Grand arena matchmaking

Prev1
Bthunderius
1 posts Member
edited September 2021
I’ve got to say the matchmaking in this game for TW and GA are TRASH, especially since they nerfed every non GL counter. Before the nerf if someone had more GL’s than you you still had a chance to win but now there is no chance. My recent GA opponent has 4 GL’s and I have 2 so it was an instant GG. I have slkr and see and they had put kenobi with some trash Jedi on defence. I only have wat to put with see and kenobi still beat him because of the stupid buffs they gave him and they beat my slkr. The nerfs have happened and take a lot of the fun out but if they want GL’s to be unbeatable by non GL’s then don’t match people with people who have more or less GL’s because it’s unfair.
Post edited by Bthunderius on

Replies

  • The kenobi team was JKA, CAT, Qui Gon and Mace so not completely trash. But all you really need is CAT with kenobi
  • So, if he only had JMK, you still wouldn’t beat him even if you would have more GLs than him ?
  • You control the matchmaking. If you are facing 4 GL’s when you have 2 you have a lot of roster bloat, at least in comparison to your opponent
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • Gifafi wrote: »
    You control the matchmaking. If you are facing 4 GL’s when you have 2 you have a lot of roster bloat, at least in comparison to your opponent

    Hilarious.

    Its like saying racing with a Porsche vs a Gremlin, calling it a fair race and telling you forgot to tune your engine and invested too much in the seats and stereo system.

    With the GL system as of now it is simply a bad MM.(point)
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    You control the matchmaking. If you are facing 4 GL’s when you have 2 you have a lot of roster bloat, at least in comparison to your opponent

    Hilarious.

    Its like saying racing with a Porsche vs a Gremlin, calling it a fair race and telling you forgot to tune your engine and invested too much in the seats and stereo system.

    With the GL system as of now it is simply a bad MM.(point)

    If the Porsche owner and Gremlin owner invested the same amount of resources developing their cars then it's fair, yes. They both know that they will be matched with others who invested the same amount of resources. How they spend their resources is up to themselves. No, it's not an even match - but it's a fair match. Developing your car is part of the competition.
  • XKurareX wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    You control the matchmaking. If you are facing 4 GL’s when you have 2 you have a lot of roster bloat, at least in comparison to your opponent

    Hilarious.

    Its like saying racing with a Porsche vs a Gremlin, calling it a fair race and telling you forgot to tune your engine and invested too much in the seats and stereo system.

    With the GL system as of now it is simply a bad MM.(point)
    Hilarious!

    It's more like two guys start with the same amount of money and one buys an older Porsche while the other buys an AMC Gremlin and spends the rest on shiney rims, a hood scoop and a garish paint job.

    fakvbjmcdkw8.jpg

    No prizes for guessing who wins the race or who's fault it is that he lost. :D
  • Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.

    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.

    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell

    The 2-3 GL player will still have similar relevant/matchmaking GP as the 4-6 GL player if they are matched. Hence it's the same class.
  • XKurareX wrote: »
    Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.
    Apparently you think that median GP is relevant. It isn't and frankly it wouldn't even make much sense in this context.

    You are matched on top x GP, same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell
    The closest analogy to competitive classes here is the division which keeps 6m GP players separate from 1m GP players.

    And once again, you are matched on top x GP the same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.
    Apparently you think that median GP is relevant. It isn't and frankly it wouldn't even make much sense in this context.

    You are matched on top x GP, same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell
    The closest analogy to competitive classes here is the division which keeps 6m GP players separate from 1m GP players.

    And once again, you are matched on top x GP the same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.

    I hope you are not trying to teach me about math. Because X stays same for this comparison - so if i take the median from the top chars or simply add them together i will get the same result in final if i sort the final result. In the end the comparison is a median result of the top chars. If its easier for you to simply add them and get 1 huge pointless number so be it - but it still will result in the same final sort result.
  • XKurareX wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.
    Apparently you think that median GP is relevant. It isn't and frankly it wouldn't even make much sense in this context.

