GAC "Matchmaking"

1235Next

Replies

  • BubbaFett wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    I think the main problem is inactive/disinterested players falling lower than they are intended to be. The current system is great if every player does their best every time.

    I think the lower leagues should be protected from these players to keep it fun for newer entrants to the system.

    Here's my solution: create a gp floor for each league. If you are over a certain gp, you can't fall out of that league, once you have climbed into it.

    A problem with this would be that players moving up could meet an ocean of these inactive accounts that may be impossible to beat, or horrible to come through. Further solution: players above the gp floor limit can still get a lower and lower skill rating, down to a lower limit well below the entry skill rating for the division. So you end up with a pile of big low activity accounts with a skill rating about, let's say, 300 below the points where a player that just climbed into the league starts. The player will immediately only be encountering active accounts, with maybe the odd person diving into the obscurity pool. The main thing is that these plunging accounts don't ruin the fun in the lower leagues.

    Players who decide to become active again will take almost a full GAC month to climb back to the competitive area, if they want to. Players that just get 10 points per fight, or don't sign up at all, hang out in the obscurity pool, away from everyone trying to enjoy the game mode.

    I don't think I'd have a kyber obscurity pool, but probably having one for brozium, chromium and aurodium would help with this problem.

    Why kyber?..... Why Aurodium, bronzium, chromium?..... Why not create Turnipium?.... I say force all of these incative players into a pool where they have to compete against themselves?

    Because kyber is the premiere league that should only have active players earning those rewards.

    I think you maybe misunderstood? The people in the aurodium obscurity pool will still earn aurodium rewards by signing up, doing a single battle and sitting in the obscurity skill range, not bothering any active players.

    I'm not suggesting any new league. Maybe it could be an extra division with slightly worse rewards than div5, but at least a good as the league below? But no real need for that complication.

    With this plan, barely active players effectively sit off to the side, not ruining anyone's matches anymore. Completely inactive players who restart playing will be able to climb back to a relevant place without stomping thier way through unfortunate smaller players.

    If inactive players were just allowed to freefall all the way to turnipium (I assume you mean a league below carbonite), the problems are all the same. People will do just enough to keep rewards they are OK with, being matched with smaller accounts trying their best. Inactive players that decide to play again stomp their way up. Smaller accounts have a bad experience.

    It’s not a bad solution but there is a problem which will affect player progression in lower leagues.

    CG won’t want to change the number of crystals overall going into the game through GAC. Thus, if players ended up stacked in Aurodium 6 and Chromium 6 due to inactivity, players from lower divisions will be prevented from moving upwards. CG would manage this by squishing skill ratings just like they do in Kyber. Over time it would become almost impossible for someone to get out of carbonite let alone bronzium. That would probably lead to more ‘fun’ matchups, but would mean rewards were back to being more GP based and would hit new players hardest.

    It's not that CG doesn't want to change the amount of crystals going into the game, they don't want to raise the amount of crystals going into the game... For every player that moves down the ladder, one moves up the ladder, there i sno "squishing" necessary...

    Excpet that in a paradigm where by a 'kyber inactive' still gets the rewards of a player in aurodium, or an 'aurodium inactive' gets the rewards of a chromium player that effectively reduces the sizes of the league below by having this separate 'inactive' group. Then CG, to prevent more crystals entering the game will reduce the 'active' sizes of those leagues. That would then prevent promotion and affect the experience for players in the lower leagues.
    Account started June 2020. 100% FTP. 8.2m GP. JMK, JML, SLKR, and SEE. Exe and Levi. Ally code 117-269-921. Swgoh.gg
  • BubbaFett
    3311 posts Member
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..
  • BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts
    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
  • BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all...
    Also think this is a separate issue. Matchmaking works fine as it is...could be improved a bit, but much better than before and makes sense now.
    INACTIVE players is a different issue as they would be a "problem" on any matchmaking...i personally dont see the issue as critical. I sometimes face "inactive" players that hves rosters obviously too good for their rating. When they dont play they are effectively free wins for all in the match...and they will move down. If they seesaw, then they can bother a few players...but not easy to fix without actually giving them some "benefit"...
  • BubbaFett
    3311 posts Member
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

  • BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.
    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
  • BubbaFett
    3311 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..
  • BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..

    It’s the minimum effort dillema. How many battles? And how many battles do you think a new account can put out?

    Also that would separate out SOME of the inactives, but not the ones who hate a version of GAC (3v3), or the ones with real world issues that prevent them from participating.

