GAC matchmaking system

Replies

  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    Ok, so if a stun gun is worth the same value, no matter where I put it, then how does the GP of a toon not represent my investment of that stun gun to a character?

    Entirely irrelevant but be my guest. You can also read 2 pages of messages too instead of strawmaning it to irrelevant points.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Null hypothesis:
    If gp was to be reflective of investment, one would expect investment values for gear would somewhat reflect the gp increases of gear tiers.

    I assumed crystal as the value of investment. I took 2 very far released toons to calculate approx values. The gp gain tables used are from reddit are old. I know for a fact they changed a bit, but the ratios between the gear tiers were preserved. Since this is a perfectly visible number in the game, anyone can barge in to give the real values.

    Since the gear that goes into each toon is different there are differences, sometimes %80 crystal value differences in between them. For the sake of simplicity I used the average of Embo and Hunter since the point is to find whether gp increases somewhat match investment values.

    If anyone can come up with a better method or falsify mine on numeric grounds, you're welcome.

    Jump to bold part for outcome.

    Embo

    G01-G09 5600
    G10 11200
    G11 19000
    G12 31700

    Individual tier crystal cost
    G10 5600
    G11 7800
    G12 12700

    Hunter

    G01-G09 4200
    G10 12500
    G11 19500
    G12 30800

    Individual tier crystal cost
    G10 8300
    G11 7000
    G12 11300


    Average between 2 toons

    G10 6250 crystals
    G11 7400 crystals
    G12 12000 crystals


    .
    GP per tier
    G10 118*6
    G11 132*6
    G12 140*6




    Total gear tiers gp vs. costs

    G9 2670 gp - 4900 crystals
    G10 708 gp - 6250 crystals
    G11 792 gp - 7400 crystals
    G12 840 gp - 12000 crystals

    G1-G9 vs. G12
    Gp %31.5 rise
    Crystal cost %92 increase


    %292 disparity
    G10 vs g12
    Gp %18.5 rise
    Crystal cost %92 increase


    %497 disparity

    Hypothesis doesn't hold up. Investment value changes are several magnitudes higher than the gp changes for gear.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    This also means that matchmaking using some assumption that both players made the same amount of investment to gain similar matchmaking gp is wrong which was the initial point of it all.
  • Kyno
    30475 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    Ok, so if a stun gun is worth the same value, no matter where I put it, then how does the GP of a toon not represent my investment of that stun gun to a character?

    Entirely irrelevant but be my guest. You can also read 2 pages of messages too instead of strawmaning it to irrelevant points.

    You have said a few times that investment isn't represented. So it's not irrelevant, as what a player farms and where they place it adds a point value, but their choices on who they decide to put it on is what helps or hurts them. This means that the players actions and choices are going to come into play when they go head to head with another player who has the same GP value.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Q: Can this be any different though? Since gear needs of toons are different it would always have been off.

    A: While toon differences are true, the magnitude of disparity is incredibly high in comparison. CG never intended the gp tables to reflect investment, they were just increasing values for increasing things.
    If g10 to 11 to 12 gp gains were much higher they would almost reflect the amount of investment.

    Where endgamers are in the game a toon has to be at least g11 to enter the top X used for matchmaking. Thus one player having high amount of g11s in their top x (g11 toons are almost useless in most cases) along with high relic toons to balance that is disadvantaged compared to a player that SANDBAGS to take advantage of matchmaking with more even distribution.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    Ok, so if a stun gun is worth the same value, no matter where I put it, then how does the GP of a toon not represent my investment of that stun gun to a character?

    Entirely irrelevant but be my guest. You can also read 2 pages of messages too instead of strawmaning it to irrelevant points.

    You have said a few times that investment isn't represented. So it's not irrelevant, as what a player farms and where they place it adds a point value, but their choices on who they decide to put it on is what helps or hurts them. This means that the players actions and choices are going to come into play when they go head to head with another player who has the same GP value.

    i.e. take this new gear gp table:
    each tier has direct value of that tier
    g1 adds 1 gp, g10 10 and so on. This model still holds your claim but is even more disperate. Only thing you have is...there are some values and they are increasing...doh :P.
  • About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Starslayer wrote: »
    About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?

