Solution for matchmaking concerns

Prev1
Dahly_lama4
45 posts Member
edited February 19
I feel a solution to the matchmaking issue is to still use top 80 GP to create divisions for the matchmaking take the total or average of a players top 5 characters to determine matches the number of GL (50k) will result in players with similar numbers of GL to be matched together while to rest of the characters are typically 30-35k once fully developed

So if I am at 4.4 mil that puts me in my division but If don’t have any GL and my top 5 character average is 34k I can be easily matched with another 34k opponent, a player with 1 GL will average closer to 38k, 2 GL will be at 41K there isn’t too much room to manipulate that besides trying to have an underdeveloped GL with a lower GP.

Thoughts on that solution for match ups?

Replies

  • For me it’s an unnecessary complication to the end goal you and others (not me) seek.

    Total GP of top 5 characters (average is meaningless if you always use top 5) is a longwinded way of saying “number of GL”. It is inconceivable that a 1 GL owner could ever engineer the GP of their top 5 to be equal to or lower than someone that doesn’t own a GL.

    Whilst you think this will lead to fairer matchups, I disagree. Take the current GAC, for example, where in top divisions players need to set 35 toons on defence and use (nominally) 35 toons on offence. At the moment, the matchmaking algorithm is looking at the GP of the ~70 characters that players need to use.

    You’re suggesting that they switch to only considering the top 5 toons on each player’s roster? This will absolutely not get rid of “mismatches” it will just pit those who have gone with laser focus for a GL above all other roster developments against those who have got deep, broad rosters but dragged their heels in getting their first GL.
  • Kyno
    28200 posts Moderator
    No he is suggesting a double shuffle to make a match.

    1st grouping is based on your top 80 (or whatever number)

    Then from that group you are matched by your top 5.
  • Dahly_lama4
    45 posts Member
    edited February 19
    Yeah it is both we would still have divisions (hopefully soon we will have more) and are grouped by that but when matching within the division it goes to top 5 average, I hear all the time on this forum people worried about their total GP and how they have 1 GL but are facing 3 how they don’t want to take on GP this would free them to enjoy building squads and take on GP with out stressing.
  • I also think that they should also take into account GAC results so "best" GAC players can actually be matched against other "best" players.

    My current matchup
    ========= GA Stats =========
    Rank :: 31,652 vs 1,176

    How much fun is that going to be for either of us?
  • TVF
    27442 posts Member
    Win more rounds.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • As a player with no GLs (and who may never have them) I don't mind so much matching without any reference to GLs, as those that have them firstly put in a huge effort to get them, so deserve their supremacy, but they also put a lot of GP into (personal opinion) sometimes rubbish toons that are a waste, and in 1v1 like GAC (as opposed to TW, which has ridiculous match making, and sadly CG seem not to care, but that's for another thread), that often evens out. I suspect I'll just have to pump GP into GL counter teams to stay competitive without GLs. That's ok, gives me something to work to.
    As for matching on GAC performance/wins/points, that puts better players against each other, which sounds good from a challenge perspective, but the rewards would have to be adjusted to reflect that, meaning higher rewards for the better players. Else you're essentially punishing people for being successful.
  • DarjeloSalas
    4983 posts Member
    edited February 19
    nottenst wrote: »
    I also think that they should also take into account GAC results so "best" GAC players can actually be matched against other "best" players.

    My current matchup
    ========= GA Stats =========
    Rank :: 31,652 vs 1,176

    How much fun is that going to be for either of us?
    After 1 round?

    This doesn’t seem a valid complaint to me.
    Post edited by DarjeloSalas on
  • nottenst wrote: »
    I also think that they should also take into account GAC results so "best" GAC players can actually be matched against other "best" players.

    My current matchup
    ========= GA Stats =========
    Rank :: 31,652 vs 1,176

    How much fun is that going to be for either of us?

    And here we eventually will come to the idea of PvP rating and matchmaking based on it. CG already commented on that in the past, they dropped this idea for very vague (in my opinion) reasons. So it's very unlikely they will return to it.
  • Waqui
    8066 posts Member
    Matching by top-5 character GP is completely nonsense when you need far more characters to win a round. The current algorithm is quite close to matching by the GP of the characters you're actually using to win a round.
  • Waqui
    8066 posts Member
    nottenst wrote: »
    I also think that they should also take into account GAC results so "best" GAC players can actually be matched against other "best" players.

