Its funny how we can sit here and decide I lost unless what.. he throws the game? Doesn't attack? Theoretically he could end up in Carbonite. Whereas if this were a pro league in a game you'd get banned for this sort of behavior. Not docked on your skill rating. GP based Matchmaking was infinitely better.
Hard disagree.
It was infinitely worse.
I wish this was a matter of opinion. Every other sport and tournament in the world works this way. 3 million GP is high-school football more than a million GP than me and 3 GLs is college D1 football. It's that simple. They can't compete. Different leagues.
Analogies to other sports are meaningless. This is swgoh.
Genuinely shocked to see people defending this ridiculous match-up. "Unlucky" is a poor term to describe fundamental problems with this horrible "skill based matchmaking" when this game is quite literally designed around GP growth
That’s the thing, though.
In the both the old systems, lots of players deliberately restricted their GP growth to gain favourable matchups.
People would end up facing someone of broadly similar GP as them but who had a much more competitive roster because they didn’t gear anything - often didn’t even mod anything - they weren’t going to use.
The new system now makes that tactic completely pointless, so everyone can now grow their GP without risk of it affecting who they get matched with.
You have made one very good suggestion, though, that I think the devs should think about. If people are active in game but not joining GAC, it might prevent some of these matchups if that person’s skill rating was frozen rather than dropping as if they were playing and losing.
Exactly though that's a fair match up, they actually organized their roster through skill and and determination whereas the other person made mindless choices. It's a much fairer comparison.
No - you’ve not been playing long enough to realise that you’re mistaken.
Before GAC, before TW, there was absolutely no reason to subdue GP growth. When TB arrived thousands of players levelled and geared up their characters because it would help boost the guild’s GP to earn more stars.
Then TW arrived, and it turned out that bloating your roster wasn’t such a good idea after all. When the first matchmaking for GAC arrived it made it even worse for long-serving players.
The “skill and determination” argument doesn’t work, because people couldn’t unlevel or ungear their rosters. These were decisions made in good faith with no sense of the negative consequences that resulted months / years later.
It remains to be seen but in theory this should result in better matchups over time.
This is still the initial phase. You are climbing the ladder and your opponent is descending it, you both just happen to be on the same rung today. Over time it should improve.
Show me that thoery. Show me how it will "improve over time" "in theory". Explain how that "theory" holds up in an argument when comparing how someone manages their GP. What skill are we determining then? Can someone with less GP beat someone with more GP and better characters? Is that true skill? Does that assume balance? There's no logic that defines these match ups as "skill related". The skill is comparing someone who has poor attendance, not bad strategy.
Its funny how we can sit here and decide I lost unless what.. he throws the game? Doesn't attack? Theoretically he could end up in Carbonite. Whereas if this were a pro league in a game you'd get banned for this sort of behavior. Not docked on your skill rating. GP based Matchmaking was infinitely better.
Hard disagree.
It was infinitely worse.
I wish this was a matter of opinion. Every other sport and tournament in the world works this way. 3 million GP is high-school football more than a million GP than me and 3 GLs is college D1 football. It's that simple. They can't compete. Different leagues.
Analogies to other sports are meaningless. This is swgoh.
Genuinely shocked to see people defending this ridiculous match-up. "Unlucky" is a poor term to describe fundamental problems with this horrible "skill based matchmaking" when this game is quite literally designed around GP growth
That’s the thing, though.
In the both the old systems, lots of players deliberately restricted their GP growth to gain favourable matchups.
People would end up facing someone of broadly similar GP as them but who had a much more competitive roster because they didn’t gear anything - often didn’t even mod anything - they weren’t going to use.
The new system now makes that tactic completely pointless, so everyone can now grow their GP without risk of it affecting who they get matched with.
You have made one very good suggestion, though, that I think the devs should think about. If people are active in game but not joining GAC, it might prevent some of these matchups if that person’s skill rating was frozen rather than dropping as if they were playing and losing.
Exactly though that's a fair match up, they actually organized their roster through skill and and determination whereas the other person made mindless choices. It's a much fairer comparison.
No - you’ve not been playing long enough to realise that you’re mistaken.
Before GAC, before TW, there was absolutely no reason to subdue GP growth. When TB arrived thousands of players levelled and geared up their characters because it would help boost the guild’s GP to earn more stars.
Then TW arrived, and it turned out that bloating your roster wasn’t such a good idea after all. When the first matchmaking for GAC arrived it made it even worse for long-serving players.
The “skill and determination” argument doesn’t work, because people couldn’t unlevel or ungear their rosters. These were decisions made in good faith with no sense of the negative consequences that resulted months / years later.
No you are mistake- boosting your GP for the numerical value is inherently flawed. My argument stands. If you worked on good teams with the same GP then you'd have a good roster and easily be comparable to people in GAC. If you picked characters that have a lot of "abilities" that will translate to higher GP, then that's your fault for working on bad characters.
