Grand Arena Megathread

Replies

  • Gannon
    1473 posts Member
    Gannon, did you let the rooster out again?

    🐓
    I am a huge believer in strategy...I just won by 1 flag against an opponent with 8 zetas (including double GM Yoda, Double MT, and a zeta Wampa) I have 2 zetas (MT and Daka...same squad, oops, lol) and 4 times as many 7* toons...quality, high gear good mods. Oh yes, and his double z GM Yoda was at g12...to my, well I do not have any at g12 yet but I am close.
    I took a huge risk after strategizing and it payed off. I don't care that the rewards aren't as good, this feeling right now is worth at least 3 zetas alone! 🙂

    Yea, everyone keeps complaining about matchmaking. And, yes, I agree it can seem pretty one sided based on just dsr bot..
    But I've never come across an opponent that I couldn't beat, and I'm usually in the lower middle range of gp and g12s out of my 8.
    This GA was another great example for me. He had every advantage, but I knew exactly how to counter all his teams, got first time and 4 man bonuses. He failed one attack against my droids cuz he ignored jawa engineer.. He can't make up that banner now, so I win. (Yes, I even talked to the guy about it.)
  • Bubblechomp
    784 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    @Liath I said they essentially stated. By stating one is the purely competitive play arena, and one is for funsies, it’s not a huge logical jump to assume Arenas, which are controlled by shard groups, is also a joke. Hence the need for GA in the first place.

    And my trolling comment was aimed at TVF, but if the shoe fits.
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Liath
    4943 posts Member
    Not only is it a huge logical leap, it’s the reason we can’t have nice things (i.e. good communication).
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    JohnAran wrote: »
    Admitting you’re being matched against opponents with inferior rosters and winning. Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    The developers have stated that TW and Arena are essentially funny irrelevant game modes. Grand Arena will be “the arena for purely competitive play.”

    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    I admit that i have never sandbagged in any way. I admit that with that said, i won every single ga round to date, most of them extremely easily because of weak my opponents’ rosters were compared to mine.
    I admit i think that sandbagging is useless, replacing strong opponents with different strong opponents, that no proof has been showed (shown?) that it was positive, in fact that it was doing anything at all.
    People are not asking for fair matchups they are asking for 50/50 matchups, very different things. People can disagree with you without being trolls, because even though you don’t seem to realize it, you are not a god and do not possess the Only Truth.

    What would you consider as a proof? I have 1.28M worth of fluff, that has no effect to how I get matched whatsoever?

    Anyone with less fluff (where all are on a spectrum of it mostly and a minority with none of it) than me automatically is advantageous because of it. Whether they made good use of that difference between us is another topic, fairness implies equal chances, not equal outcomes. With a few exceptions nothing in the fluffy portion of my roster gets used, same as my opponents still locked g1 lvl1 toons. Those exceptions are toons that are on my back catalogue waiting for their priority turn (such as Holdo).

    @TVF is 800K GP lower than me, if I had %60 less fluff I would be able to get matched by him which would be a nasty stomping he has no chance to win with any amount strategy.

    Now you can put the blame on me for having developed as such in the past. I do not accept that blame. Neither am I blaming who went the lean way for various reasong. To me the full blame is on CG for not thinking it throughly.

    Going from the moment where GA is introduced, the tides are shifting. Baggers over non-baggers will slowly but surely gain advantage as their bagging will allow to fit in more maxed toons in their GP range. i.e. consider 2 opponents with purely same rosters at the beginning of GA. One kept building up fluff, the other one bagged 100k GP in the duration. That's one full built team which can directly convert to outcome. Well that's not fully accurate as they'll comparative GP ranges will slide in the duration, but hope you get the idea. 100K GP fluff isn't equal to maxed 100K GP for the most obvious reasons.

    I think I illustrated pretty well a fair GP system would result in a fair matchmaking...which will not result by any means in a 50/50 match-up which are similar. To me it's purely related to lop sided aspects of GP calculation. Some argue gear etc. count checks in between people, I'm against that because of the 50/50 reason you mentioned. I don't want such similarity either.
  • I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • @Bubblechomp Are you the TWA Bubblechomp of the Thugs in White Armor?
    Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.
    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    I agree there are scenarios where better balance of character and ship GP would equal more "fair" matches, depending on how you define fair, but there's no better way to compare how players spent their resources than GP.