    My current matchup
    ========= GA Stats =========
    Rank :: 31,652 vs 1,176

    How much fun is that going to be for either of us?

    You've only played one round of the twelve this championship. Leagues have no effect yet. The next 3 GAs your will be matched partly on your past performance (your league).

  • As I consider swgoh a strategy game, I'm perfectly happy with actual matchmaking, as strategy plays a decisive role.to decide the winner.

    Your proposal will lesser the importance of strategy, so I don't fancy it very much.
  • Kyno
    28200 posts Moderator
    First, I didnt realize they wanted the first grouping to be divisions, I disagree with that and it's not necessary.

    To the OPs point, this could be a viable solution to the divisions problem.

    Keep divisions where they are, as they are really just there for prizes.

    Sub divide in divisions based on the top 80, so now you have groups within divisions.

    From each group you make matches based on top X(some other sub set).

    I honestly dont see this changing much in the roster build strategy as you are still grouped with your top 80, but it may lead to more fair matches, that some do not see with the current very broad range setup.

    Divisions were supposed to do this to some extent, but now as a majority approach Div 1, and top 80s become more similar, something like this could help.
  • Starslayer
    588 posts Member
    edited February 19
    Kyno wrote: »
    First, I didnt realize they wanted the first grouping to be divisions, I disagree with that and it's not necessary.

    To the OPs point, this could be a viable solution to the divisions problem.

    Keep divisions where they are, as they are really just there for prizes.

    Sub divide in divisions based on the top 80, so now you have groups within divisions.

    From each group you make matches based on top X(some other sub set).

    I honestly dont see this changing much in the roster build strategy as you are still grouped with your top 80, but it may lead to more fair matches, that some do not see with the current very broad range setup.

    Divisions were supposed to do this to some extent, but now as a majority approach Div 1, and top 80s become more similar, something like this could help.

    If you put a top 5 inside the top 80, you give more importance to micro management and GAC specific decisions instead of roster building as a whole. For instance: the top 5 of my actual opponent range from 32.3k to 37.3 GP, no GLs. Rey R1 is worth 32.7k GP. So I could easily game the system, unlock GLs, don't gear them past R1 and have a decisive advantage, because I'll be in the same bracket as "no GLs players" and avoid the GL owners that didn't use this tactic. I can even have 4 of them and it won't matter, as long as I don't gear them all the way Considering the current state of the game (RPS meta), I'm not even sure you need a R7 GL to climb in arena. Having a Rock R1 and a Paper R1 may be enough to smash Scissors R7 and Rock R7.

    Which brings me to my favorite subject regarding mm: I think the real issue is the GP value of Relics. They give too much GP.

  • Kyno
    28200 posts Moderator
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    First, I didnt realize they wanted the first grouping to be divisions, I disagree with that and it's not necessary.

    To the OPs point, this could be a viable solution to the divisions problem.

    Keep divisions where they are, as they are really just there for prizes.

    Sub divide in divisions based on the top 80, so now you have groups within divisions.

    From each group you make matches based on top X(some other sub set).

    I honestly dont see this changing much in the roster build strategy as you are still grouped with your top 80, but it may lead to more fair matches, that some do not see with the current very broad range setup.

    Divisions were supposed to do this to some extent, but now as a majority approach Div 1, and top 80s become more similar, something like this could help.

    If you put a top 5 inside the top 80, you give more importance to micro management and GAC specific decisions instead of roster building as a whole. For instance: the top 5 of my actual opponent range from 32.3k to 37.3 GP, no GLs. Rey R1 is worth 32.7k GP. So I could easily game the system, unlock GLs, don't gear them past R1 and have a decisive advantage, because I'll be in the same bracket as "no GLs players" and avoid the GL owners that didn't use this tactic. I can even have 4 of them and it won't matter, as long as I don't gear them all the way Considering the current state of the game (RPS meta), I'm not even sure you need a R7 GL to climb in arena. Having a Rock R1 and a Paper R1 may be enough to smash Scissors R7 and Rock R7.

    Which brings me to my favorite subject regarding mm: I think the real issue is the GP value of Relics. They give too much GP.

    But then your GL would not be eligible for the raid.

    It would all be about choices. The rough tune of decisions is too rough for the "fine tune" of top 80.

    I honestly have no problem with MM, but there are some who do, and others who have issues with Div 1. So I kind of saw a possibility here to resolve both.