    None of the matchmaking is made in slots of gear though, it's made by the totality of a toon's gp. As you get to wrapping up a toon the gp gain slows down by a high % until one hits relics. Relics reintroduce high gp gains. If cg wasn't remotely aware of this, they wouldn't bother to put such high gp gains nested to relics. And they do want us to drive everything to high relics increasingly so that this weird in between ground is passed over (i.e. at some point everyone's mm toons will be in relics, thus previous disparities won't matter).
  • Starslayer wrote: »
    About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?

    Iirc the GP gained from equipping gear isn't a function of each specific gear piece, but the gear tier that you're equipping it at. Equipping a piece of gear at g8 is going to give you less GP than equipping a piece of gear at g11, even if it's the exact same gear piece, ie. a stun gun. So actually a stun gun can have different value depending on where you put it, contrary to what Kyno is saying
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Yes, the gp table from reddit is 3 pages back.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Also this outcome isn't because of any particular gear but the amount of gear needed as the gear tier goes up being huge while the gp table being miniscule.
  • Rath_Tarr
    4212 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Null hypothesis:
    If gp was to be reflective of investment, one would expect investment values for gear would somewhat reflect the gp increases of gear tiers.
    Not necessarily. That adds a lot of variability in character GP and it binds GP to the in-game economy both of which create problems. Not to mention that abilities and mods also add GP

    Which is probably why the dev team opted instead to assign a fixed value for every slots at a given gear level and apply a similar principle to character ability levels and mods.

    Basic engineering principles: start with the simplest solution that works and add complexity only where the benefit / need justifies the added cost / risk.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Null hypothesis:
    If gp was to be reflective of investment, one would expect investment values for gear would somewhat reflect the gp increases of gear tiers.
    Not necessarily. That adds a lot of variability in character GP and it binds GP to the in-game economy both of which create problems. Not to mention that abilities and mods also add GP

    Which is probably why the dev team opted instead to assign a fixed value for every slots at a given gear level and apply a similar principle to character ability levels and mods.

    Basic engineering principles: start with the simplest solution that works and add complexity only where the benefit / need justifies the added cost / risk.

    The gp tables are fixed values that has a multiplier though. Remember all the chatter that zetas add too much gp?

    I fully agree due to the variability in toons this can never be a perfect investment match, nor did I claim it should be. But I demonstrated how much the current disparity is. I don't think the engineering correlation you showcased apply because any change in this doesn't need a new system, it just needs new gp tables. See the old ones. And let's not forget all these tables were made at a time that didn't have any needs for gp to be employed in complex ways currently used.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/6k4vzn/the_new_power_calc_formula_for_characters/
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    Null hypothesis:
    If gp was to be reflective of investment, one would expect investment values for gear would somewhat reflect the gp increases of gear tiers.

    I assumed crystal as the value of investment. I took 2 very far released toons to calculate approx values. The gp gain tables used are from reddit are old. I know for a fact they changed a bit, but the ratios between the gear tiers were preserved. Since this is a perfectly visible number in the game, anyone can barge in to give the real values.

    Since the gear that goes into each toon is different there are differences, sometimes %80 crystal value differences in between them. For the sake of simplicity I used the average of Embo and Hunter since the point is to find whether gp increases somewhat match investment values.

    If anyone can come up with a better method or falsify mine on numeric grounds, you're welcome.

    Jump to bold part for outcome.

    Embo

    G01-G09 5600
    G10 11200
    G11 19000
    G12 31700

    Individual tier crystal cost
    G10 5600
    G11 7800
    G12 12700

    Hunter

    G01-G09 4200
    G10 12500
    G11 19500
    G12 30800

    Individual tier crystal cost
    G10 8300
    G11 7000
    G12 11300


    Average between 2 toons

    G10 6250 crystals
    G11 7400 crystals
    G12 12000 crystals


    .
    GP per tier
    G10 118*6
    G11 132*6
    G12 140*6




    Total gear tiers gp vs. costs

    G9 2670 gp - 4900 crystals
    G10 708 gp - 6250 crystals
    G11 792 gp - 7400 crystals
    G12 840 gp - 12000 crystals

    G1-G9 vs. G12
    Gp %31.5 rise
    Crystal cost %92 increase


    %292 disparity
    G10 vs g12
    Gp %18.5 rise
    Crystal cost %92 increase


    %497 disparity

    Hypothesis doesn't hold up. Investment value changes are several magnitudes higher than the gp changes for gear.