    You are matched on top x GP, same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell
    The closest analogy to competitive classes here is the division which keeps 6m GP players separate from 1m GP players.

    And once again, you are matched on top x GP the same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.

    I hope you are not trying to teach me about math. Because X stays same for this comparison - so if i take the median from the top chars or simply add them together i will get the same result in final if i sort the final result. In the end the comparison is a median result of the top chars. If its easier for you to simply add them and get 1 huge pointless number so be it - but it still will result in the same final sort result.
    Median? Sounds like you are talking about the mean.

    The mean value of top X will be similar for matched players - the median (middle value) might not be, especially if people have top heavy rosters with all their g13 characters at r5+
  • Talk is about Arithmetic mean of top X chars
    X - depending on division

    One wants to add all together, but in the end its just simply the "Arithmetic mean" of top X. Its the same in the very end for this matter.
    However it does not cover GLs being basically unbeatable in certain combos and does not reflect a real strength. It became after the nerf to multiple chars just a useless point system - which is the whole point. Some want only free wins without any effort, thats all.

    And yes most people on Earth actually do not talk English as their first language and even second language.
  • Starslayer
    2413 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Some want only free wins without any effort, thats all.

    Roster management is strategy. Implying that it doesn't take any effort to build a roster that gives you an advantage in battle probably explains why we strongly disagree about the subject at hand.
    Post edited by Starslayer on
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    XKurareX wrote: »
    [...]
    However it does not cover GLs being basically unbeatable in certain combos and does not reflect a real strength.

    You're absolutely right. Top-X GP doesn't reflect actual roster strength. That's why we have the strategic aspect of building a strong roster. How you build your roster influences your performance in GAC.

  • XKurareX wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.
    Apparently you think that median GP is relevant. It isn't and frankly it wouldn't even make much sense in this context.

    You are matched on top x GP, same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell
    The closest analogy to competitive classes here is the division which keeps 6m GP players separate from 1m GP players.

    And once again, you are matched on top x GP the same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.

    I hope you are not trying to teach me about math. Because X stays same for this comparison - so if i take the median from the top chars or simply add them together i will get the same result in final if i sort the final result. In the end the comparison is a median result of the top chars. If its easier for you to simply add them and get 1 huge pointless number so be it - but it still will result in the same final sort result.
    Again, irrelevant. You are matched on the sum of the GP of the top x characters & ships and you control that because you decide which characters.and ships get upgraded, by how much and when.
  • XKurareX wrote: »

    And yes most people on Earth actually do not talk English as their first language and even second language.

    Not sure how this applies, but yes (It's about a quarter)
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.
    Apparently you think that median GP is relevant. It isn't and frankly it wouldn't even make much sense in this context.

    You are matched on top x GP, same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell
    The closest analogy to competitive classes here is the division which keeps 6m GP players separate from 1m GP players.

    And once again, you are matched on top x GP the same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.

    I hope you are not trying to teach me about math. Because X stays same for this comparison - so if i take the median from the top chars or simply add them together i will get the same result in final if i sort the final result. In the end the comparison is a median result of the top chars. If its easier for you to simply add them and get 1 huge pointless number so be it - but it still will result in the same final sort result.
    Again, irrelevant. You are matched on the sum of the GP of the top x characters & ships and you control that because you decide which characters.and ships get upgraded, by how much and when.

    Ships are not counted in for the MM (considering the enormous GP of certain crappy ships this actually does makes sense). Only place ships have an influence is your division.

    Every GL is like a bigger engine - if you match with less you have a very easy time. This has absolutely nothing to do with a manage of your roster strength. I have been in top 10 kyber multiple times without such a tuned roster and in the end a mm is done for actually balancing opponents and not doing the opposite and giving away free wins.
  • Starslayer
    2413 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    .
    Post edited by Starslayer on
  • XKurareX wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    You control the matchmaking. If you are facing 4 GL’s when you have 2 you have a lot of roster bloat, at least in comparison to your opponent

    Hilarious.