    No, peach was right. The problem is defining an algorithm to fairly identify inactive accounts.
    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
  • BubbaFett
    3311 posts Member
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..

    It’s the minimum effort dillema. How many battles? And how many battles do you think a new account can put out?

    Also that would separate out SOME of the inactives, but not the ones who hate a version of GAC (3v3), or the ones with real world issues that prevent them from participating.

    No, peach was right. The problem is defining an algorithm to fairly identify inactive accounts.

    I agree with you there.... That is the problem..

    The other issue at hand is that you can't please everyone... Smaller players don't deserve the same rewards as bigger players, but some want them... BIgger players don't want to play a game mode they hate, but they want to get decent rewards for doing nothing....

    Then there are guys like me that just accept that no system is perfect and do our best to get the most rewards possible..
  • Lumiya
    1386 posts Member
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..

    It’s the minimum effort dillema. How many battles? And how many battles do you think a new account can put out?

    Also that would separate out SOME of the inactives, but not the ones who hate a version of GAC (3v3), or the ones with real world issues that prevent them from participating.

    No, peach was right. The problem is defining an algorithm to fairly identify inactive accounts.

    I agree with you there.... That is the problem..

    The other issue at hand is that you can't please everyone... Smaller players don't deserve the same rewards as bigger players, but some want them... BIgger players don't want to play a game mode they hate, but they want to get decent rewards for doing nothing....

    Then there are guys like me that just accept that no system is perfect and do our best to get the most rewards possible..


    Can you point to a comment where a small player said they want the same rewards as bigger players? As far as I know, noone said that. I believe many players here already explained enough where they see the problems and why... and it is definitely not because they want Kyber rewards.
    We are all made of star-stuff
  • Lumiya wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..

    It’s the minimum effort dillema. How many battles? And how many battles do you think a new account can put out?

    Also that would separate out SOME of the inactives, but not the ones who hate a version of GAC (3v3), or the ones with real world issues that prevent them from participating.

    No, peach was right. The problem is defining an algorithm to fairly identify inactive accounts.

    I agree with you there.... That is the problem..

    The other issue at hand is that you can't please everyone... Smaller players don't deserve the same rewards as bigger players, but some want them... BIgger players don't want to play a game mode they hate, but they want to get decent rewards for doing nothing....

    Then there are guys like me that just accept that no system is perfect and do our best to get the most rewards possible..


    Can you point to a comment where a small player said they want the same rewards as bigger players? As far as I know, noone said that. I believe many players here already explained enough where they see the problems and why... and it is definitely not because they want Kyber rewards.

    Look back through the thread yourself ...... Tons of examples of smaller players not wanting to face larger players who are inactive (isn't that the principle of the thread).....

    I know this is hard for smaller players to accept but, If they are facing these way higher rosters, they have already climbed way higher than they would have if everyone was acive..... Like I said, be careful what you wish for...
  • I_JnK_I
    464 posts Member
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    But the shards have to be gp based.

    GP base doesn't work, it penalizes people for upping characters that aren't in the meta or "useful"

    Even if my opponents had 2 million more GP, they still would not go for "off-meta" toons.

    I cant do that either, because then im double punished for having lower GP and off meta toons.

    Neither system does prevent that tho
  • Ghost666
    327 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    I_JnK_I wrote: »
    Neither system does prevent that tho
    Not sure what you mean above. Present system allows you to invest on WHATEVER you want...and you get no penalty for bad choices...or toons you like for fun or test...
    On the previous system i would often find myself thinking "i should have not invested in jawas (or whatever) as i dont use them and they penalize my matchmaking".
    If you have off meta toons, you may have an issue climbing, but you will find opponents you can beat...if you lose enough vs meta :)

  • It should be designed so that non-engaging accounts who start life in Kyber 3 take literally MONTHS to drop enough skill rating to reach the levels where they are facing 1.5M GP accounts.

    They should give everyone back the GP-influenced initial skill rating, then multiply it by 2.5 or 3, then reduce the skill rating change by half, then go again and see where we end up.

    This sucks for various reasons. It would extend the period of time where non participating accounts were rewarded excessively just for having a high GP, and unless they offered everyone resets with full credits/gear/materials refunds, it would unfairly penalise people who played the game as it was presented.

    The system is imperfect because elo only works when everyone is trying to win, but reverting to GP based matchups would make matters worse.
  • I_JnK_I
    464 posts Member
    Ghost666 wrote: »
    I_JnK_I wrote: »
    Neither system does prevent that tho
    Not sure what you mean above. Present system allows you to invest on WHATEVER you want...and you get no penalty for bad choices...or toons you like for fun or test...