    OK, I think I have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

    GP is calculated with a flat value depending of Gear level (G9= X per slot, G10= Y per slot...) and you're saying it doesn't mirror the investment needed to attain such value, so GP doesn't do its job representing how much you invested in a character (If I'm wrong, don't bother reading the rest ^^).

    Your demonstration has a major flaw imo: you change every cost into crystal cost. It seems the logical thing to do as it's a unit of value shared by every piece of gear. But it means you value a full Mk4 Stun Gun 1400 crystals and a full Mk5 Stun Gun prototype 1274 crystals. So even if it's the logical thing to do, it's deeply flawed.

    There are so many currencies and ways to obtain gear that it's quite a challenge to calculate the investment needed to obtain a particular piece of gear. So trying to measure this would be extremely complex (should you use a unit of time invested, the production average of each gear considering all active players, etc...).

    Considering this complexity, the choice made to apply a flat value that increased with gear level, as each gear level is more difficult to fill than the previous one, has merits, even if it's not perfect. So tweaking the actual system if needed would be a better idea than a total overhaul imo.

  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Null hypothesis:
    If gp was to be reflective of investment, one would expect investment values for gear would somewhat reflect the gp increases of gear tiers.

    I assumed crystal as the value of investment. I took 2 very far released toons to calculate approx values. The gp gain tables used are from reddit are old. I know for a fact they changed a bit, but the ratios between the gear tiers were preserved. Since this is a perfectly visible number in the game, anyone can barge in to give the real values.

    Since the gear that goes into each toon is different there are differences, sometimes %80 crystal value differences in between them. For the sake of simplicity I used the average of Embo and Hunter since the point is to find whether gp increases somewhat match investment values.

    If anyone can come up with a better method or falsify mine on numeric grounds, you're welcome.

    Jump to bold part for outcome.

    Embo

    G01-G09 5600
    G10 11200
    G11 19000
    G12 31700

    Individual tier crystal cost
    G10 5600
    G11 7800
    G12 12700

    Hunter

    G01-G09 4200
    G10 12500
    G11 19500
    G12 30800

    Individual tier crystal cost
    G10 8300
    G11 7000
    G12 11300


    Average between 2 toons

    G10 6250 crystals
    G11 7400 crystals
    G12 12000 crystals


    .
    GP per tier
    G10 118*6
    G11 132*6
    G12 140*6




    Total gear tiers gp vs. costs

    G9 2670 gp - 4900 crystals
    G10 708 gp - 6250 crystals
    G11 792 gp - 7400 crystals
    G12 840 gp - 12000 crystals

    G1-G9 vs. G12
    Gp %31.5 rise
    Crystal cost %92 increase


    %292 disparity
    G10 vs g12
    Gp %18.5 rise
    Crystal cost %92 increase


    %497 disparity

    Hypothesis doesn't hold up. Investment value changes are several magnitudes higher than the gp changes for gear.

    OK, I think I have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

    GP is calculated with a flat value depending of Gear level (G9= X per slot, G10= Y per slot...) and you're saying it doesn't mirror the investment needed to attain such value, so GP doesn't do its job representing how much you invested in a character (If I'm wrong, don't bother reading the rest ^^).

    Your demonstration has a major flaw imo: you change every cost into crystal cost. It seems the logical thing to do as it's a unit of value shared by every piece of gear. But it means you value a full Mk4 Stun Gun 1400 crystals and a full Mk5 Stun Gun prototype 1274 crystals. So even if it's the logical thing to do, it's deeply flawed.

    There are so many currencies and ways to obtain gear that it's quite a challenge to calculate the investment needed to obtain a particular piece of gear. So trying to measure this would be extremely complex (should you use a unit of time invested, the production average of each gear considering all active players, etc...).