    Its like saying racing with a Porsche vs a Gremlin, calling it a fair race and telling you forgot to tune your engine and invested too much in the seats and stereo system.

    With the GL system as of now it is simply a bad MM.(point)

    If you are working towards a GL, invariably you will be matched with someone with at least one more GL than you. The matchmaking right now is a very poor system especially as a result of all the nerfs that went in.

    Saying that "roster management is strategy" is just a poor excuse for CG's matchmaking software. It should be better. It should be looking for a competitive balance and not just their GP numbers.
  • XKurareX wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Apparently you think the median GP is the result of same "investment" - and i am not sure that this would be the actual truth.
    Multiple R3 will have a higher median GP than the same relic gear in one character i am afraid.
    Apparently you think that median GP is relevant. It isn't and frankly it wouldn't even make much sense in this context.

    You are matched on top x GP, same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    The next thing is you race in classes out of a reason. Like LMH, LMP2, LMGTE PRO, LMGTE AM - its like what is possible in certain frames to have a real competition going.

    2-3 GL vs 4-6 GL is not the same class. No matter what the MM is trying to tell
    The closest analogy to competitive classes here is the division which keeps 6m GP players separate from 1m GP players.

    And once again, you are matched on top x GP the same as everyone else. How you allocate that GP is on you.

    I hope you are not trying to teach me about math. Because X stays same for this comparison - so if i take the median from the top chars or simply add them together i will get the same result in final if i sort the final result. In the end the comparison is a median result of the top chars. If its easier for you to simply add them and get 1 huge pointless number so be it - but it still will result in the same final sort result.
    Again, irrelevant. You are matched on the sum of the GP of the top x characters & ships and you control that because you decide which characters.and ships get upgraded, by how much and when.

    Ships are not counted in for the MM (considering the enormous GP of certain crappy ships this actually does makes sense). Only place ships have an influence is your division.
    Wrong. Doja confirmed with the devs that ship GP is included almost a year ago in this thread
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Every GL is like a bigger engine - if you match with less you have a very easy time. This has absolutely nothing to do with a manage of your roster strength. I have been in top 10 kyber multiple times without such a tuned roster and in the end a mm is done for actually balancing opponents and not doing the opposite and giving away free wins.
    Ditch the car analogies, they're not working you.

    GAC matchmaking starts with roster management. It always has done. That was the effect of changing from the full roster GP matching of GA to top x GP. It gave everyone the same opportunity to influence their matchmaking outcomes. Some people owned that, others did not.
  • nottenst wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    You control the matchmaking. If you are facing 4 GL’s when you have 2 you have a lot of roster bloat, at least in comparison to your opponent

    Hilarious.

    Its like saying racing with a Porsche vs a Gremlin, calling it a fair race and telling you forgot to tune your engine and invested too much in the seats and stereo system.

    With the GL system as of now it is simply a bad MM.(point)

    If you are working towards a GL, invariably you will be matched with someone with at least one more GL than you. The matchmaking right now is a very poor system especially as a result of all the nerfs that went in.
    How you work towards that GL affects your matchmaking the same way any other upgrades do. You decide what to apply and when.
    nottenst wrote: »
    Saying that "roster management is strategy" is just a poor excuse for CG's matchmaking software. It should be better. It should be looking for a competitive balance and not just their GP numbers.
    Blaming CG's matchmaking algorithm is just a poor excuse for failing to manage your roster effectively.
  • The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

    While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.
  • nottenst wrote: »
    The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

    While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.
    If you are relying on discord stat bots to determine win / loss then you have already failed. I don't even bother with them because they don't tell me what I need to know and I have finished Kyber in every single GAC.

