Solution for matchmaking concerns

2Next

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.
  • Kyno
    28358 posts Moderator
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.

    Not ludicrous, as there is still another layer of separation, but it is something they may want to look at.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.

    Not ludicrous, as there is still another layer of separation, but it is something they may want to look at.
    Yes it is ludicrous to have a 4.5m GP spread with the top end of the division having literally double the roster GP of the bottom end.
  • Kyno
    28358 posts Moderator
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.

    Not ludicrous, as there is still another layer of separation, but it is something they may want to look at.
    Yes it is ludicrous to have a 4.5m GP spread with the top end of the division having literally double the roster GP of the bottom end.

    Considering they will not be matched with each other, it is kind of irrelevant.

    Divisions really only classify the rewards and becomes less relevant for that situation as more people get into div 1.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.

    Not ludicrous, as there is still another layer of separation, but it is something they may want to look at.
    Yes it is ludicrous to have a 4.5m GP spread with the top end of the division having literally double the roster GP of the bottom end.

    Considering they will not be matched with each other, it is kind of irrelevant.

    Divisions really only classify the rewards and becomes less relevant for that situation as more people get into div 1.
    Considering that divisions also dictate squad / fleet placements and constrain rewards it is very much relevant.

    Such a large GP spread is also indicative of an overcrowded division which reduces the number of players who are able to claim the top rewards and titles.

    And the players at the top end of division 1 have an excess of power available so that they are always placing and facing the top meta squads and fleets without having to dig deeper into their rosters as the players at the bottom end of division 1 still have to do. Players at the upper end of that 4.5m GP range really ought to be placing more squads.
  • Kyno
    28358 posts Moderator
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.

    Not ludicrous, as there is still another layer of separation, but it is something they may want to look at.
    Yes it is ludicrous to have a 4.5m GP spread with the top end of the division having literally double the roster GP of the bottom end.

    Considering they will not be matched with each other, it is kind of irrelevant.

    Divisions really only classify the rewards and becomes less relevant for that situation as more people get into div 1.
    Considering that divisions also dictate squad / fleet placements and constrain rewards it is very much relevant.

    Can you explain how this makes it ludacris?

    They each fight the same number of teams and get the same rewards, that sounds like the division spread is irrelevant. If those 3 factors were not equal, then yes I would agree there would need to be more urgency behind addressing this, but it's still not ludicrous.
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.

    Not ludicrous, as there is still another layer of separation, but it is something they may want to look at.
    Yes it is ludicrous to have a 4.5m GP spread with the top end of the division having literally double the roster GP of the bottom end.

    Considering they will not be matched with each other, it is kind of irrelevant.

    Divisions really only classify the rewards and becomes less relevant for that situation as more people get into div 1.

    Such a large GP spread is also indicative of an overcrowded division which reduces the number of players who are able to claim the top rewards and titles.

    ?????

    There are 11 divisions(I believe), there are 11 sets of top spots. That has always been the case, the current number of players in div 1, doesnt have any effect on that.

    Yes adding more divisions would change that, but this situation is not created by crowding division 1.
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.
    Division 1 is now 150k+ players with roster GPs ranging from 4.5m - 9m+ GP. Clearly ludicrous yet CG is still procrastinating about splitting it.

    Not ludicrous, as there is still another layer of separation, but it is something they may want to look at.
    Yes it is ludicrous to have a 4.5m GP spread with the top end of the division having literally double the roster GP of the bottom end.

    Considering they will not be matched with each other, it is kind of irrelevant.

    Divisions really only classify the rewards and becomes less relevant for that situation as more people get into div 1.

    And the players at the top end of division 1 have an excess of power available so that they are always placing and facing the top meta squads and fleets without having to dig deeper into their rosters as the players at the bottom end of division 1 still have to do. Players at the upper end of that 4.5m GP range really ought to be placing more squads.

    I agree, but do want to add that the players at the bottom end are facing players in similar situations and never face players at the very top end.
  • ... 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.

    I think it's safe to say anyone playing this game has a roster that needs work and I agree on the point you were making so thankfully I don't pay much attention to those. Just the valid ones are the only ones Im interested in that show legitimacy. You know, the ones where the 4 that liked your comment go to ask the OP to see their swgoh.gg account so they can line up and tell you how it's your fault and the system is fine. It's just your choices or roster. Rubbish... all of it really. It clearly needs to be revised and revisited.
  • Kyno wrote: »

    ?????

    There are 11 divisions(I believe), there are 11 sets of top spots. That has always been the case, the current number of players in div 1, doesnt have any effect on that.

    Yes adding more divisions would change that, but this situation is not created by crowding division 1.

    If you have 100 players, 10% have access to top 10. If you have 200 players, only 5%. Still 10, but harder to reach.

  • Kyno
    28358 posts Moderator
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    ?????

    There are 11 divisions(I believe), there are 11 sets of top spots. That has always been the case, the current number of players in div 1, doesnt have any effect on that.

    Yes adding more divisions would change that, but this situation is not created by crowding division 1.

    If you have 100 players, 10% have access to top 10. If you have 200 players, only 5%. Still 10, but harder to reach.

    I almost agree, but 1 that's not what the post I was replying to was saying, and 2, since we do not have an elimination type tournament, and no matter how many people are in the divison, you play the same number of matches, so harder is not really accurate, "less likely" maybe.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    ?????