    That top 5 could also be a top 10-15 to make it harder to game in that way, and still server the same purpose.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    First, I didnt realize they wanted the first grouping to be divisions, I disagree with that and it's not necessary.

    To the OPs point, this could be a viable solution to the divisions problem.

    Keep divisions where they are, as they are really just there for prizes.

    Sub divide in divisions based on the top 80, so now you have groups within divisions.

    From each group you make matches based on top X(some other sub set).

    I honestly dont see this changing much in the roster build strategy as you are still grouped with your top 80, but it may lead to more fair matches, that some do not see with the current very broad range setup.

    Divisions were supposed to do this to some extent, but now as a majority approach Div 1, and top 80s become more similar, something like this could help.

    If you put a top 5 inside the top 80, you give more importance to micro management and GAC specific decisions instead of roster building as a whole. For instance: the top 5 of my actual opponent range from 32.3k to 37.3 GP, no GLs. Rey R1 is worth 32.7k GP. So I could easily game the system, unlock GLs, don't gear them past R1 and have a decisive advantage, because I'll be in the same bracket as "no GLs players" and avoid the GL owners that didn't use this tactic. I can even have 4 of them and it won't matter, as long as I don't gear them all the way Considering the current state of the game (RPS meta), I'm not even sure you need a R7 GL to climb in arena. Having a Rock R1 and a Paper R1 may be enough to smash Scissors R7 and Rock R7.

    Which brings me to my favorite subject regarding mm: I think the real issue is the GP value of Relics. They give too much GP.

    But then your GL would not be eligible for the raid.

    It would all be about choices. The rough tune of decisions is too rough for the "fine tune" of top 80.

    I honestly have no problem with MM, but there are some who do, and others who have issues with Div 1. So I kind of saw a possibility here to resolve both.

    That top 5 could also be a top 10-15 to make it harder to game in that way, and still server the same purpose.

    As long as you don't cross a 35k-37k GP barrier, GLs you own are on par with not-GLs R7 characters. This system will make it actually easier to avoid facing GLs when you have GLs if you build your roster accordingly. So players who made previous choices of R7 "unnecessary" characters will pay a higher price, because correcting this decision will be much, much harder.

    About R5 minimum for raid: R5 Rey is 36.5k GP. High, but not significantly higher than a non-GL R7.

    I still think a lot of mm problems will be solved by tuning down the GP gain via Relics instead of changing mm.
  • Starslayer
    588 posts Member
    edited February 19
    Post brought back, thx Kylo !
    Post edited by Starslayer on
  • TVF
    27442 posts Member
    Pro-forum tip: Never edit a post.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    28200 posts Moderator
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    First, I didnt realize they wanted the first grouping to be divisions, I disagree with that and it's not necessary.

    To the OPs point, this could be a viable solution to the divisions problem.

    Keep divisions where they are, as they are really just there for prizes.

    Sub divide in divisions based on the top 80, so now you have groups within divisions.

    From each group you make matches based on top X(some other sub set).

    I honestly dont see this changing much in the roster build strategy as you are still grouped with your top 80, but it may lead to more fair matches, that some do not see with the current very broad range setup.

    Divisions were supposed to do this to some extent, but now as a majority approach Div 1, and top 80s become more similar, something like this could help.

    If you put a top 5 inside the top 80, you give more importance to micro management and GAC specific decisions instead of roster building as a whole. For instance: the top 5 of my actual opponent range from 32.3k to 37.3 GP, no GLs. Rey R1 is worth 32.7k GP. So I could easily game the system, unlock GLs, don't gear them past R1 and have a decisive advantage, because I'll be in the same bracket as "no GLs players" and avoid the GL owners that didn't use this tactic. I can even have 4 of them and it won't matter, as long as I don't gear them all the way Considering the current state of the game (RPS meta), I'm not even sure you need a R7 GL to climb in arena. Having a Rock R1 and a Paper R1 may be enough to smash Scissors R7 and Rock R7.

    Which brings me to my favorite subject regarding mm: I think the real issue is the GP value of Relics. They give too much GP.

    But then your GL would not be eligible for the raid.

    It would all be about choices. The rough tune of decisions is too rough for the "fine tune" of top 80.

    I honestly have no problem with MM, but there are some who do, and others who have issues with Div 1. So I kind of saw a possibility here to resolve both.

    That top 5 could also be a top 10-15 to make it harder to game in that way, and still server the same purpose.