    The point of roster management is to effectively use your resources so that you can have a fun and productive experience across all game modes, including GAC. You don't have to min-max your roster to be effective but you do have to pay attention to it.

    Making special allowances for GLs is the start of a slippery slope. If people are matched based on number of GLs then what about other "unbeatable" squads? Shouldn't lower GP players be matched on whether they have GAS? DR+Malak? Padme? JKR? Geos? Phoenix? Where does it end and who decides what is fair?
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

    While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.
    If you are relying on discord stat bots to determine win / loss then you have already failed. I don't even bother with them because they don't tell me what I need to know and I have finished Kyber in every single GAC.

    The point of roster management is to effectively use your resources so that you can have a fun and productive experience across all game modes, including GAC. You don't have to min-max your roster to be effective but you do have to pay attention to it.

    Making special allowances for GLs is the start of a slippery slope. If people are matched based on number of GLs then what about other "unbeatable" squads? Shouldn't lower GP players be matched on whether they have GAS? DR+Malak? Padme? JKR? Geos? Phoenix? Where does it end and who decides what is fair?

    The discord bots apply more to TW than GAC to see how many GLs each guild does have. A quick look at the roster in GAC is good enough. The point is that a simple tool is out there that could make better matches.

    The nerfing of the GL counters already took things beyond any slippery slope. It is extremely easy check that even CG developers could use to make better matches. I didn't notice, but was the GP of the nerfed characters correspondingly reduced? If not, they should at least have done that. The point about the GLs is that they want it so that only GLs should be able to defeat GLs. That is their current design, so they should take that into account in the matchmaking. It should be an extremely simple concept to grasp without worrying about other ramifications.

    For lower GP players there are a lot more divisions, so it could be that balancing those previously "unbeatable" squads might not as big a deal.
  • nottenst wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

    While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.
    If you are relying on discord stat bots to determine win / loss then you have already failed. I don't even bother with them because they don't tell me what I need to know and I have finished Kyber in every single GAC.

    The point of roster management is to effectively use your resources so that you can have a fun and productive experience across all game modes, including GAC. You don't have to min-max your roster to be effective but you do have to pay attention to it.

    Making special allowances for GLs is the start of a slippery slope. If people are matched based on number of GLs then what about other "unbeatable" squads? Shouldn't lower GP players be matched on whether they have GAS? DR+Malak? Padme? JKR? Geos? Phoenix? Where does it end and who decides what is fair?

    The discord bots apply more to TW than GAC to see how many GLs each guild does have. A quick look at the roster in GAC is good enough. The point is that a simple tool is out there that could make better matches.

    The nerfing of the GL counters already took things beyond any slippery slope. It is extremely easy check that even CG developers could use to make better matches.
    My current opponent and I have the same number of GLs, however I have JMK+CAT while he does not and I also have Executor while he does not.

    I can block him in squad, fleet or both. Is that not unfair? Should the matchmaker not also take into account the types of GL on each side? Whether both players have Executor or not?

    A blocker is a blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not.
    nottenst wrote: »
    I didn't notice, but was the GP of the nerfed characters correspondingly reduced? If not, they should at least have done that.
    Was the GP of GLs and their prerequisites reduced when they were beatable by far more easily acquired characters which cost a fraction of their MM GP and resource investment?
    nottenst wrote: »
    The point about the GLs is that they want it so that only GLs should be able to defeat GLs. That is their current design, so they should take that into account in the matchmaking. It should be an extremely simple concept to grasp without worrying about other ramifications.
    No. The point is that a blocker is a.blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not. Ignoring that fact merely reveals the selfishness of the demand to treat GLs differently. But accepting it and attempting to factor in all potential blockers in matchmaking is an exercise in futility.
    nottenst wrote: »
    For lower GP players there are a lot more divisions, so it could be that balancing those previously "unbeatable" squads might not as big a deal.
    Which squads/fleets should be considered blockers and in which divisions is far from a trivial question. Moreover any such assessment is highly subjective and no matter the outcome, will almost certainly lead to even more complaints. Not to mention the additional algorithmic complexity required and the likelihood of introducing other problems in the process.