Anyway, this doesn’t strike me as the sort of thread where anyone is likely to change their mind.
You have been unlucky, and have made a good suggestion for how this sort of matchup might be avoided.
Literally describe how boosting GP for numerical value demonstrates skill? Tell me how that will help your guild more than choosing quality teams to work on? Quality will always be better than quantity. But right now we're measuring neither in GAC. Right now wre measuring attendance more than we're measuring either quality or quantity. Theoretically ahnald101 could throw his way to Carbonite and verse people that have 1 million GP. If that's Theoretically possible, then this system is entirely broken. That couldn't have happened with the last matching making system.
Its funny how we can sit here and decide I lost unless what.. he throws the game? Doesn't attack? Theoretically he could end up in Carbonite. Whereas if this were a pro league in a game you'd get banned for this sort of behavior. Not docked on your skill rating. GP based Matchmaking was infinitely better.
Hard disagree.
It was infinitely worse.
I wish this was a matter of opinion. Every other sport and tournament in the world works this way. 3 million GP is high-school football more than a million GP than me and 3 GLs is college D1 football. It's that simple. They can't compete. Different leagues.
Analogies to other sports are meaningless. This is swgoh.
Genuinely shocked to see people defending this ridiculous match-up. "Unlucky" is a poor term to describe fundamental problems with this horrible "skill based matchmaking" when this game is quite literally designed around GP growth
That’s the thing, though.
In the both the old systems, lots of players deliberately restricted their GP growth to gain favourable matchups.
People would end up facing someone of broadly similar GP as them but who had a much more competitive roster because they didn’t gear anything - often didn’t even mod anything - they weren’t going to use.
The new system now makes that tactic completely pointless, so everyone can now grow their GP without risk of it affecting who they get matched with.
You have made one very good suggestion, though, that I think the devs should think about. If people are active in game but not joining GAC, it might prevent some of these matchups if that person’s skill rating was frozen rather than dropping as if they were playing and losing.
Exactly though that's a fair match up, they actually organized their roster through skill and and determination whereas the other person made mindless choices. It's a much fairer comparison.
No - you’ve not been playing long enough to realise that you’re mistaken.
Before GAC, before TW, there was absolutely no reason to subdue GP growth. When TB arrived thousands of players levelled and geared up their characters because it would help boost the guild’s GP to earn more stars.
Then TW arrived, and it turned out that bloating your roster wasn’t such a good idea after all. When the first matchmaking for GAC arrived it made it even worse for long-serving players.
The “skill and determination” argument doesn’t work, because people couldn’t unlevel or ungear their rosters. These were decisions made in good faith with no sense of the negative consequences that resulted months / years later.
No you are mistake- boosting your GP for the numerical value is inherently flawed. My argument stands. If you worked on good teams with the same GP then you'd have a good roster and easily be comparable to people in GAC. If you picked characters that have a lot of "abilities" that will translate to higher GP, then that's your fault for working on bad characters.
No - you are mistaken - and I explained why, but you’ve ignored it because you started playing in the smart GP era.
I’ll try again, to see if you’ll read it this time.
When TB first launched, more GP was a good thing, because your guild would earn more stars. This was not “inherently flawed”. It was the smart thing to do.
There was no TW. No GAC. The only PvP element to the game was Squad Arena, where most people were using the same 5 characters anyway.
Thousands of players took characters that they never used to level 85, gear level 7, and took all their abilities up to tier 7 because this gave you more GP which was good for TB and had no downside.
Suggesting that doing this was anyone’s “fault” is naive, revisionist nonsense. If you started playing after smart GP management arrived, you might think that GP inflation is an inherently bad idea, but it wasn’t always this way.
Anyway, this doesn’t strike me as the sort of thread where anyone is likely to change their mind.
You have been unlucky, and have made a good suggestion for how this sort of matchup might be avoided.
Literally describe how boosting GP for numerical value demonstrates skill? Tell me how that will help your guild more than choosing quality teams to work on? Quality will always be better than quantity. But right now we're measuring neither in GAC. Right now wre measuring attendance more than we're measuring either quality or quantity. Theoretically ahnald101 could throw his way to Carbonite and verse people that have 1 million GP. If that's Theoretically possible, then this system is entirely broken. That couldn't have happened with the last matching making system.
I have described it twice. Do me the courtesy of reading one of them please.
Its funny how we can sit here and decide I lost unless what.. he throws the game? Doesn't attack? Theoretically he could end up in Carbonite. Whereas if this were a pro league in a game you'd get banned for this sort of behavior. Not docked on your skill rating. GP based Matchmaking was infinitely better.
Hard disagree.
It was infinitely worse.