    Considering this complexity, the choice made to apply a flat value that increased with gear level, as each gear level is more difficult to fill than the previous one, has merits, even if it's not perfect. So tweaking the actual system if needed would be a better idea than a total overhaul imo.

    Yes you understood perfectly.

    You are right that I took crystals as a rather easy to calculate basis, the others can be used (on swgoh events gear)

    You didn't get the suggestion I was making though. I didn't ever ask for an overhaul but the gp tables that currently doesn't reflect investment in any manner can be made to reflect it much much better if the climbing numbers were higher. One can do such a mock up table that suits this purpose as well.

    And ofc due to variations between toons it simply can't perfectly reflect it (which doesn't beat the claim that it can much better than it is)

    I had also pondered in between parameter tables; i.e. omega vs. zeta vs. gear. Such extreme problem with the gear table internalities doesn't exist there.
  • Kyno
    30475 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?

    None of the matchmaking is made in slots of gear though, it's made by the totality of a toon's gp. As you get to wrapping up a toon the gp gain slows down by a high % until one hits relics. Relics reintroduce high gp gains. If cg wasn't remotely aware of this, they wouldn't bother to put such high gp gains nested to relics. And they do want us to drive everything to high relics increasingly so that this weird in between ground is passed over (i.e. at some point everyone's mm toons will be in relics, thus previous disparities won't matter).

    Correct matchmaking is based on a large aggregate of all the things added, which is why it doednt matter if a toon doesn't equal a toon.

    Your roster, and your top X toons are broken down into X# of this, Y# of that, some number of stun guns and stunf cuffs.

    That means it is built up of the investments you have made, the time, crystals, and/or $$ you have invested into farming are all represented in that number. How you use that number, what you farm and which toons you put them on, is the layer of player choices that shine through in the actual match.

    From everything we know, if your breakdown 2 players
    Player A: X stun guns, Y stun cuffs, and numbers of other stuff

    Player B: 20% less stun guns and stun cuffs, but more other stuff to make up the GP difference

    They can be equal in GP value, but different in crystal value, as you have shown, but that is just a layer of choices the players have made. With less focus on guns and cuffs, player B will hit more roadblocks and have a wider roster.

    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    Relics require more gear and add to a character in a different way, that is represented in the GP gain.
  • Hortus
    512 posts Member
    edited June 4
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    It obviously incorrect because different pieces with equal formal value have very different value in terms or resources (time, energy, crystals, whatever) which player must put into actual farming.

    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.
  • Hortus wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.
    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.
    The question is, will you gear a Bodhi-tier character instead of a Dark Trooper just because the gear is cheaper. If your answer is "yes" then there is your problem.
  • Hortus
    512 posts Member
    Hortus wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.
    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.
    The question is, will you gear a Bodhi-tier character instead of a Dark Trooper just because the gear is cheaper. If your answer is "yes" then there is your problem.

    There is such question, without doubt, but it's not the question I discussed. :) There is situation that matchmaking in GAC and TW is based on GP but GP currently measures... nothing but amount of gear slots player filled on different toons. It's not investment, it's not power, it just abstract number which have no direct impact on anything. Well, except matchmaking. :)
  • Kyno
    30475 posts Moderator
    Hortus wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    It obviously incorrect because different pieces with equal formal value have very different value in terms or resources (time, energy, crystals, whatever) which player must put into actual farming.

    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.

    Correct they can have different values, but when added to a toon they have the same value.

    So applying all of your MK 9 Neuro-Saav will add some amount of GP. Or another player farms a bunch of different gear the equals that GP. Hoe your roster ends up at that point is based on the choices that each player made. That is how our investments show through the GP of a roster.

    Also, I should have added "rewards" to the list of stuff players can add.
  • Kyno
    30475 posts Moderator
    Also, to one more point from Maru, if matchmaking was done like the bots on discord, and matches were based on the number of toons at X,Y,Z gear level, then the gear tables would have an impact on matchmaking and be more meaningful. That is not the case, it's all based on "the component values". This is not to say gear tables dont have an impact, but it's not an end all be all, due to the way GP is calculated.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?