    Or players could simply take responsibility for managing their own rosters.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

    While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.
    If you are relying on discord stat bots to determine win / loss then you have already failed. I don't even bother with them because they don't tell me what I need to know and I have finished Kyber in every single GAC.

    The point of roster management is to effectively use your resources so that you can have a fun and productive experience across all game modes, including GAC. You don't have to min-max your roster to be effective but you do have to pay attention to it.

    Making special allowances for GLs is the start of a slippery slope. If people are matched based on number of GLs then what about other "unbeatable" squads? Shouldn't lower GP players be matched on whether they have GAS? DR+Malak? Padme? JKR? Geos? Phoenix? Where does it end and who decides what is fair?

    The discord bots apply more to TW than GAC to see how many GLs each guild does have. A quick look at the roster in GAC is good enough. The point is that a simple tool is out there that could make better matches.

    The nerfing of the GL counters already took things beyond any slippery slope. It is extremely easy check that even CG developers could use to make better matches.
    My current opponent and I have the same number of GLs, however I have JMK+CAT while he does not and I also have Executor while he does not.

    I can block him in squad, fleet or both. Is that not unfair? Should the matchmaker not also take into account the types of GL on each side? Whether both players have Executor or not?

    A blocker is a blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not.
    nottenst wrote: »
    I didn't notice, but was the GP of the nerfed characters correspondingly reduced? If not, they should at least have done that.
    Was the GP of GLs and their prerequisites reduced when they were beatable by far more easily acquired characters which cost a fraction of their MM GP and resource investment?
    nottenst wrote: »
    The point about the GLs is that they want it so that only GLs should be able to defeat GLs. That is their current design, so they should take that into account in the matchmaking. It should be an extremely simple concept to grasp without worrying about other ramifications.
    No. The point is that a blocker is a.blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not. Ignoring that fact merely reveals the selfishness of the demand to treat GLs differently. But accepting it and attempting to factor in all potential blockers in matchmaking is an exercise in futility.
    nottenst wrote: »
    For lower GP players there are a lot more divisions, so it could be that balancing those previously "unbeatable" squads might not as big a deal.
    Which squads/fleets should be considered blockers and in which divisions is far from a trivial question. Moreover any such assessment is highly subjective and no matter the outcome, will almost certainly lead to even more complaints. Not to mention the additional algorithmic complexity required and the likelihood of introducing other problems in the process.

    Or players could simply take responsibility for managing their own rosters.

    You know JML can actually beat JMK?
    You know even Padme CAT can to some extend of rng beat it...
    Executor can be 2-shot without any problems.

    I am not sure which type of quality opponents you are matched with, but with exception of more GLs you cannot block a smart player. And nowadays there is no block with exception of good GL squads.

    And your argument of managing rosters is just putting the whole MM in hands of the players. Thats kind of very odd in the end. Maybe considering your "block strategy" i do get an idea how you manage your wins. Play against 900k-1m+ opponents and your theories wont work - pure GLs + cleanest one shots than only count.
  • XKurareX wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

    While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.
    If you are relying on discord stat bots to determine win / loss then you have already failed. I don't even bother with them because they don't tell me what I need to know and I have finished Kyber in every single GAC.

    The point of roster management is to effectively use your resources so that you can have a fun and productive experience across all game modes, including GAC. You don't have to min-max your roster to be effective but you do have to pay attention to it.

    Making special allowances for GLs is the start of a slippery slope. If people are matched based on number of GLs then what about other "unbeatable" squads? Shouldn't lower GP players be matched on whether they have GAS? DR+Malak? Padme? JKR? Geos? Phoenix? Where does it end and who decides what is fair?