    If you have off meta toons, you may have an issue climbing, but you will find opponents you can beat...if you lose enough vs meta :)

    But if i climb slower with off meta toons, isnt that the punishment? Have I not made a bad choice in terms of climbing?
  • I_JnK_I wrote: »
    Ghost666 wrote: »
    I_JnK_I wrote: »
    Neither system does prevent that tho
    Not sure what you mean above. Present system allows you to invest on WHATEVER you want...and you get no penalty for bad choices...or toons you like for fun or test...

    If you have off meta toons, you may have an issue climbing, but you will find opponents you can beat...if you lose enough vs meta :)

    But if i climb slower with off meta toons, isnt that the punishment? Have I not made a bad choice in terms of climbing?

    Pretty sure he was referencing the old GP based system... Of course you shouldn't be able to climb with a roster full of ONLY off meta... But the older GP based system penalized players who lived through older metas that were no longer useful like WIGGS etc.. It also penalized players who upped their GP as much as they could with extra resources so that they could get more deploy points in TB...
  • This is for amusement, not a complaint.

    Got 3m GP, matched now with 6m GP. The guy got 70 reliced characters, I got 10. His Vader's speed is 170 :smile: other toons are very slow too. I kind of like this match, really curious who will win. His quantity advantage is overwhelming but speed is the king...
  • it's your low GP that causes the mismatches. If you had a 12 million GP account then you could crush everyone.
    The solution to solving all your GAC problems is really simple: spend $$$$ on getting a bigger account
    Most likely the reason why you are getting put in those brackets is because you don't spend, otherwise I expect you'd get a bracket full of 2 mill GP chumps and GAC would be a blast.
  • Lumiya
    1386 posts Member
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Lumiya wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..

    It’s the minimum effort dillema. How many battles? And how many battles do you think a new account can put out?

    Also that would separate out SOME of the inactives, but not the ones who hate a version of GAC (3v3), or the ones with real world issues that prevent them from participating.

    No, peach was right. The problem is defining an algorithm to fairly identify inactive accounts.

    I agree with you there.... That is the problem..

    The other issue at hand is that you can't please everyone... Smaller players don't deserve the same rewards as bigger players, but some want them... BIgger players don't want to play a game mode they hate, but they want to get decent rewards for doing nothing....

    Then there are guys like me that just accept that no system is perfect and do our best to get the most rewards possible..


    Can you point to a comment where a small player said they want the same rewards as bigger players? As far as I know, noone said that. I believe many players here already explained enough where they see the problems and why... and it is definitely not because they want Kyber rewards.

    Look back through the thread yourself ...... Tons of examples of smaller players not wanting to face larger players who are inactive (isn't that the principle of the thread).....

    I know this is hard for smaller players to accept but, If they are facing these way higher rosters, they have already climbed way higher than they would have if everyone was acive..... Like I said, be careful what you wish for...

    That does not mean they want the rewards of bigger players... Just that they do not want to face those players in their lower leagues/the leagues lower than those big accounts belong. Nobody said they want the rewards of bigger players! If an account with 3-4 GLs is in Chromium for example, they are way below where they belong, no matter how you spin it and not because those smaller accounts have climbed too high! What you are stating is the theory of the system, but what we are seeing is that the reality looks different because of all those big accounts dropping

    We are all made of star-stuff
  • BubbaFett
    3311 posts Member
    Lumiya wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Lumiya wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..

    It’s the minimum effort dillema. How many battles? And how many battles do you think a new account can put out?

    Also that would separate out SOME of the inactives, but not the ones who hate a version of GAC (3v3), or the ones with real world issues that prevent them from participating.

    No, peach was right. The problem is defining an algorithm to fairly identify inactive accounts.

    I agree with you there.... That is the problem..

    The other issue at hand is that you can't please everyone... Smaller players don't deserve the same rewards as bigger players, but some want them... BIgger players don't want to play a game mode they hate, but they want to get decent rewards for doing nothing....

    Then there are guys like me that just accept that no system is perfect and do our best to get the most rewards possible..


    Can you point to a comment where a small player said they want the same rewards as bigger players? As far as I know, noone said that. I believe many players here already explained enough where they see the problems and why... and it is definitely not because they want Kyber rewards.