I wish this was a matter of opinion. Every other sport and tournament in the world works this way. 3 million GP is high-school football more than a million GP than me and 3 GLs is college D1 football. It's that simple. They can't compete. Different leagues.
Analogies to other sports are meaningless. This is swgoh.
Genuinely shocked to see people defending this ridiculous match-up. "Unlucky" is a poor term to describe fundamental problems with this horrible "skill based matchmaking" when this game is quite literally designed around GP growth
That’s the thing, though.
In the both the old systems, lots of players deliberately restricted their GP growth to gain favourable matchups.
People would end up facing someone of broadly similar GP as them but who had a much more competitive roster because they didn’t gear anything - often didn’t even mod anything - they weren’t going to use.
The new system now makes that tactic completely pointless, so everyone can now grow their GP without risk of it affecting who they get matched with.
You have made one very good suggestion, though, that I think the devs should think about. If people are active in game but not joining GAC, it might prevent some of these matchups if that person’s skill rating was frozen rather than dropping as if they were playing and losing.
Exactly though that's a fair match up, they actually organized their roster through skill and and determination whereas the other person made mindless choices. It's a much fairer comparison.
No - you’ve not been playing long enough to realise that you’re mistaken.
Before GAC, before TW, there was absolutely no reason to subdue GP growth. When TB arrived thousands of players levelled and geared up their characters because it would help boost the guild’s GP to earn more stars.
Then TW arrived, and it turned out that bloating your roster wasn’t such a good idea after all. When the first matchmaking for GAC arrived it made it even worse for long-serving players.
The “skill and determination” argument doesn’t work, because people couldn’t unlevel or ungear their rosters. These were decisions made in good faith with no sense of the negative consequences that resulted months / years later.
No you are mistake- boosting your GP for the numerical value is inherently flawed. My argument stands. If you worked on good teams with the same GP then you'd have a good roster and easily be comparable to people in GAC. If you picked characters that have a lot of "abilities" that will translate to higher GP, then that's your fault for working on bad characters.
No - you are mistaken - and I explained why, but you’ve ignored it because you started playing in the smart GP era.
I’ll try again, to see if you’ll read it this time.
When TB first launched, more GP was a good thing, because your guild would earn more stars. This was not “inherently flawed”. It was the smart thing to do.
There was no TW. No GAC. The only PvP element to the game was Squad Arena, where most people were using the same 5 characters anyway.
Thousands of players took characters that they never used to level 85, gear level 7, and took all their abilities up to tier 7 because this gave you more GP which was good for TB and had no downside.
Suggesting that doing this was anyone’s “fault” is naive, revisionist nonsense. If you started playing after smart GP management arrived, you might think that GP inflation is an inherently bad idea, but it wasn’t always this way.
Are you sure you're reading mine?
You still haven't explained how comparing GP efficiency match up is worse than comparing "skill based matchmaking" where the "skill" can be determined by winning against anyone that has poor strategy. Poor strategy often includes 1) not attacking. 2) setting a bad defense. 3) not even setting up or attacking. 4) losing to someone with more GLs and better characters and higher GP overall. All you've talked about is how it was advantageous to have more GP. That's irrelevant when we're talking about how GP should be matched. Squad arena, TW, TB, all irrelevant. That's based on GP or if you have the newest GL in squad arenas case. None of that is relevant to how we should match individuals up in GAC. Fundamentally setting everyone as equal is already the problem. Any person could end up in any league and verse anyone. This is a better system to you? Where we compare people with ridiculously outmatched rosters simply because of their "record". Were already assuming every opponent is equal, so by "record" were forgetting that the previous oppents had the same GP but you won, and by loss were forgetting that we get to a point where someone's roster is insanely higher already. That isn't equal, that isn't fair, that isn't skill.
For what it’s worth - and judging by the previous however many similar threads that’s probably not much - I’ve just gone 6/0 against consistently more powerful rosters in most cases with more GLs (last round I was up against a 1 mil greater GP with 3 times the GLs. It feels asymmetrical but that’s just because we’re not looking closer. I’m far from a tactically skilled savant (I’m a casual FTP who plays for fun) but mods, omicrons & deployment make all the difference. I would really recommend looking at the GAC Bracket stats on SWOG.GG and have a good think about the whole picture.
With your winning instincts I’m sure you’ll see some routes to victory- and if you get the occasional kicking remember Sun Tsu, and give thanks for the opportunity to learn from fighting tougher opponents
It remains to be seen but in theory this should result in better matchups over time.
This is still the initial phase. You are climbing the ladder and your opponent is descending it, you both just happen to be on the same rung today. Over time it should improve.
Show me that thoery. Show me how it will "improve over time" "in theory". Explain how that "theory" holds up in an argument when comparing how someone manages their GP. What skill are we determining then? Can someone with less GP beat someone with more GP and better characters? Is that true skill? Does that assume balance? There's no logic that defines these match ups as "skill related". The skill is comparing someone who has poor attendance, not bad strategy.
