have a "B league" with a smaller prize pool on a different leader board. And if a player didn't want to be in B league, then they could opt up to A, but then would have to face all competition.
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.
Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.
The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.
I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).
But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.
They actually started GA that way, before it evolved into GAC.
The problem with matching on total GP is that it encourages complete suppression of unnecessary roster development, far more so than anything we are seeing today, and it punishes those who star, level and gear the low end of their roster even though those toons are of absolutely no use in GA.
The general consensus on the forums after the shift to top {x} GP was that match quality improved.
But shouldn't that be right? Using your limited resources on "toons with toons are of absolutely no use" seems like it should be good strategy. This is a strategy game. I'd like to have a good Jawa team just to deal with bugs, but at this point in my progress that just isn't a good use of my resources. Shouldn't good use of resources be rewarded? Why would anyone want to level and gear toons that are of no use in GA? If they are not of use in GA, then they are of no use in squad Arena or TW/TB, so it seems that you wouldn't be playing very well from a strategy standpoint.
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.
Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.
The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.
I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).
But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.
They actually started GA that way, before it evolved into GAC.
The problem with matching on total GP is that it encourages complete suppression of unnecessary roster development, far more so than anything we are seeing today, and it punishes those who star, level and gear the low end of their roster even though those toons are of absolutely no use in GA.
The general consensus on the forums after the shift to top {x} GP was that match quality improved.
But shouldn't that be right? Using your limited resources on "toons with toons are of absolutely no use" seems like it should be good strategy. This is a strategy game. I'd like to have a good Jawa team just to deal with bugs, but at this point in my progress that just isn't a good use of my resources. Shouldn't good use of resources be rewarded? Why would anyone want to level and gear toons that are of no use in GA? If they are not of use in GA, then they are of no use in squad Arena or TW/TB, so it seems that you wouldn't be playing very well from a strategy standpoint.
Forcing us to dig that deeply into our rosters would require CG to increase squad placement dramatically which in turn would dramatically increase the amount of time and effort we all have to put in to GAC and the volume of complaints on the forums and elsewhere.
I happen to think that squad placement should increase in the top divisions but not to the extent where your whole roster becomes relevant. That would be crazy.
Replies
Again:
Feel free to post a link to your profile on swgoh.gg if you want any advice to maybe hit Kyber consistently.
Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.
The divisions are based on total gp. The matchmaking is based on the gp of double the number of characters placed on defense. In div 1 that is top 80. In the lowest division it is only top 30 since you only set 3 teams. I'm not sure what it is in div 9 but probably around 40 or 50.
So what is happening is that the guy that only has g11 as his highest has more of his roster below his top 40 or so geared for tb or whatever reason. Maybe he wants to gear everything when he can.
But since his top 40 are a lower gp than yours, he is matched with others in div 9 that has a similar top 40 go. That is how it works
Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division. Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.
I get all of that, but you are talking extreme cases there.
So I won 2 of 3 matches last round. Obviously the guy that won overall beat me. I can look at his team and see how I need to improve myself to have a better chance against him. Not the same with the others. They are clearly not facing the same competition.
It is set up so that the "weaker players" are matched against those with similar to 40 go. So they are matched against each other. The leader boards are based on number of banners won though. So if two "weaker players" fight each other and two "stronger players" fight each other the players that win those matches receive the same banners for the win. Even though if the weaker player was matched against the stronger player, they would likly lose.
So which is it. Should it be random in th ef division (which leads to very uneven matches in some cases) or weighted as it is now (which leads to "weaker players" occasionally placing high on the leader boards)?
Not really. I see it in my arena shard on my alt all day long. My thrawn only needs 1 more speed than both their thrawn and vader (after bonuses) to make relics on an enemy vader meaningless.
I will choose a relic vader as an opponent any day vs one with merciless Zetaed that is too fast for me to control.
We already know that is the case. It's how matchmaking is designed. Your top 40 of your roster probably has double the gp as the weaker roster. But both your overall go (which determines divisions) is close enough that you're in the same division.
But the matchmaking is specifically designed to avoid matching those with a ton of relics at the top with those that don't have as ton of relics at the top.
No thanx - for very obvious reasons:
1. This would result in far more uneven matches.
2. It would give players incentive to leave every unused character at lvl 1, g1 and put players who didn't at a significant disadvantage.
Did you check the title of your discussion? Or did you change your mind about it?
Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.
If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.
Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.
It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.