    Look back through the thread yourself ...... Tons of examples of smaller players not wanting to face larger players who are inactive (isn't that the principle of the thread).....

    I know this is hard for smaller players to accept but, If they are facing these way higher rosters, they have already climbed way higher than they would have if everyone was acive..... Like I said, be careful what you wish for...

    That does not mean they want the rewards of bigger players... Just that they do not want to face those players in their lower leagues/the leagues lower than those big accounts belong. Nobody said they want the rewards of bigger players! If an account with 3-4 GLs is in Chromium for example, they are way below where they belong, no matter how you spin it and not because those smaller accounts have climbed too high! What you are stating is the theory of the system, but what we are seeing is that the reality looks different because of all those big accounts dropping

    OK, then why do they not want to face those players?.... That's the part I don't get....
  • Rius
    351 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    Because it’s not a fun match up. I want to play someone who is reasonably at my level.
  • Poshboy79 wrote: »
    It should be designed so that non-engaging accounts who start life in Kyber 3 take literally MONTHS to drop enough skill rating to reach the levels where they are facing 1.5M GP accounts.

    They should give everyone back the GP-influenced initial skill rating, then multiply it by 2.5 or 3, then reduce the skill rating change by half, then go again and see where we end up.

    This sucks for various reasons. It would extend the period of time where non participating accounts were rewarded excessively just for having a high GP, and unless they offered everyone resets with full credits/gear/materials refunds, it would unfairly penalise people who played the game as it was presented.

    The system is imperfect because elo only works when everyone is trying to win, but reverting to GP based matchups would make matters worse.
    I think you have misunderstood what I’m asking for. I’m not asking for a return to GP based matchups.

    When nuGAC launched, people were given a skill rating according to GP, ranked, and then brackets drawn up from there. Within a few rounds players had diverged from this initial ranking.

    I’m asking for the devs to do this again, and just as before we will all diverge - but hopefully this time with a much more carefully thought out points system.
  • Poshboy79 wrote: »
    It should be designed so that non-engaging accounts who start life in Kyber 3 take literally MONTHS to drop enough skill rating to reach the levels where they are facing 1.5M GP accounts.

    They should give everyone back the GP-influenced initial skill rating, then multiply it by 2.5 or 3, then reduce the skill rating change by half, then go again and see where we end up.

    This sucks for various reasons. It would extend the period of time where non participating accounts were rewarded excessively just for having a high GP, and unless they offered everyone resets with full credits/gear/materials refunds, it would unfairly penalise people who played the game as it was presented.

    The system is imperfect because elo only works when everyone is trying to win, but reverting to GP based matchups would make matters worse.
    I think you have misunderstood what I’m asking for. I’m not asking for a return to GP based matchups.

    When nuGAC launched, people were given a skill rating according to GP, ranked, and then brackets drawn up from there. Within a few rounds players had diverged from this initial ranking.

    I’m asking for the devs to do this again, and just as before we will all diverge - but hopefully this time with a much more carefully thought out points system.

    I don't necessarily want to spend months climbing back up to K2-K3 while having reduced rewards until I do.
  • TVF
    36425 posts Member
    But it will be fun beating up on people!
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • el_mago
    747 posts Member
    Poshboy79 wrote: »
    It should be designed so that non-engaging accounts who start life in Kyber 3 take literally MONTHS to drop enough skill rating to reach the levels where they are facing 1.5M GP accounts.

    They should give everyone back the GP-influenced initial skill rating, then multiply it by 2.5 or 3, then reduce the skill rating change by half, then go again and see where we end up.

    This sucks for various reasons. It would extend the period of time where non participating accounts were rewarded excessively just for having a high GP, and unless they offered everyone resets with full credits/gear/materials refunds, it would unfairly penalise people who played the game as it was presented.

    The system is imperfect because elo only works when everyone is trying to win, but reverting to GP based matchups would make matters worse.
    I think you have misunderstood what I’m asking for. I’m not asking for a return to GP based matchups.

    When nuGAC launched, people were given a skill rating according to GP, ranked, and then brackets drawn up from there. Within a few rounds players had diverged from this initial ranking.

    I’m asking for the devs to do this again, and just as before we will all diverge - but hopefully this time with a much more carefully thought out points system.

    I don't necessarily want to spend months climbing back up to K2-K3 while having reduced rewards until I do.

    it wasn't months, but i get what you're saying. this is how long it took me to climb to K3.