I have regularly beaten players with more GLs and relic levels than me. Players that actually set defence and fully attacked. Skill matters.
The only instance where this system is not working is the type that you have encountered. An inactive player loses skill points then becomes active again and are overpowering. That is far from the norm. This system is great for the majority of active players.
I did encounter it last GAC. A 6 GL player was in my pool with mostly players with 3 GLs. I had 2. I got matched with them. If I had played that round better I would actually have won it. My skill wasn't quite up to the task and I made a couple of mistakes.
As you say, these inactive falling players throw a spanner in the works. Freezing their skill points would stop that happening but it also might stop players from being able to move up leagues due to the population limits. Players would have to be excluded entirely from the GAC formula which would probably mean being excluded from all crystals too. Not sure that's a great idea.
I think this system is way better than the old GP based system. Miles better. We get to show how well we can use our own rosters.
It remains to be seen but in theory this should result in better matchups over time.
This is still the initial phase. You are climbing the ladder and your opponent is descending it, you both just happen to be on the same rung today. Over time it should improve.
Show me that thoery. Show me how it will "improve over time" "in theory". Explain how that "theory" holds up in an argument when comparing how someone manages their GP. What skill are we determining then? Can someone with less GP beat someone with more GP and better characters? Is that true skill? Does that assume balance? There's no logic that defines these match ups as "skill related". The skill is comparing someone who has poor attendance, not bad strategy.
I have regularly beaten players with more GLs and relic levels than me. Players that actually set defence and fully attacked. Skill matters.
The only instance where this system is not working is the type that you have encountered. An inactive player loses skill points then becomes active again and are overpowering. That is far from the norm. This system is great for the majority of active players.
I did encounter it last GAC. A 6 GL player was in my pool with mostly players with 3 GLs. I had 2. I got matched with them. If I had played that round better I would actually have won it. My skill wasn't quite up to the task and I made a couple of mistakes.
As you say, these inactive falling players throw a spanner in the works. Freezing their skill points would stop that happening but it also might stop players from being able to move up leagues due to the population limits. Players would have to be excluded entirely from the GAC formula which would probably mean being excluded from all crystals too. Not sure that's a great idea.
I think this system is way better than the old GP based system. Miles better. We get to show how well we can use our own rosters.
Versing someone with more GLs and better characters is balanced when they have similar GP. The fundamental "idea" of "skill based matchmaking" literally assumes ALL players are equal. That is the idea. You can always "out skill" your opponent. When that's not the case though, you literally can't outskill someone with more GP AND better characters than you. That's the point. This system needs a limit on GP. It's funny to see people with large rosters defending this because they can easily set so many teams on defense and have plenty for offense. But with small rosters you literally have no choices. I have 4 capital ships total. I have to put 2 on defense 2 for offense. There is no strategy. If I got into arodium it would assume I have more teams and ships to place because I'm in a "higher leaue" that logic isn't such of a shackle with someone who has a biased view like everyone replying to me. This system is flawed. We need GP limits. It can't ever be balanced because we measure other world extremities like poor attendance or purposeful throwing.
Everyone who disagrees with you has a biased view? Interesting. If that’s the case if I was you, I’d avoid any discussions that might be corrupted by any alternative perspectives to your own
For what it’s worth - and judging by the previous however many similar threads that’s probably not much - I’ve just gone 6/0 against consistently more powerful rosters in most cases with more GLs (last round I was up against a 1 mil greater GP with 3 times the GLs. It feels asymmetrical but that’s just because we’re not looking closer. I’m far from a tactically skilled savant (I’m a casual FTP who plays for fun) but mods, omicrons & deployment make all the difference. I would really recommend looking at the GAC Bracket stats on SWOG.GG and have a good think about the whole picture.
With your winning instincts I’m sure you’ll see some routes to victory- and if you get the occasional kicking remember Sun Tsu, and give thanks for the opportunity to learn from fighting tougher opponents
I appreciate your understanding of my struggle. I'm not saying you can't win with an undersized roster, but that it's inherently unfair. Think of it in reverse, if your opponent ended up trying much harder he may have been able to beat you. The fact anyone has an "advantage" already strikes the very problems with "skill based matchmaking".
Everyone who disagrees with you has a biased view? Interesting. If that’s the case if I was you, I’d avoid any discussions that might be corrupted by any alternative perspectives to your own
No sir, the people that disagreed with me admit to having a lot more GP. That large GP is a biased view when considering "skill" because of the choices they get to have. To a certain level they could have characters left over when defense and attack is over, where smaller GPS that isn't the case. We often are left with nothing. Literally nothing. Because we throw multiple teams versing larger GP. People having larger GP are obviously biased against this argument as they clearly have the winning favor.