    None of the matchmaking is made in slots of gear though, it's made by the totality of a toon's gp. As you get to wrapping up a toon the gp gain slows down by a high % until one hits relics. Relics reintroduce high gp gains. If cg wasn't remotely aware of this, they wouldn't bother to put such high gp gains nested to relics. And they do want us to drive everything to high relics increasingly so that this weird in between ground is passed over (i.e. at some point everyone's mm toons will be in relics, thus previous disparities won't matter).

    Correct matchmaking is based on a large aggregate of all the things added, which is why it doednt matter if a toon doesn't equal a toon.

    Your roster, and your top X toons are broken down into X# of this, Y# of that, some number of stun guns and stunf cuffs.

    That means it is built up of the investments you have made, the time, crystals, and/or $$ you have invested into farming are all represented in that number. How you use that number, what you farm and which toons you put them on, is the layer of player choices that shine through in the actual match.

    From everything we know, if your breakdown 2 players
    Player A: X stun guns, Y stun cuffs, and numbers of other stuff

    Player B: 20% less stun guns and stun cuffs, but more other stuff to make up the GP difference

    They can be equal in GP value, but different in crystal value, as you have shown, but that is just a layer of choices the players have made. With less focus on guns and cuffs, player B will hit more roadblocks and have a wider roster.

    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    Relics require more gear and add to a character in a different way, that is represented in the GP gain.

    Where did I ever say toon needs to be equal to another toon? Please, please read. It's about the GP tables that are global and causes the disparity.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    It obviously incorrect because different pieces with equal formal value have very different value in terms or resources (time, energy, crystals, whatever) which player must put into actual farming.

    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.

    Correct they can have different values, but when added to a toon they have the same value.

    So applying all of your MK 9 Neuro-Saav will add some amount of GP. Or another player farms a bunch of different gear the equals that GP. Hoe your roster ends up at that point is based on the choices that each player made. That is how our investments show through the GP of a roster.

    Also, I should have added "rewards" to the list of stuff players can add.

    People have shown to you already that same gear won't add the same gp on different gear tiers. The way this reflects to matchmaking has nothing to do with "you chose that toon to gear, I did this, thus I have advantage", it's problematic because it breaks evennes of distributions between matched players.
  • Kyno
    30475 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    It obviously incorrect because different pieces with equal formal value have very different value in terms or resources (time, energy, crystals, whatever) which player must put into actual farming.

    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.

    Correct they can have different values, but when added to a toon they have the same value.

    So applying all of your MK 9 Neuro-Saav will add some amount of GP. Or another player farms a bunch of different gear the equals that GP. Hoe your roster ends up at that point is based on the choices that each player made. That is how our investments show through the GP of a roster.

    Also, I should have added "rewards" to the list of stuff players can add.

    People have shown to you already that same gear won't add the same gp on different gear tiers. The way this reflects to matchmaking has nothing to do with "you chose that toon to gear, I did this, thus I have advantage", it's problematic because it breaks evennes of distributions between matched players.

    Can you please show me where a stun gun does not equal a stun gun when being applied to a toon. I have yet to see this, did I miss this post?
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Hortus wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.
    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.
    The question is, will you gear a Bodhi-tier character instead of a Dark Trooper just because the gear is cheaper. If your answer is "yes" then there is your problem.

    There is such question, without doubt, but it's not the question I discussed. :) There is situation that matchmaking in GAC and TW is based on GP but GP currently measures... nothing but amount of gear slots player filled on different toons. It's not investment, it's not power, it just abstract number which have no direct impact on anything. Well, except matchmaking. :)

    Yes, you get it :). Arbitrarily increasing values.
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    It obviously incorrect because different pieces with equal formal value have very different value in terms or resources (time, energy, crystals, whatever) which player must put into actual farming.

    As an example - I don't care how many Mk 9 Neuro-Saav toon requires, I just click the button. But there are pieces which are completely another story. So if one toon requires 200 Kyros and 100 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav and other requires just 300 Mk 9 Neuro-Saav it's not equal investment, not even close.

    Correct they can have different values, but when added to a toon they have the same value.