Still: The players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by which characters they have or their "ability to put together decent teams". Players are matched by the GP of their top-X characters - disregarding what teams or characters they have avaliable. X is the number of defensive squad slots multiplied by 10 - and fleet GP also plays some role.
A player with low matchmaking GP is matched with other players of low matchmaking GP - never with players with high matchmaking GP. That's why you see the matches and leader boards you see.
I should have the occasional mismatch. Then the player that would lose that match could see what they needed to do in order to improve and be more competitive.
You are kind of at an extreme still. Unless your arena is very young, then nobody should be using a Vader without a Merciless Zeta.
I didn't change my mind, I left out a word. *so that the weaker players 'don't' ONLY play other....
weighted - so maybe they have more matches against the other less powerful squads, but they can't duck the powerful squads completely. Or maybe after these players are 9-0 or 8-1 after the 1st 3 rounds it triggers something to bump them up?
I'm pretty sure I am defining "ability to put together decent teams" the same as having high matchmaking GP. I don't have the ability or desire to provide you "proof" of anything as that would require hacking into their program and showing you matchmaking algorithm.
That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.
Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.
The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.
It could be defined in many ways and your whole discussion about "crap teams" vs "decent teams" doesn't really suggest that you refer to matchmaking GP. Players with the same matchmaking GP can have very different "ability to put together decent teams". One player in your division 9 could have invested in g12 Empire and clones while their opponent could have invested in g12 Phoenix and jawa.
I hope you have a better understanding of how MM works and why you see the matches and leader boards you see.
That little negation makes a significant difference. I can only comment on what you post - not on what you meant to post.
But ok:
As it is now weaker players DON'T only play other weak players. They play other players with matching division, league and matchmaking GP - disregarding whether they built a strong roster or a weak one. Some of them may have strong rosters - others may have weak ones.
Isn't this what leagues are supposed to do? F.ex. if you end up in chromium league after the first GA in the second GA you will only be matched with other players who went 3-0 in their first GA. If you end up in bronzium after the first GA you can be matched with players who went 3-0 in the first GA as well as players who went 0-3.
The effect of leagues grows as you progress through the championship.
That is on my alt account. There are many teams that have a few Zetas. I have ep lead and merciless on vader as my only two Zetas on that account (I just hit level 85 a week or 2 ago. Without the hyperdrive bundle, it takes awhile). But it isn't all that hard to take out relic teams with a g11 vader. In fact, I have found many teams in my shard that think that relics make up for poor team comp and mods.
I saw and beat a vader lead (with 2 zetas), scavenger Rey, boba, kru, and I think tarkin was the 5th. But the team was full relic 7 but had poor mods and as you can see that isn't a good team comp. I beat it easily with a team that had 1 g11 and the rest g10 or below.
So relics aren't everything.
But matchmaking is determined off of gp. There will be players that have high matchmaking gp that put together good teams and ones that put together bad teams. The same is true for the low matchmaking gp.
The two are completely unrelated.
I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).
But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.
The problem with matching on total GP is that it encourages complete suppression of unnecessary roster development, far more so than anything we are seeing today, and it punishes those who star, level and gear the low end of their roster even though those toons are of absolutely no use in GA.
The general consensus on the forums after the shift to top {x} GP was that match quality improved.
I understand MM, I just don't think it's right. Again, if you spent all your GP on farming and gearing less effective teams, then....you didn't do well, deal with it and try to improve.
I didn't mean bumped up to play other teams that went 3-0 against other teams that also went 3-0 against teams with less geared characters. I meant maybe they should get bumped up to play the teams with more developed characters. If these players are skilled, then maybe they could use their skill to beat these teams with more developed characters with their expanded rosters. I'm guessing they wouldn't, which would have the effect of knocking them down the leader boards.
So maybe that is where each division could have a "B league" with a smaller prize pool on a different leader board. And if a player didn't want to be in B league, then they could opt up to A, but then would have to face all competition.
But shouldn't that be right? Using your limited resources on "toons with toons are of absolutely no use" seems like it should be good strategy. This is a strategy game. I'd like to have a good Jawa team just to deal with bugs, but at this point in my progress that just isn't a good use of my resources. Shouldn't good use of resources be rewarded? Why would anyone want to level and gear toons that are of no use in GA? If they are not of use in GA, then they are of no use in squad Arena or TW/TB, so it seems that you wouldn't be playing very well from a strategy standpoint.
I happen to think that squad placement should increase in the top divisions but not to the extent where your whole roster becomes relevant. That would be crazy.