It's literally so simple. Skill based matchmaking assumes everyone has the equal capabilities to out skill someone. This logic doesn't hold up when comparing people who have a major GP advantage. That player could do horribly and still win, not because of skill, but because of their GP, because they had more squads to throw. It's that simple. Yall so triggered over it. That doesn't mean you can't beat someone with more GP, but that your skill can manage a disadvantage. That doesn't mean we should hold skill to a higher standard than major differences in GP. Prove me wrong.
Its funny how we can sit here and decide I lost unless what.. he throws the game? Doesn't attack? Theoretically he could end up in Carbonite. Whereas if this were a pro league in a game you'd get banned for this sort of behavior. Not docked on your skill rating. GP based Matchmaking was infinitely better.
Hard disagree.
It was infinitely worse.
I wish this was a matter of opinion. Every other sport and tournament in the world works this way. 3 million GP is high-school football more than a million GP than me and 3 GLs is college D1 football. It's that simple. They can't compete. Different leagues.
Goody, analogy !
That’s so not true, my most likely american friend. Here in Europe, in soccer (and about every other sport), 3 gls with high budget are matched against 0 gls with low budget every week. And at the end of season, the team with the fewer skill point gets demoted, even if it’s a 3 gls team, and the winner in the lower division gets promoted to play against 3 gls with high budget teams. Teams are matched based on their results, even if they didn’t build their roster with the same amount of money. No salary cap whatsoever.
About your case: you may lose this round and it won’t matter for your crystal revenue. Let’s say you need 15 victories to reach your 50/50 spot in the ladder. 15-0, 20-5 or 25-10 and then 50/50 for ever will net you about the same rewards. So accident in mm where you go against someone who dropped because reasons are of little (if any) consequences.
Yeah you read that correctly. Why does CG think this is good for the community? No clue. It's definitely a community killer. They have 3 galactic legends and 1.2 million more GP than me. How is this a fair and balanced game? I'm utterly lost as to why this was implemented and even more confused as to the confused individuals that thought this would be a good idea. Explain again how is this fair? (Edited portion)--- A lot of people are eager to argue you can beat people with higher GP. That is correct, but do explain why someone can't get to kyber then?
Its funny how we can sit here and decide I lost unless what.. he throws the game? Doesn't attack? Theoretically he could end up in Carbonite. Whereas if this were a pro league in a game you'd get banned for this sort of behavior. Not docked on your skill rating. GP based Matchmaking was infinitely better.
Hard disagree.
It was infinitely worse.
I wish this was a matter of opinion. Every other sport and tournament in the world works this way. 3 million GP is high-school football more than a million GP than me and 3 GLs is college D1 football. It's that simple. They can't compete. Different leagues.
Goody, analogy !
That’s so not true, my most likely american friend. Here in Europe, in soccer (and about every other sport), 3 gls with high budget are matched against 0 gls with low budget every week. And at the end of season, the team with the fewer skill point gets demoted, even if it’s a 3 gls team, and the winner in the lower division gets promoted to play against 3 gls with high budget teams. Teams are matched based on their results, even if they didn’t build their roster with the same amount of money. No salary cap whatsoever.
About your case: you may lose this round and it won’t matter for your crystal revenue. Let’s say you need 15 victories to reach your 50/50 spot in the ladder. 15-0, 20-5 or 25-10 will net you about the same rewards. So accident in mm where you go against someone who dropped because reasons are of little (if any) consequences.
That is the case. (My most likely European friend) high-school soccer won't verse pro league soccer, you know why? They're more physically fit, more experienced, AND more skilled. Your thinking about pro league divisions, not different leagues overall. Think of it this way: if these match ups are based on skill, why is it I can't get into kyber? Is it because I'm not "skilled" enough to get into kyber? Or is it because they have more GP there. Or because (they have more experience and are more physically fit) in the pro league analogy. In this case we can't say this is skill based if it's impossible to reach kyber no matter how skilled you are. That fact alone demonstrates how this isn't skill based matchmaking. It's GP based, but instead you get to verse anyone no matter the GP, which is inherently flawed- because we're not versing equal opponents, which means we can never "out skill" our way to the top. Skill based matchmaking was technically the way the old GAC was set up.
I haven’t dropped out of kyber (yet) so clearly the system is working fine. I mean, that is the barometer, right?
What's your GP? Do you have any GLs? Are you trying to say anyone can get into kyber if they're skilled enough or are you just privileged enough to have a large enough roster to be in kyber?
Yeah you read that correctly. Why does CG think this is good for the community? No clue. It's definitely a community killer. They have 3 galactic legends and 1.2 million more GP than me. How is this a fair and balanced game? I'm utterly lost as to why this was implemented and even more confused as to the confused individuals that thought this would be a good idea. Explain again how is this fair? (Edited portion)--- A lot of people are eager to argue you can beat people with higher GP. That is correct, but do explain why someone can't get to kyber then?