    What would you consider "fair" match making? The exact same toons unlocked, at the exact same gear levels? Should mods be factored in as well, so if you ignored mods you're not penalized in the competition? Everyone griping about "fair" matches has yet to define "fair" outside of "one that I win."

    This "paper zombie" roster argument and "fair matchmaking" argument all boils down to people making choices that aren't conducive to success in this game mode. Maybe they're conducive to success in other game modes, but not this one.

    All that said, outside of pride, what's the big deal? The rewards between first and second through fourth place are within the bounds of RNG. I understand pride is a thing. I lost my first match because of some really really bad execution on my part, then I realized that I'm basically one lucky challenge away from getting that omega back.
  • Liath
    4943 posts Member
    I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.

    Is this directed at me?
  • So when I state “I want MORE fair matchmaking in whatever way CG can offer it,” you will agree?

    Typically the proper way to complain about an issue is to point out logic and statistics while offering potential solutions. The 50/50 was just an idea thrown out there; that doesn’t mean that’s what everyone wants.

    Edit: Beware of thunder bro, for I am near

    Exactly what Liath said : to ask for something to be fair you need to define fair. For example i think that the current matchmaking is fair, which is why i disagree with most suggestions to modify it. If you meet a strong opponent that you have little chance to beat, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unfair. It wasn’t an idea just thrown out, a lot of people are saying they want equal matchups, they want to meet people with same number of g12s, they want the matchmaking to include key chars, they want the fluff to be ignored... They want to meet an opponent of equal strenght, they want a 50/50.
    I’ve already said that to make that fair you need to create rewards tiers and global ranking and it basically turns grand arena in arena 2.0, and i don’t want that.


    I’m not saying the matchmaking can’t be improved in any way, of course it can. I just disagree that it need to be changed, and i especially disagree with the reasons people claim are justifying the change. I’m not a troll and i’m not trying to upset or annoy people. Just expressing my opinion when i feel like it :)
  • @Bubblechomp Are you the TWA Bubblechomp of the Thugs in White Armor?
    Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.
    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    I agree there are scenarios where better balance of character and ship GP would equal more "fair" matches, depending on how you define fair, but there's no better way to compare how players spent their resources than GP.

    What would you consider "fair" match making? The exact same toons unlocked, at the exact same gear levels? Should mods be factored in as well, so if you ignored mods you're not penalized in the competition? Everyone griping about "fair" matches has yet to define "fair" outside of "one that I win."

    This "paper zombie" roster argument and "fair matchmaking" argument all boils down to people making choices that aren't conducive to success in this game mode. Maybe they're conducive to success in other game modes, but not this one.

    All that said, outside of pride, what's the big deal? The rewards between first and second through fourth place are within the bounds of RNG. I understand pride is a thing. I lost my first match because of some really really bad execution on my part, then I realized that I'm basically one lucky challenge away from getting that omega back.

    I’ve recently answered/replied to those questions in the past, they’re easily searchable.

    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Liath wrote: »
    I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.

    Is this directed at me?

    It was. No_Try slipped a message in before I posted it.
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Gannon
    1473 posts Member
    @Bubblechomp Are you the TWA Bubblechomp of the Thugs in White Armor?
    Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.
    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    I agree there are scenarios where better balance of character and ship GP would equal more "fair" matches, depending on how you define fair, but there's no better way to compare how players spent their resources than GP.

    What would you consider "fair" match making? The exact same toons unlocked, at the exact same gear levels? Should mods be factored in as well, so if you ignored mods you're not penalized in the competition? Everyone griping about "fair" matches has yet to define "fair" outside of "one that I win."

    This "paper zombie" roster argument and "fair matchmaking" argument all boils down to people making choices that aren't conducive to success in this game mode. Maybe they're conducive to success in other game modes, but not this one.

    All that said, outside of pride, what's the big deal? The rewards between first and second through fourth place are within the bounds of RNG. I understand pride is a thing. I lost my first match because of some really really bad execution on my part, then I realized that I'm basically one lucky challenge away from getting that omega back.

    I’ve recently answered/replied to those questions in the past, they’re easily searchable.

    So I'm confused, thought you were on the same page as helmet, notry, liath, tvf and such. Are you saying you want gp matchmaking to change cuz you can't win currently?
  • Liath
    4943 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.

    Is this directed at me?

    It was. No_Try slipped a message in before I posted it.

    Ok. I don’t know why since I have never (to my recollection) used the term “pure competition.” I don't think I have a definition of it, it sounds fairly meaningless TBH.
  • JohnAran wrote: »
    So when I state “I want MORE fair matchmaking in whatever way CG can offer it,” you will agree?

