How does Ship GP affect GAC Matchmaking?

Antario
996 posts Member
edited March 2021
For characters in Division 1 it's top 80 (I believe).

What's the math for ships in Division 1?
Post edited by Kyno on

Replies

  • MaruMaru
    3338 posts Member
    Noone knows. Noone knows how many is calculated for toons either. Top 80 used to come pretty close when there was no fleets. I have no idea why discord bots calculate 80 and 65, dunno where 65 comes from.

    You can try this in the current situation though: top 70 for toons and 28 for fleets.
  • Konju
    1142 posts Member
    I sincerely doubt Ships GP comes into the matchmaking equation at all. As someone who spent a lot of time in small guilds before making the jump into a larger one, I ran into 7* Negotiators and Malevolences (both from single opponent) when I only had a 5* Negotiator.

    I could be wrong so take my opinion with a grain of salt but facing the huge disparity in ships has cost me a lot of GAC wins due to staying with friends in a smaller guild for as long as I did.
  • MaruMaru
    3338 posts Member
    Konju wrote: »
    I sincerely doubt Ships GP comes into the matchmaking equation at all. As someone who spent a lot of time in small guilds before making the jump into a larger one, I ran into 7* Negotiators and Malevolences (both from single opponent) when I only had a 5* Negotiator.

    I could be wrong so take my opinion with a grain of salt but facing the huge disparity in ships has cost me a lot of GAC wins due to staying with friends in a smaller guild for as long as I did.

    If it does play, I doubt it does play seperately but rather as a sum of top x+ship top x.
  • Konju
    1142 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    I sincerely doubt Ships GP comes into the matchmaking equation at all. As someone who spent a lot of time in small guilds before making the jump into a larger one, I ran into 7* Negotiators and Malevolences (both from single opponent) when I only had a 5* Negotiator.

    I could be wrong so take my opinion with a grain of salt but facing the huge disparity in ships has cost me a lot of GAC wins due to staying with friends in a smaller guild for as long as I did.

    If it does play, I doubt it does play seperately but rather as a sum of top x+ship top x.

    Very well could be, but my top 80 normally matches and ships do not. I am still working on finishing Malevolence and see the discrepancies (maxed Raddus & Finalizers in addition from opponents) in fleet quite often. If it were the case to take top x characters + top x ships I should have a huge character advantage over my opponents (especially due to the ship vs character GP difference), but I do not. Relics typically match, but I am normally behind my opponent in G12.

    The character side is fair matches for me and I am catching up in fleet. This has been the case for me since Div 2 and the addition of the 2nd defensive fleet while I was still in that division. Again, this is purely anecdotal evidence from my experience. I admit I could be wrong, but I do not think I am.
  • MaruMaru
    3338 posts Member
    Oh if the totals has a visible difference, you got a point. But it doesn't make sense to calculate on 80 since we don't use that many teams anymore (top parity between 70 vs top 80 shouldn't be that different in most cases)
  • Rath_Tarr
    4944 posts Member
    Ship GP being included in matchmaking was confirmed by CG_Doja_Fett in this thread a while back. Just scroll down the linked page. No details on the formula though.
  • Konju
    1142 posts Member
    As I said, I could be wrong.

    I don’t know when this was introduced (since my ships have gotten closer recently but had incredible difference just a few months ago) and I still doubt this ship GP inclusion to be the case (no details whatsoever provided and the MM system is abused whether people know or not) as my matches are normally close (I’m behind) on characters and not close at all (I’m further behind) on ships. Could just be bad luck I guess...
Sign In or Register to comment.