Its funny how we can sit here and decide I lost unless what.. he throws the game? Doesn't attack? Theoretically he could end up in Carbonite. Whereas if this were a pro league in a game you'd get banned for this sort of behavior. Not docked on your skill rating. GP based Matchmaking was infinitely better.
Hard disagree.
It was infinitely worse.
I wish this was a matter of opinion. Every other sport and tournament in the world works this way. 3 million GP is high-school football more than a million GP than me and 3 GLs is college D1 football. It's that simple. They can't compete. Different leagues.
Goody, analogy !
That’s so not true, my most likely american friend. Here in Europe, in soccer (and about every other sport), 3 gls with high budget are matched against 0 gls with low budget every week. And at the end of season, the team with the fewer skill point gets demoted, even if it’s a 3 gls team, and the winner in the lower division gets promoted to play against 3 gls with high budget teams. Teams are matched based on their results, even if they didn’t build their roster with the same amount of money. No salary cap whatsoever.
About your case: you may lose this round and it won’t matter for your crystal revenue. Let’s say you need 15 victories to reach your 50/50 spot in the ladder. 15-0, 20-5 or 25-10 will net you about the same rewards. So accident in mm where you go against someone who dropped because reasons are of little (if any) consequences.
Your thinking about pro league divisions, not different leagues overall.
Divisions, leagues or something else, the point is in some sports, you have 3 gls teams facing no gls teams all the time, so I challenged your claim. Last week was a "PSG - Reims" soccer game. One team has a 620M€ budget (and lots of GLs), the other one 60M€ budget and whoever they can buy, because there is no draft, you just sign players in your team, so the wealthiest teams get all the best players. On top of that, "Clermont", a 20M€ team played last year in an inferior league, won the inferior league, got promoted and will now face the 620M€ budget team and other out of its reach. No one expect them to win, but they're here and happy to be here, and if they manage to win some they won't be demoted.
So I strongly disagree with the "every other sport and tournament in the world doesn't work this way" statement.
Analogy apart, my point about GAC still stands: as long as you're not playing for the top spots of K1, a defeat because of an unlucky matchup now and then doesn't hurt your crystal revenue on the whole.
This game mode is to encourage and reward development. If that is development over time, or quickly via big spending doesn't really matter.
As players are able to fill the defence slots effectively, and still score more banners than their opponents on attack, they get more skill points, and they will get promoted.
At some point they will reach a league where they cannot effectively fill the defence and still attack well enough compared to the players around them. Then they will lose. If they lose enough they will get demoted to where their roster (and use of it) is effective again.
In kyber it is a bit different, because you have reached the point where you don't need to place more teams as you move up. Just the quality of teams needs to improve.
GAC is a game mode that consists of strategy and tactics. Strategy being how your resources are used to get the teams you need and setting up a team to succeed through team selection and modding. Tactics being where you put them on the table, and what buttons you push/targets you select during a battle. The skill rating comes from both your strategy and your tactics.
It will not always be fair. It just can't always be fair. Some people's strategy will have been so much better than others that the tactics hardly matter. Some people's strategy falls short in one area, perhaps mods for example, that the rest of their strategy or tactics cannot overcome. Some people's tactics are bad. The greatest tactician will not win if their strategy does not enable them to employ the tactics they want. Sometimes a plain old mistake is made, be it fat fingers or brain fade. . In all of these cases skill points will go up or down based on performance.
If you are seeing players that appear overwhelming, then either, we'll done you must be awesome, or they are terrible/inactive. An inactive player suddenly going active is a pain, and maybe that needs looking at by the developers. But it does not mean the entire system is broken.
I have played a long time and I vastly prefer this performance based system over the developers trying to create matches via some algorithm. They have proven many times over that they cannot do that very well.
Replies
No - you’ve not been playing long enough to realise that you’re mistaken.
Before GAC, before TW, there was absolutely no reason to subdue GP growth. When TB arrived thousands of players levelled and geared up their characters because it would help boost the guild’s GP to earn more stars.
Then TW arrived, and it turned out that bloating your roster wasn’t such a good idea after all. When the first matchmaking for GAC arrived it made it even worse for long-serving players.
The “skill and determination” argument doesn’t work, because people couldn’t unlevel or ungear their rosters. These were decisions made in good faith with no sense of the negative consequences that resulted months / years later.
You have been unlucky, and have made a good suggestion for how this sort of matchup might be avoided.
Show me that thoery. Show me how it will "improve over time" "in theory". Explain how that "theory" holds up in an argument when comparing how someone manages their GP. What skill are we determining then? Can someone with less GP beat someone with more GP and better characters? Is that true skill? Does that assume balance? There's no logic that defines these match ups as "skill related". The skill is comparing someone who has poor attendance, not bad strategy.