    1qb60avappsb.png
  • iMalevolence
    301 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    el_mago wrote: »
    Poshboy79 wrote: »
    It should be designed so that non-engaging accounts who start life in Kyber 3 take literally MONTHS to drop enough skill rating to reach the levels where they are facing 1.5M GP accounts.

    They should give everyone back the GP-influenced initial skill rating, then multiply it by 2.5 or 3, then reduce the skill rating change by half, then go again and see where we end up.

    This sucks for various reasons. It would extend the period of time where non participating accounts were rewarded excessively just for having a high GP, and unless they offered everyone resets with full credits/gear/materials refunds, it would unfairly penalise people who played the game as it was presented.

    The system is imperfect because elo only works when everyone is trying to win, but reverting to GP based matchups would make matters worse.
    I think you have misunderstood what I’m asking for. I’m not asking for a return to GP based matchups.

    When nuGAC launched, people were given a skill rating according to GP, ranked, and then brackets drawn up from there. Within a few rounds players had diverged from this initial ranking.

    I’m asking for the devs to do this again, and just as before we will all diverge - but hopefully this time with a much more carefully thought out points system.

    I don't necessarily want to spend months climbing back up to K2-K3 while having reduced rewards until I do.

    it wasn't months, but i get what you're saying. this is how long it took me to climb to K3.

    1qb60avappsb.png

    I started nuGAC in Chromium. Got promoted to Aurodium a month later (January 2022). Three months to climb through Aurodium to Kyber (March 2022). Two months of back and forth between K5 and K4 (May 2022). Two months of back and forth between K4 and K3 (July 2022). Still ongoing back and forth between K3 and K2. Just now starting to feel like I'm stabilizing in K2, but every match is slog.

    Overall something like 8 months for my initial climb to where I'm hovering in nuGAC.
  • I like the spreadsheets.... I do one fo rour TB.... But you guys really need to lay off the harsh colours :)
  • Lumiya
    1386 posts Member
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Lumiya wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Lumiya wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    nfidel2k wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    Then don't have an inactive group at all.... having thought about it, I don't really see too much of a problem with it the way it is... If anything, maybe they could just make getting any rewards reliant on attempting a certain number of battles rather than just having to get 10 banners..

    That would actually make it harder for smaller accounts to participate against bigger accounts

    How so? If the idea is to not have small accounts competing against large accounts then forcing the larger accounts to do battles to get more rewards should separate them...

    Because the complaints are from accounts that can only earn the 10 banners against larger accounts. Raising the bar for rewards would affect them.

    Which is why I said a minimum of BATTLES instead of BANNERS...... Force the inactives to do more if they want to get rewards..

    It’s the minimum effort dillema. How many battles? And how many battles do you think a new account can put out?

    Also that would separate out SOME of the inactives, but not the ones who hate a version of GAC (3v3), or the ones with real world issues that prevent them from participating.

    No, peach was right. The problem is defining an algorithm to fairly identify inactive accounts.

    I agree with you there.... That is the problem..

    The other issue at hand is that you can't please everyone... Smaller players don't deserve the same rewards as bigger players, but some want them... BIgger players don't want to play a game mode they hate, but they want to get decent rewards for doing nothing....

    Then there are guys like me that just accept that no system is perfect and do our best to get the most rewards possible..


    Can you point to a comment where a small player said they want the same rewards as bigger players? As far as I know, noone said that. I believe many players here already explained enough where they see the problems and why... and it is definitely not because they want Kyber rewards.

    Look back through the thread yourself ...... Tons of examples of smaller players not wanting to face larger players who are inactive (isn't that the principle of the thread).....

    I know this is hard for smaller players to accept but, If they are facing these way higher rosters, they have already climbed way higher than they would have if everyone was acive..... Like I said, be careful what you wish for...

    That does not mean they want the rewards of bigger players... Just that they do not want to face those players in their lower leagues/the leagues lower than those big accounts belong. Nobody said they want the rewards of bigger players! If an account with 3-4 GLs is in Chromium for example, they are way below where they belong, no matter how you spin it and not because those smaller accounts have climbed too high! What you are stating is the theory of the system, but what we are seeing is that the reality looks different because of all those big accounts dropping

    OK, then why do they not want to face those players?.... That's the part I don't get....

    A lot of people have already explained this enough. Just read through the threads. It is quite easy to understand why they have a problem with facing much bigger accounts that dropped down where they don't"belong". And it has nothing to do with the smaller players climbing too high or wanting the Kyber rewards.
    We are all made of star-stuff
Sign In or Register to comment.