    Wrote you an almost point-by-point reply that was eaten down by spam filter because I edited a typo Oo
    Oh well, better luck next time.

    Bottom line: don't tune MM to solve the problems, tune down the GP associated with Relic level to allow mm to work better.

    Brought it back, and that makes sense, but does nothing for divisions, so we would still have that problem.

    As many people say, and I believe also, MM isnt really the problem, it's a system we can work within to fine tune our development. And I certainly dont want a system that allows anyone to game it any more than they could, currently R1 vs R7 development would be seen as a bad choice, and keeping a GL at that level does have down sides, but I get it.

    One point that has been brought up many times is that certain matches that are made, even when close, just seem "unfair" and if they could make that happen less, that would be interesting to the whole setup. I honestly think that would involve a much deeper change than anything we are discussing here.
  • These types of conversations are for the people who actually enjoy playing the game. The ones who just want to gear minimum toons and barely play to get the win (won't mention any names but its pretty obvious at this point) shouldn't even part of these but here we are day in and day out. Same handful of folks join every one of these threads as they pop up repeatedly (hmmmm must be a reason) and where you'll find them you'll find me to keep reminding them that yes..... this system needs work and is frowned upon by many. Hi guys is me again. 👋
  • ... this system needs work and is frowned upon by many. Hi guys is me again. 👋
    So do the rosters of people having an issue with the current matchmaking. Yet here we are, getting these suggestions for "improvement" of MM almost every week.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    does nothing for divisions, so we would still have that problem.

    I still don't understand the "division problem" you're refereing too. The only issue I see with divisions is the numbers of slots, because you should have more slots in D1 than D2 and nowadays, the upper tier of D1 has too many teams for the numbers of slots. It may be anecdotal, but when I crossed the D1 line i didn't see any difference in mm and I dont' see how it could be, except for a few sandbagging now and then but it seems too seldom too really be a problem.
    One point that has been brought up many times is that certain matches that are made, even when close, just seem "unfair" and if they could make that happen less, that would be interesting to the whole setup. I honestly think that would involve a much deeper change than anything we are discussing here.

    It all depends of what people mean by "unfair". A better use of resources leading to a strategical advantage isn't "unfair" imo, that's the whole point of strategic decisions. It's fine by me if there are no "lethal errors" that you can't reverse (which is what I fear in the system described in this thread) and if it's not counter-intuitive, which would be "gaming the system" with my standards.

    Not saying there are no problems, just that mm ain't one. However, sorry to sound like a broken record, but I really think GP gain via Relic is a major issue.(Major Issue!)

    If you scroll through the roster of people complaining about unfair mm, it's almost always the same pattern: they R6-7'd a bunch of guys, usually much more than their "unfair" opponents. Let's look at my opponents in round 1 and 2. They had 41 and 42 relic'd characters, while I have 53. They overrelic'd them, I didn't, that gave me a decisive advantage. 12 more Relic'd characters is a lot and allows me an extra GL easily. If you would consider only top10-15, it won't change a thing, as I have very few R7 compared to them. And they can't change this. However, if you would tune down the GP gain via Relic level, this won't happened.

    And you know what ? If Relics didn't bloat GP as much, I'm pretty sure more people would R5 characters to Challenge the Rancor.
  • Kyno
    28200 posts Moderator
    I am generally just echoing other players sentiments on the problem, but the division issue comes from everyone 4m (I forget the threshold) to 7M+ are all in the same pool.

    And while top 80 will make some separation from the top to bottom of that range, there is actually a huge group that are within matching range, that really shouldn't be, because it can lead to a match that has a far more predictable outcome, than a fair match.

    So an example would be you can have 3 players, 3 Gls, 2 GLs, and 1 GL, all as possible matches for each other (mathematically speaking) based on top 80. 1v3 is less fair than 1v2 or 2v3.

    Fair is not about anything other than more even for better game play between the players. I agree some make better choices than others, but with the pool as big as it is, they could still make better matches without actually making it easier to harder for the players.
  • Kyno wrote: »

    So an example would be you can have 3 players, 3 Gls, 2 GLs, and 1 GL, all as possible matches for each other (mathematically speaking) based on top 80. 1v3 is less fair than 1v2 or 2v3.