No you are mistake- boosting your GP for the numerical value is inherently flawed. My argument stands. If you worked on good teams with the same GP then you'd have a good roster and easily be comparable to people in GAC. If you picked characters that have a lot of "abilities" that will translate to higher GP, then that's your fault for working on bad characters.
It does though. Everyone in my guild has to deal with this.
This isn't the first second or last time anyone I know will be dealing with this horrible system. It will never be 1 bad example.
Literally describe how boosting GP for numerical value demonstrates skill? Tell me how that will help your guild more than choosing quality teams to work on? Quality will always be better than quantity. But right now we're measuring neither in GAC. Right now wre measuring attendance more than we're measuring either quality or quantity. Theoretically ahnald101 could throw his way to Carbonite and verse people that have 1 million GP. If that's Theoretically possible, then this system is entirely broken. That couldn't have happened with the last matching making system.
I’ll try again, to see if you’ll read it this time.
When TB first launched, more GP was a good thing, because your guild would earn more stars. This was not “inherently flawed”. It was the smart thing to do.
There was no TW. No GAC. The only PvP element to the game was Squad Arena, where most people were using the same 5 characters anyway.
Thousands of players took characters that they never used to level 85, gear level 7, and took all their abilities up to tier 7 because this gave you more GP which was good for TB and had no downside.
Suggesting that doing this was anyone’s “fault” is naive, revisionist nonsense. If you started playing after smart GP management arrived, you might think that GP inflation is an inherently bad idea, but it wasn’t always this way.
Are you sure you're reading mine?
You still haven't explained how comparing GP efficiency match up is worse than comparing "skill based matchmaking" where the "skill" can be determined by winning against anyone that has poor strategy. Poor strategy often includes 1) not attacking. 2) setting a bad defense. 3) not even setting up or attacking. 4) losing to someone with more GLs and better characters and higher GP overall. All you've talked about is how it was advantageous to have more GP. That's irrelevant when we're talking about how GP should be matched. Squad arena, TW, TB, all irrelevant. That's based on GP or if you have the newest GL in squad arenas case. None of that is relevant to how we should match individuals up in GAC. Fundamentally setting everyone as equal is already the problem. Any person could end up in any league and verse anyone. This is a better system to you? Where we compare people with ridiculously outmatched rosters simply because of their "record". Were already assuming every opponent is equal, so by "record" were forgetting that the previous oppents had the same GP but you won, and by loss were forgetting that we get to a point where someone's roster is insanely higher already. That isn't equal, that isn't fair, that isn't skill.
With your winning instincts I’m sure you’ll see some routes to victory- and if you get the occasional kicking remember Sun Tsu, and give thanks for the opportunity to learn from fighting tougher opponents
I have regularly beaten players with more GLs and relic levels than me. Players that actually set defence and fully attacked. Skill matters.
The only instance where this system is not working is the type that you have encountered. An inactive player loses skill points then becomes active again and are overpowering. That is far from the norm. This system is great for the majority of active players.
I did encounter it last GAC. A 6 GL player was in my pool with mostly players with 3 GLs. I had 2. I got matched with them. If I had played that round better I would actually have won it. My skill wasn't quite up to the task and I made a couple of mistakes.
As you say, these inactive falling players throw a spanner in the works. Freezing their skill points would stop that happening but it also might stop players from being able to move up leagues due to the population limits. Players would have to be excluded entirely from the GAC formula which would probably mean being excluded from all crystals too. Not sure that's a great idea.
I think this system is way better than the old GP based system. Miles better. We get to show how well we can use our own rosters.
Versing someone with more GLs and better characters is balanced when they have similar GP. The fundamental "idea" of "skill based matchmaking" literally assumes ALL players are equal. That is the idea. You can always "out skill" your opponent. When that's not the case though, you literally can't outskill someone with more GP AND better characters than you. That's the point. This system needs a limit on GP. It's funny to see people with large rosters defending this because they can easily set so many teams on defense and have plenty for offense. But with small rosters you literally have no choices. I have 4 capital ships total. I have to put 2 on defense 2 for offense. There is no strategy. If I got into arodium it would assume I have more teams and ships to place because I'm in a "higher leaue" that logic isn't such of a shackle with someone who has a biased view like everyone replying to me. This system is flawed. We need GP limits. It can't ever be balanced because we measure other world extremities like poor attendance or purposeful throwing.
I appreciate your understanding of my struggle. I'm not saying you can't win with an undersized roster, but that it's inherently unfair. Think of it in reverse, if your opponent ended up trying much harder he may have been able to beat you. The fact anyone has an "advantage" already strikes the very problems with "skill based matchmaking".