    So applying all of your MK 9 Neuro-Saav will add some amount of GP. Or another player farms a bunch of different gear the equals that GP. Hoe your roster ends up at that point is based on the choices that each player made. That is how our investments show through the GP of a roster.

    Also, I should have added "rewards" to the list of stuff players can add.

    People have shown to you already that same gear won't add the same gp on different gear tiers. The way this reflects to matchmaking has nothing to do with "you chose that toon to gear, I did this, thus I have advantage", it's problematic because it breaks evennes of distributions between matched players.

    Can you please show me where a stun gun does not equal a stun gun when being applied to a toon. I have yet to see this, did I miss this post?

    Yes, I posted gp tables from reddit twice (these are testable, known numbers since they are not hidden). Different gear slots will yields will reveal completely different values for the same gear. But it's about the entire gear tiers where the totality of the gp disparity will be fully revealed before your eyes. The calculation I've made should make that evident.
  • Kyno
    30475 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?

    None of the matchmaking is made in slots of gear though, it's made by the totality of a toon's gp. As you get to wrapping up a toon the gp gain slows down by a high % until one hits relics. Relics reintroduce high gp gains. If cg wasn't remotely aware of this, they wouldn't bother to put such high gp gains nested to relics. And they do want us to drive everything to high relics increasingly so that this weird in between ground is passed over (i.e. at some point everyone's mm toons will be in relics, thus previous disparities won't matter).

    Correct matchmaking is based on a large aggregate of all the things added, which is why it doednt matter if a toon doesn't equal a toon.

    Your roster, and your top X toons are broken down into X# of this, Y# of that, some number of stun guns and stunf cuffs.

    That means it is built up of the investments you have made, the time, crystals, and/or $$ you have invested into farming are all represented in that number. How you use that number, what you farm and which toons you put them on, is the layer of player choices that shine through in the actual match.

    From everything we know, if your breakdown 2 players
    Player A: X stun guns, Y stun cuffs, and numbers of other stuff

    Player B: 20% less stun guns and stun cuffs, but more other stuff to make up the GP difference

    They can be equal in GP value, but different in crystal value, as you have shown, but that is just a layer of choices the players have made. With less focus on guns and cuffs, player B will hit more roadblocks and have a wider roster.

    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    Relics require more gear and add to a character in a different way, that is represented in the GP gain.

    Where did I ever say toon needs to be equal to another toon? Please, please read. It's about the GP tables that are global and causes the disparity.

    So you disagree that a rosters GP is the total of point values of the individual geared parts, broken down as I have outlined?

    It doesnt matter that 2 toons at the same gear level have a disparity that you outlined. We dont gear a toon just to a level, toons are not compared just at the level. We gear by the pieces we have farmed, gotten from rewards, or bought (crystals or $$). Comparisons or matching is made by GP (sum of pieces added).

    Can you clarify what you mean by global GP table?
  • MaruMaru
    2292 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?

    None of the matchmaking is made in slots of gear though, it's made by the totality of a toon's gp. As you get to wrapping up a toon the gp gain slows down by a high % until one hits relics. Relics reintroduce high gp gains. If cg wasn't remotely aware of this, they wouldn't bother to put such high gp gains nested to relics. And they do want us to drive everything to high relics increasingly so that this weird in between ground is passed over (i.e. at some point everyone's mm toons will be in relics, thus previous disparities won't matter).

    Correct matchmaking is based on a large aggregate of all the things added, which is why it doednt matter if a toon doesn't equal a toon.

    Your roster, and your top X toons are broken down into X# of this, Y# of that, some number of stun guns and stunf cuffs.

    That means it is built up of the investments you have made, the time, crystals, and/or $$ you have invested into farming are all represented in that number. How you use that number, what you farm and which toons you put them on, is the layer of player choices that shine through in the actual match.

    From everything we know, if your breakdown 2 players
    Player A: X stun guns, Y stun cuffs, and numbers of other stuff

    Player B: 20% less stun guns and stun cuffs, but more other stuff to make up the GP difference

    They can be equal in GP value, but different in crystal value, as you have shown, but that is just a layer of choices the players have made. With less focus on guns and cuffs, player B will hit more roadblocks and have a wider roster.