    There are 11 divisions(I believe), there are 11 sets of top spots. That has always been the case, the current number of players in div 1, doesnt have any effect on that.

    Yes adding more divisions would change that, but this situation is not created by crowding division 1.

    If you have 100 players, 10% have access to top 10. If you have 200 players, only 5%. Still 10, but harder to reach.

    I almost agree, but 1 that's not what the post I was replying to was saying, and 2, since we do not have an elimination type tournament, and no matter how many people are in the divison, you play the same number of matches, so harder is not really accurate, "less likely" maybe.
    Less likely, but also not exactly fair, either.

    I’m not seeking to dismiss what bus74 achieved finishing top of Kyber in div 1 so regularly, but what he was facing on defence versus what people with 7M+ GP were facing on defence is simply not comparable. The wider the total GP gap gets, the wider the gap between the matchmaking GP of top and bottom of div 1 gets. As a result, the less and less meaningful it is to compare those at the top and bottom of div 1 on the same leaderboard.
  • First solution that could be given is changing the PG of the divisions / adding PG to the divisions at regular intervals, perhaps annually. The same problem happens with TW. CG games has had to increase the number of tracks before, the question is what is the reason for the delay in doing something obvious that will please most of the community? Is it to use a free to play range from 2 to 3 years of play as Swiss gambit?

    For a staff that made more mistakes than correct, I am not surprised that many people are excited about rumors that CG would stop being the game's producer, even if it is a leap in the dark, many people are willing to play head on.
  • One solution,can be To let player decide witch characters they want To use in grand arena and TW ( lock and unlock system) and after calculate the GP of those for matching, plus havimg a filtrer To match number of GL, i'm sure that can be very challenging
  • TVF
    27500 posts Member
    Pass
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • One solution,can be To let player decide witch characters they want To use in grand arena and TW ( lock and unlock system) and after calculate the GP of those for matching, plus havimg a filtrer To match number of GL, i'm sure that can be very challenging

    What if nobody with a matching GP can be found? And who is going to voluntarily remove toons from their roster?
  • Waqui
    8075 posts Member
    edited February 23
    One solution,can be To let player decide witch characters they want To use in grand arena and TW ( lock and unlock system) and after calculate the GP of those for matching, plus havimg a filtrer To match number of GL, i'm sure that can be very challenging

    It has been suggested before - both the preselection of which characters to use and matching by number of GLs (or whatever is the META character of the month). I dislike both ideas. I'd imagine that certain types of rosters would be able to preselect an undersized roster resulting in even more uneven matches. Or you could "game the system" by selecting your favourite/strongest team to block a zone on defense, select all your lowest GP toons for the rest of the defense and then a strong offense.

    Anyway, the current matching by top-X GP is close to matching by the GP of the characters you actually use to win a round. I don't see how preselection your GAC roster would provide significantly more even matches.
    Post edited by Waqui on
  • Waqui wrote: »

    Anyway, the current matching by top-X GP is close to matching by the GP of the characters you actually use to win a round. I don't see how preselection your GAC roster would provide significantly more even matches.

    It would allow players to correct resource allocation debatable choices, like a R7 nightsister team which doesn't accomplish enough compared to its GP value. However, I'm afraid this could make the problem worse as it woud put an even stronger focus on strategy.

    Allowing a player to "devolve" a character back to gear 1 could do the trick. On top of that, it could be monetized, because if you just allow players to devolve characters without giving them gear back or a fraction of it, it means you have to gear them back to a level you find appropriate, "paying" all over again. It would allow some costly fine tuning. Don't know if it would solve problems or widen the gap between those fine tuning their roster for GAC and others, but those "not GAC-focus" players would be able to do something to improve their GP-efficiency more easily.

  • Or like I said to begin with if you only counted the top 5 GP in matchmaking it doesn’t matter if you have a R7 night sister squad beyond their impact on your division you are in. The biggest thing I have seen against the top 5 idea is someone deliberately keeping their GL at a low level which I don’t feel is a major concern for the majority of people
  • Waqui
    8075 posts Member
    edited February 24
    Or like I said to begin with if you only counted the top 5 GP in matchmaking it doesn’t matter if you have a R7 night sister squad beyond their impact on your division you are in. The biggest thing I have seen against the top 5 idea is someone deliberately keeping their GL at a low level which I don’t feel is a major concern for the majority of people
    Waqui wrote: »
    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.

    If the purpose of your suggestion is to match players with a similar number of GLs (according to your OP it is) why not simply suggest to match the number of GLs as a second parameter along with the current top-X GP? Or why not suggest to limit it to a 1 GL difference? Why take that big detour with your top-5 GP matching?
    Post edited by Waqui on
  • Or like I said to begin with if you only counted the top 5 GP in matchmaking it doesn’t matter if you have a R7 night sister squad beyond their impact on your division you are in. The biggest thing I have seen against the top 5 idea is someone deliberately keeping their GL at a low level which I don’t feel is a major concern for the majority of people
    And how is that top 5 going to solve your issue when we have 8-10 GLs?

  • Top 5 average works all the way down to the lower levels of players that don’t have GL it would also work for players that are only on certain levels of roster development

    As for when we have 8-10 GL for several years this won’t effect 99% of players but I will let you in on a secret idea I have a plan that involves making the top 5 average into a top 10 average, can’t wait to pitch the idea to you in 2030
Sign In or Register to comment.