    The discord bots apply more to TW than GAC to see how many GLs each guild does have. A quick look at the roster in GAC is good enough. The point is that a simple tool is out there that could make better matches.

    The nerfing of the GL counters already took things beyond any slippery slope. It is extremely easy check that even CG developers could use to make better matches.
    My current opponent and I have the same number of GLs, however I have JMK+CAT while he does not and I also have Executor while he does not.

    I can block him in squad, fleet or both. Is that not unfair? Should the matchmaker not also take into account the types of GL on each side? Whether both players have Executor or not?

    A blocker is a blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not.
    nottenst wrote: »
    I didn't notice, but was the GP of the nerfed characters correspondingly reduced? If not, they should at least have done that.
    Was the GP of GLs and their prerequisites reduced when they were beatable by far more easily acquired characters which cost a fraction of their MM GP and resource investment?
    nottenst wrote: »
    The point about the GLs is that they want it so that only GLs should be able to defeat GLs. That is their current design, so they should take that into account in the matchmaking. It should be an extremely simple concept to grasp without worrying about other ramifications.
    No. The point is that a blocker is a.blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not. Ignoring that fact merely reveals the selfishness of the demand to treat GLs differently. But accepting it and attempting to factor in all potential blockers in matchmaking is an exercise in futility.
    nottenst wrote: »
    For lower GP players there are a lot more divisions, so it could be that balancing those previously "unbeatable" squads might not as big a deal.
    Which squads/fleets should be considered blockers and in which divisions is far from a trivial question. Moreover any such assessment is highly subjective and no matter the outcome, will almost certainly lead to even more complaints. Not to mention the additional algorithmic complexity required and the likelihood of introducing other problems in the process.

    Or players could simply take responsibility for managing their own rosters.

    You know JML can actually beat JMK?
    You know even Padme CAT can to some extend of rng beat it...
    Executor can be 2-shot without any problems.
    I know JML can beat JMK even with CAT. I also know that this guy's JML does not have his ultimate or particularly good modding.

    He doesn't have CAT either.

    And his GET2 fleets would have problems with my Negotiator fleet much less Executor.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    I am not sure which type of quality opponents you are matched with, but with exception of more GLs you cannot block a smart player. And nowadays there is no block with exception of good GL squads.
    My opponent quality varies greatly but I have indeed blocked opponents using things other than a GL.

    And most players in the bottom divisions will never see a GL but they can still be blocked by a strong faction squad they have no counter for. Squads which you or I might consider insignificant but to them that situation is no different than being blocked by a GL. So why should GLs get special treatment but not the squads which block them?
    XKurareX wrote: »
    And your argument of managing rosters is just putting the whole MM in hands of the players. Thats kind of very odd in the end.
    Why?
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Maybe considering your "block strategy" i do get an idea how you manage your wins. Play against 900k-1m+ opponents and your theories wont work - pure GLs + cleanest one shots than only count.
    If you are playing in the 900k-1m GP range and encountering GLs then you are managing your roster very poorly because a GL comes with over 300k MM GP baggage.

    I have been winning by a variety of strategies since the original GA was introduced over 2.5 years ago, starting around 1m GP up through my current 6m GP and 1m lifetime banners in GAC.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    nottenst wrote: »
    The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

    While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.
    If you are relying on discord stat bots to determine win / loss then you have already failed. I don't even bother with them because they don't tell me what I need to know and I have finished Kyber in every single GAC.

    The point of roster management is to effectively use your resources so that you can have a fun and productive experience across all game modes, including GAC. You don't have to min-max your roster to be effective but you do have to pay attention to it.

    Making special allowances for GLs is the start of a slippery slope. If people are matched based on number of GLs then what about other "unbeatable" squads? Shouldn't lower GP players be matched on whether they have GAS? DR+Malak? Padme? JKR? Geos? Phoenix? Where does it end and who decides what is fair?

    The discord bots apply more to TW than GAC to see how many GLs each guild does have. A quick look at the roster in GAC is good enough. The point is that a simple tool is out there that could make better matches.