No sir, the people that disagreed with me admit to having a lot more GP. That large GP is a biased view when considering "skill" because of the choices they get to have. To a certain level they could have characters left over when defense and attack is over, where smaller GPS that isn't the case. We often are left with nothing. Literally nothing. Because we throw multiple teams versing larger GP. People having larger GP are obviously biased against this argument as they clearly have the winning favor.
That's coming from someone who has little to no legitimate argument.
It's a pretty small amount of talk, just one sentence, but also you have proved me right with nearly every post you've made.
Anyway I'll take my own advice now.
You haven't made any point. Just bitter little remarks. Nothing to show for it. Unless you have a useful argument, please do leave.
Goody, analogy !
That’s so not true, my most likely american friend. Here in Europe, in soccer (and about every other sport), 3 gls with high budget are matched against 0 gls with low budget every week. And at the end of season, the team with the fewer skill point gets demoted, even if it’s a 3 gls team, and the winner in the lower division gets promoted to play against 3 gls with high budget teams. Teams are matched based on their results, even if they didn’t build their roster with the same amount of money. No salary cap whatsoever.
About your case: you may lose this round and it won’t matter for your crystal revenue. Let’s say you need 15 victories to reach your 50/50 spot in the ladder. 15-0, 20-5 or 25-10 and then 50/50 for ever will net you about the same rewards. So accident in mm where you go against someone who dropped because reasons are of little (if any) consequences.
That is the case. (My most likely European friend) high-school soccer won't verse pro league soccer, you know why? They're more physically fit, more experienced, AND more skilled. Your thinking about pro league divisions, not different leagues overall. Think of it this way: if these match ups are based on skill, why is it I can't get into kyber? Is it because I'm not "skilled" enough to get into kyber? Or is it because they have more GP there. Or because (they have more experience and are more physically fit) in the pro league analogy. In this case we can't say this is skill based if it's impossible to reach kyber no matter how skilled you are. That fact alone demonstrates how this isn't skill based matchmaking. It's GP based, but instead you get to verse anyone no matter the GP, which is inherently flawed- because we're not versing equal opponents, which means we can never "out skill" our way to the top. Skill based matchmaking was technically the way the old GAC was set up.
What's your GP? Do you have any GLs? Are you trying to say anyone can get into kyber if they're skilled enough or are you just privileged enough to have a large enough roster to be in kyber?
Divisions, leagues or something else, the point is in some sports, you have 3 gls teams facing no gls teams all the time, so I challenged your claim. Last week was a "PSG - Reims" soccer game. One team has a 620M€ budget (and lots of GLs), the other one 60M€ budget and whoever they can buy, because there is no draft, you just sign players in your team, so the wealthiest teams get all the best players. On top of that, "Clermont", a 20M€ team played last year in an inferior league, won the inferior league, got promoted and will now face the 620M€ budget team and other out of its reach. No one expect them to win, but they're here and happy to be here, and if they manage to win some they won't be demoted.
So I strongly disagree with the "every other sport and tournament in the world doesn't work this way" statement.
Analogy apart, my point about GAC still stands: as long as you're not playing for the top spots of K1, a defeat because of an unlucky matchup now and then doesn't hurt your crystal revenue on the whole.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
This game mode is to encourage and reward development. If that is development over time, or quickly via big spending doesn't really matter.
As players are able to fill the defence slots effectively, and still score more banners than their opponents on attack, they get more skill points, and they will get promoted.
At some point they will reach a league where they cannot effectively fill the defence and still attack well enough compared to the players around them. Then they will lose. If they lose enough they will get demoted to where their roster (and use of it) is effective again.
In kyber it is a bit different, because you have reached the point where you don't need to place more teams as you move up. Just the quality of teams needs to improve.
GAC is a game mode that consists of strategy and tactics. Strategy being how your resources are used to get the teams you need and setting up a team to succeed through team selection and modding. Tactics being where you put them on the table, and what buttons you push/targets you select during a battle. The skill rating comes from both your strategy and your tactics.
It will not always be fair. It just can't always be fair. Some people's strategy will have been so much better than others that the tactics hardly matter. Some people's strategy falls short in one area, perhaps mods for example, that the rest of their strategy or tactics cannot overcome. Some people's tactics are bad. The greatest tactician will not win if their strategy does not enable them to employ the tactics they want. Sometimes a plain old mistake is made, be it fat fingers or brain fade. . In all of these cases skill points will go up or down based on performance.
If you are seeing players that appear overwhelming, then either, we'll done you must be awesome, or they are terrible/inactive. An inactive player suddenly going active is a pain, and maybe that needs looking at by the developers. But it does not mean the entire system is broken.
I have played a long time and I vastly prefer this performance based system over the developers trying to create matches via some algorithm. They have proven many times over that they cannot do that very well.