    Based on what you mean by "fair", I understand your point. However, Division size won"t change anything, I really doesn't understand "players sentiments" here. For MM I disagree with "players sentiment", but for the Div thing influencing mm I just don't understand Oo On the contrary, a large number of players in the same divisions, however wide it can be, means it's more likely to face an opponent which top 80 is very close to yours, GP-wise. The more, the closer matchups.

  • Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    So an example would be you can have 3 players, 3 Gls, 2 GLs, and 1 GL, all as possible matches for each other (mathematically speaking) based on top 80. 1v3 is less fair than 1v2 or 2v3.

    Based on what you mean by "fair", I understand your point. However, Division size won"t change anything, I really doesn't understand "players sentiments" here. For MM I disagree with "players sentiment", but for the Div thing influencing mm I just don't understand Oo On the contrary, a large number of players in the same divisions, however wide it can be, means it's more likely to face an opponent which top 80 is very close to yours, GP-wise. The more, the closer matchups.
    It's also a matter of competition. Yes, there are players that care about the leaderboard and it's obviously easier to break top ranks when you can solo a g8 Ewok Squad with g13 r0 Thrawn and solo a g8 Phoenix with G12 Wampa every round, while others, in the very same division, fight 4 GLs on defense and possibly the weakest team they face is an all r7 320+ BH team (before lead bonuses).

    These two players should absolutely not be in the same division on the same leaderboard.
  • Starslayer
    588 posts Member
    edited February 19
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    So an example would be you can have 3 players, 3 Gls, 2 GLs, and 1 GL, all as possible matches for each other (mathematically speaking) based on top 80. 1v3 is less fair than 1v2 or 2v3.

    Based on what you mean by "fair", I understand your point. However, Division size won"t change anything, I really doesn't understand "players sentiments" here. For MM I disagree with "players sentiment", but for the Div thing influencing mm I just don't understand Oo On the contrary, a large number of players in the same divisions, however wide it can be, means it's more likely to face an opponent which top 80 is very close to yours, GP-wise. The more, the closer matchups.
    It's also a matter of competition. Yes, there are players that care about the leaderboard and it's obviously easier to break top ranks when you can solo a g8 Ewok Squad with g13 r0 Thrawn and solo a g8 Phoenix with G12 Wampa every round, while others, in the very same division, fight 4 GLs on defense and possibly the weakest team they face is an all r7 320+ BH team (before lead bonuses).

    These two players should absolutely not be in the same division on the same leaderboard.

    This I get ;)
    And I'm all for a Galactic Division with the highest GP and more slots in this regards. More slots, more chances to face different teams each round, more fun.
  • When I think of what gives me joy in this game it is when I find hard fought success against the highest level of difficulty possible. In education this is called the zone of proximal development and it is where the most learning occurs, There is not a lot of joy found in blowing through a weak opponent nor is there joy in hitting a GL wall that is impossible to get through because I have no GL myself. my happiest time in this game is when facing a relatively evenly matched opponent and it comes down to choosing our counter squads and how we choose to fight and mod our characters. When we finish only a few points apart in the end, I have won some and also lost some. I would even say I have more fun in a close loss than a lopsided win even if it costs me rewards.

    I know that a lot of you watch your GP like a super model watches calories and while I can see the joy you take in the efficiency in your roster I would also like to see you be able to metaphorically pig out on you GP with out worrying that it will throw off your opponent assignment.

    If grouped by upper divisions that are set every 1.5 mil (3-4.49) (4.5-5.99) (6-7.49) provide greater rewards for higher divisions to promote GP growth rather than GP starvation (make a loss at the next division worth more than a win in a lower division)

    And then the top 5 matching that for the most part groups us by equality in our strongest leaders aka GLs this to me secures engaging fun content in GA. I know others will feel different they want to be the super model winning beauty contests at the county fair ;)

    Thank you all for your thoughts and contributions to this discussion
  • Waqui
    8066 posts Member
    These types of conversations are for the people who actually enjoy playing the game. The ones who just want to gear minimum toons and barely play to get the win (won't mention any names but its pretty obvious at this point) shouldn't even part of these but here we are day in and day out. Same handful of folks join every one of these threads as they pop up repeatedly (hmmmm must be a reason) and where you'll find them you'll find me to keep reminding them that yes..... this system needs work and is frowned upon by many. Hi guys is me again. 👋

    For whatever reason you still don't get that since you're matched by top-X GP it's not a question of "gearing minimum toons" - it's a question of gearing the right toons.
  • When I think of what gives me joy in this game it is when I find hard fought success against the highest level of difficulty possible. In education this is called the zone of proximal development and it is where the most learning occurs, There is not a lot of joy found in blowing through a weak opponent nor is there joy in hitting a GL wall that is impossible to get through because I have no GL myself. my happiest time in this game is when facing a relatively evenly matched opponent and it comes down to choosing our counter squads and how we choose to fight and mod our characters. When we finish only a few points apart in the end, I have won some and also lost some. I would even say I have more fun in a close loss than a lopsided win even if it costs me rewards.