    The nerfing of the GL counters already took things beyond any slippery slope. It is extremely easy check that even CG developers could use to make better matches.
    My current opponent and I have the same number of GLs, however I have JMK+CAT while he does not and I also have Executor while he does not.

    I can block him in squad, fleet or both. Is that not unfair? Should the matchmaker not also take into account the types of GL on each side? Whether both players have Executor or not?

    A blocker is a blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not.
    nottenst wrote: »
    I didn't notice, but was the GP of the nerfed characters correspondingly reduced? If not, they should at least have done that.
    Was the GP of GLs and their prerequisites reduced when they were beatable by far more easily acquired characters which cost a fraction of their MM GP and resource investment?
    nottenst wrote: »
    The point about the GLs is that they want it so that only GLs should be able to defeat GLs. That is their current design, so they should take that into account in the matchmaking. It should be an extremely simple concept to grasp without worrying about other ramifications.
    No. The point is that a blocker is a.blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not. Ignoring that fact merely reveals the selfishness of the demand to treat GLs differently. But accepting it and attempting to factor in all potential blockers in matchmaking is an exercise in futility.
    nottenst wrote: »
    For lower GP players there are a lot more divisions, so it could be that balancing those previously "unbeatable" squads might not as big a deal.
    Which squads/fleets should be considered blockers and in which divisions is far from a trivial question. Moreover any such assessment is highly subjective and no matter the outcome, will almost certainly lead to even more complaints. Not to mention the additional algorithmic complexity required and the likelihood of introducing other problems in the process.

    Or players could simply take responsibility for managing their own rosters.

    You know JML can actually beat JMK?
    You know even Padme CAT can to some extend of rng beat it...
    Executor can be 2-shot without any problems.
    I know JML can beat JMK even with CAT. I also know that this guy's JML does not have his ultimate or particularly good modding.

    He doesn't have CAT either.

    And his GET2 fleets would have problems with my Negotiator fleet much less Executor.
    XKurareX wrote: »
    I am not sure which type of quality opponents you are matched with, but with exception of more GLs you cannot block a smart player. And nowadays there is no block with exception of good GL squads.
    My opponent quality varies greatly but I have indeed blocked opponents using things other than a GL.

    And most players in the bottom divisions will never see a GL but they can still be blocked by a strong faction squad they have no counter for. Squads which you or I might consider insignificant but to them that situation is no different than being blocked by a GL. So why should GLs get special treatment but not the squads which block them?
    XKurareX wrote: »
    And your argument of managing rosters is just putting the whole MM in hands of the players. Thats kind of very odd in the end.
    Why?
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Maybe considering your "block strategy" i do get an idea how you manage your wins. Play against 900k-1m+ opponents and your theories wont work - pure GLs + cleanest one shots than only count.
    If you are playing in the 900k-1m GP range and encountering GLs then you are managing your roster very poorly because a GL comes with over 300k MM GP baggage.

    I have been winning by a variety of strategies since the original GA was introduced over 2.5 years ago, starting around 1m GP up through my current 6m GP and 1m lifetime banners in GAC.

    6m GP, problems with a GET2 fleet (which are beatable by hux, mm, empire and rebels too)...okay well you know thats div 3 or below what you are talking about here. All you have is a probably a slim roster, which outclasses your opponents roster by a huge margin. That would be a simple missmatch. But feel free to post your gac matches to show the good matchmaking and prove me wrong in your particular case.

    PS: I never told i do have issues, however i see very many players are being matched very poorly. A big difference.
  • My current opponent has 700k more GP than I do.
    The only teams he managed to beat on offense is the 2 G12 "trash" teams I put alongside Rey because I'm in a bracket where the only people that have ever cleared my Rey team on defense are people with SEE.

    My DR team is still standing with 6 battles.