    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    Relics require more gear and add to a character in a different way, that is represented in the GP gain.

    Where did I ever say toon needs to be equal to another toon? Please, please read. It's about the GP tables that are global and causes the disparity.

    So you disagree that a rosters GP is the total of point values of the individual geared parts, broken down as I have outlined?

    It doesnt matter that 2 toons at the same gear level have a disparity that you outlined. We dont gear a toon just to a level, toons are not compared just at the level. We gear by the pieces we have farmed, gotten from rewards, or bought (crystals or $$). Comparisons or matching is made by GP (sum of pieces added).

    Can you clarify what you mean by global GP table?

    Ok I give up. Not the same gear level for the last time, the disparity between gp gained via gear tiers that are on the table that works globally across the game.
  • Kyno
    30475 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    About how is gp calculated now: as Kyno said, does a stun gun raise gp the same amount for every character ? Is it the true for every piece of gear ?

    None of the matchmaking is made in slots of gear though, it's made by the totality of a toon's gp. As you get to wrapping up a toon the gp gain slows down by a high % until one hits relics. Relics reintroduce high gp gains. If cg wasn't remotely aware of this, they wouldn't bother to put such high gp gains nested to relics. And they do want us to drive everything to high relics increasingly so that this weird in between ground is passed over (i.e. at some point everyone's mm toons will be in relics, thus previous disparities won't matter).

    Correct matchmaking is based on a large aggregate of all the things added, which is why it doednt matter if a toon doesn't equal a toon.

    Your roster, and your top X toons are broken down into X# of this, Y# of that, some number of stun guns and stunf cuffs.

    That means it is built up of the investments you have made, the time, crystals, and/or $$ you have invested into farming are all represented in that number. How you use that number, what you farm and which toons you put them on, is the layer of player choices that shine through in the actual match.

    From everything we know, if your breakdown 2 players
    Player A: X stun guns, Y stun cuffs, and numbers of other stuff

    Player B: 20% less stun guns and stun cuffs, but more other stuff to make up the GP difference

    They can be equal in GP value, but different in crystal value, as you have shown, but that is just a layer of choices the players have made. With less focus on guns and cuffs, player B will hit more roadblocks and have a wider roster.

    No one is saying it's perfect, but it 100% represents the way a player has invested on their end (time,crystals, and/or $$), and the choices they have made for farming over the lifetime of game play.

    Relics require more gear and add to a character in a different way, that is represented in the GP gain.

    Where did I ever say toon needs to be equal to another toon? Please, please read. It's about the GP tables that are global and causes the disparity.

    So you disagree that a rosters GP is the total of point values of the individual geared parts, broken down as I have outlined?

    It doesnt matter that 2 toons at the same gear level have a disparity that you outlined. We dont gear a toon just to a level, toons are not compared just at the level. We gear by the pieces we have farmed, gotten from rewards, or bought (crystals or $$). Comparisons or matching is made by GP (sum of pieces added).

    Can you clarify what you mean by global GP table?

    Ok I give up. Not the same gear level for the last time, the disparity between gp gained via gear tiers that are on the table that works globally across the game.

    What are gear teirs used for? When are they used in any way for matchmaking?

    GP is a culmination of points that represent the pieces applied. The pieces that we choose to farm and place, that represent our investment on a many levels.

    So you disagree that our total GP can be broken down to the gear we placed on all characters? That a comparison of a total GP or the top X number of toons is again just a comparison of all the gear placed in each of those situations?
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    You didn't get the suggestion I was making though. I didn't ever ask for an overhaul but the gp tables that currently doesn't reflect investment in any manner can be made to reflect it much much better if the climbing numbers were higher. One can do such a mock up table that suits this purpose as well.

    You and Kyno seem to misunderstand each other on details. Let's try to simplify things to keep this debate healthy and rolling.

    Do you have an idea (even a rough one) of a new GP table so we can see what you're suggesting and how it would improve the "reality" of GP value ? Doesn't have to be a whole new table, just an example would be perfectly fine.
Sign In or Register to comment.