    I know that a lot of you watch your GP like a super model watches calories and while I can see the joy you take in the efficiency in your roster I would also like to see you be able to metaphorically pig out on you GP with out worrying that it will throw off your opponent assignment.

    If grouped by upper divisions that are set every 1.5 mil (3-4.49) (4.5-5.99) (6-7.49) provide greater rewards for higher divisions to promote GP growth rather than GP starvation (make a loss at the next division worth more than a win in a lower division)

    And then the top 5 matching that for the most part groups us by equality in our strongest leaders aka GLs this to me secures engaging fun content in GA. I know others will feel different they want to be the super model winning beauty contests at the county fair ;)

    Thank you all for your thoughts and contributions to this discussion

    ****, eaten by spam again. Tried to copy/paste but couldn't pass the filter. I'll try to give you the gist of it (Edit: ok, maybe more than the gist after all):

    I understand that you enjoy tactics more than strategy. Totally valid, to each his own, no argument there.

    Still, your top 5 idea won't solve your problem, as I tried to explained earlier. Actually it will probably make it worse. Allow me to quote myself: "the top 5 of my actual opponent range from 32.3k to 37.3 GP, no GLs. Rey R1 is worth 32.7k GP. So I could easily game the system, unlock GLs, don't gear them past R1 and have a decisive advantage, because I'll be in the same bracket as "no GLs players" and avoid the GL owners that didn't use this tactic".

    About the supermodel thing. We, the Scrooge McGear clan, are stingy with gear, that's true. It helps keep our GP down, that's true. But it's not to avoid jumping Division. It doesn't matter which Division you are, only top 80 matters. I didn't see any difference in matchups since I jumped to D1. No, we're stingy because we only give gear where it will give us the most Return on Investment (For instance, g12 to g13 is a huge boost, more than R6 to R7 is most cases. I had a g12 Sith trooper that fitted his pretaunt purpose pretty well during the Sith Empire meta). Chosing the right character to gear and the right amount of gear to invest is a strategic decision and it's actually fun if you're into this kind of things (which you are not it seems, but again, to each his own ;) ) Usually people who complains about matchups overgeared characters and it's a move than will punish them big time in GAC (on top of that, they can't correct it, they just have to gear more characters to even things out. And it could very well be a good move for other parts of the game). Let's me give you an example:

    Luke and Leia have the same amount of resources at their disposal to gear up 2 teams.
    Luke use his stash to R7 a team and G12 another.
    Leia use her stash to R1 two teams.
    Luke put his R7 on D. Leia, using clever modding and smart choices during battles, dispose of Luke's team with her R1.
    Luke, even with clever modding, is outgunned with his G12 against R1 and can't pass Leia's team.

    That's why we supermodels only gear when it's absolutely needed. It allows us to have more strong teams,

    My 2 R1 = R7+G12 is based on GP cost. I think that's where there is room to make matchmaking "fairer", if people want it: changing the GP value of Relics level. But maybe I'm wrong and GP gain is spot on if you compared the resources needed to Relic a character.
  • Starslayer I can see and respect what you would and could do to game the system but there is a trade off. First to get the GL that you would under gear and keep at a low GP you still have to relic toons to a certain point usually a couple R7’s and a couple R5’s, second you would have a GL that is vulnerable to being still beat by a non GL my R7 Vader can take down G11 GL Kylo squads but not stand a chance against a R7 or R8 GL kylo that is fully loaded which leads back to the point if you want to under develop your GL to try and sneak higher rewards in GA it will ultimately still cost you else where (arena rank, guild raid performance, LS/DS Geo) which are all trade offs to consider. But it also leaves the door open to me having a chance to strategize and figure out how to defeat your GL squad with what I have vs a roadblock that I have no shot of getting past. I would also say that most >95% would still gear their GL to R7

    I appreciate your strategic view point but I feel there is less room for manipulation in a top 5 average vs a top 80 total
Sign In or Register to comment.