    5.2M vs 5.9M.
    By sheer GP, I should be at a huge disadvantage here.
    But... my opponent doesn't have a relic GAS, I do.
    My opponent somehow still doesn't have a GL, I do.
    My opponent also somehow still doesn't have a fully reliced DR team, I do.

    700k difference at almost any point is no small amount, but at this point, it's over a 10% difference.

    Matchmaking will NEVER feel fair if you don't work on your roster to the point it should be at.
    The fact I've been matched with like 4 people over the past 5 months that had GLs in my bracket is honestly ridiculous, not because I consider the matchmaking bad, but because I consider it ridiculous that we're THIS far into the GL meta, and people that are in the same bracket as someone in my arena shard who has 3 GLs, have zero.

    You want to complain about matchmaking?
    Show a roster that actually looks GOOD for your GP.
    Not some roster with 20 R1 characters, 75% of which aren't even worth relicing in the first place.

    Over the past 6 months I think I've lost a total of 3 matches "legitimately", with every other loss being either a purposeful throw to guarantee Kyber, or because I forgot/lost track of time.
    And in that time, nearly every single one of my opponents has not only had a "bad" roster compared with mine, but a "bad" roster for their GP - I've faced people that are over 5M GP and don't even have a G12 DR team, let alone something like a R7 GAS 501st or GL team.
    A few matches ago I faced someone that was still using Geos for their arena team... at 5.4M GP...

    No amount of matchmaking changes will give people that straight up don't care about improving their rosters a "fair" or "even" match.

    I have 100% F2P and Hyperdrive only people in my guild with 3 GLs.
    I have a guy in my arena shard that has 4.8M GP and 2 GLs.

    And of course, there's still the fact you CAN beat GLs without using GLs, it's just a bit more limited now.
    I've beaten GAC JML lineups with a standard JKR team before - It was a team I threw at it just to see if it would work, and it did. Would've lost that match if it hadn't.

    But my long-winded point is this.
    Almost everyone I've ever seen complain about matchmaking, if they actually post their roster, generally looks "bad" in some way for pvp for their GP.
    Sometimes it's understandable, like focusing on good Raid and TB teams instead.
    Sometimes... it's my current opponent, who has almost no meta teams, but has like 30 legitimately bad characters at G12 or R1.

    Matchmaking should honestly never cater to people that make genuinely bad roster decisions, IMHO.
    If you care enough about GAC (and even TW, to an extent) to complain about matchmaking, then improve your own roster.

    And with the recent bracket changes, I honestly really question anyone that's in Div 1 and is missing more than just LV's ability to work on a "good" roster. Because I'm already at the point where I have basically no non-GL meta teams to work on other than BB. And I can only imagine for anyone at the top level, that it's basically been that way since GLs initially released - It's not like we've had all that many non-GL teams released since Rey and Kylo... As far as full team potential goes, isn't it pretty much just Mon mothma (previously useless characters) and Bad Batch (actual new characters)? Oh, and I guess the mando chars, but they aren't fully meta.
    Otherwise it's just been partial team replacements pretty much, with stuff like Gideon, Piett and Chewpio. Not really enough to prevent someone from actively working towards each GL as they came out.
  • Not sure about your opponents not being able to kill a DR team, i suppose that the overall GP anyways doesnt tell anything at all about a roster. Lower divisions earlier tend to be usually a lot easier (mods, low amount of pure g13).
    However top3 for GAC are to 95%+? pure GAC rosters - i.e. those have no KAM R7+ clones, no other unneeded relic for TBs and are just maden slim regarding any unneeded skill/omega/zeta wherever possible.
    And in the end TB/Kam players play against artificial tuned down GAC rosters. Its just another paper zombie way of tuning your roster downwards to gain benefit. Thats the reality. You talk often about a good roster management, but in the end its more of tuning down the most efficient way. This type of game basically is a collectors game and you should upgrade, but GAC punishes exactly this behaviour.
Sign In or Register to comment.