    Typically the proper way to complain about an issue is to point out logic and statistics while offering potential solutions. The 50/50 was just an idea thrown out there; that doesn’t mean that’s what everyone wants.

    Edit: Beware of thunder bro, for I am near

    I’m not a troll and i’m not trying to upset or annoy people. Just expressing my opinion when i feel like it :)

    The only person I’ve joked about being a troll, or at least intended to, was my three lettered friend.
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Liath wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.

    Is this directed at me?

    It was. No_Try slipped a message in before I posted it.

    Ok. I don’t know why since I have never (to my recollection) used the term “pure competition.” I don't think I have a definition of it, it sounds fairly meaningless TBH.

    It was the term the developers used to refer to GA in the recent TW change post. It matters in the context of the post I made that you responded to.

    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Gannon
    1473 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.

    Is this directed at me?

    It was. No_Try slipped a message in before I posted it.

    Ok. I don’t know why since I have never (to my recollection) used the term “pure competition.” I don't think I have a definition of it, it sounds fairly meaningless TBH.

    Pure competition is impossible in this game, as everything is still player v computer. That's my biggest issue with having 4 types of arena, it's just dumb cuz it's the exact same stuff over and over
  • Liath
    4943 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.

    Is this directed at me?

    It was. No_Try slipped a message in before I posted it.

    Ok. I don’t know why since I have never (to my recollection) used the term “pure competition.” I don't think I have a definition of it, it sounds fairly meaningless TBH.

    It was the term the developers used to refer to GA in the recent TW change post. It matters in the context of the post I made that you responded to.

    Ah, see, context is everything. I believe what they said (at least based on your previous statements - I didn’t go back and reread the thread) is that GA would be the purely competitive (as opposed to the fun and playful, now to to be TW) game mode. In other words, it’s a game mode in which you can use your characters as designed without random buffs, exclusions, and whatever else they come up with to spice up TW.

    That’s very different from saying that GA is a “pure competition.”
  • Gannon wrote: »
    @Bubblechomp Are you the TWA Bubblechomp of the Thugs in White Armor?
    Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.
    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    I agree there are scenarios where better balance of character and ship GP would equal more "fair" matches, depending on how you define fair, but there's no better way to compare how players spent their resources than GP.

    What would you consider "fair" match making? The exact same toons unlocked, at the exact same gear levels? Should mods be factored in as well, so if you ignored mods you're not penalized in the competition? Everyone griping about "fair" matches has yet to define "fair" outside of "one that I win."

    This "paper zombie" roster argument and "fair matchmaking" argument all boils down to people making choices that aren't conducive to success in this game mode. Maybe they're conducive to success in other game modes, but not this one.

    All that said, outside of pride, what's the big deal? The rewards between first and second through fourth place are within the bounds of RNG. I understand pride is a thing. I lost my first match because of some really really bad execution on my part, then I realized that I'm basically one lucky challenge away from getting that omega back.

    I’ve recently answered/replied to those questions in the past, they’re easily searchable.

    So I'm confused, thought you were on the same page as helmet, notry, liath, tvf and such. Are you saying you want gp matchmaking to change cuz you can't win currently?

    I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.

    This argument is also a fallacy. There is no common ingredient that goes into building up fluff and building the high end of a roster besides credits. For most of long term players credits ceased to be bottleneck long ago. Mk 3 holos as an example is a fallacy. Fluff builders in the past haven't indiscrimanately fluffed up using what they would rather use building maxed toons. They took the toons to where it's exactly possible by not doing that. Infact that was the whole idea.
    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    GP is not a direct measure of how resources are spent. I've demonstrated that's not the case extensively in the GP calculation topic. For the most basic example check a toons gear 7 pieces, then check g8 pieces, also consider the gear farming costs on maps to be perfectly accurate (7 would take lots of 6 energy nodes etc.). You will see it doesn correlate with the GP offset between g7 and g8, it's off the mark greatly.

    So we end up with a 10K GP worth of almost useless fluff toon (where I admit is not the case for all toons indistinctively) vs. 20-24k maxed, zetad toon which makes it easier to notice GP as it is currently calculated is off.
  • Liath wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    I would like to hear your definition of pure competition.

    Is this directed at me?

    It was. No_Try slipped a message in before I posted it.

    Ok. I don’t know why since I have never (to my recollection) used the term “pure competition.” I don't think I have a definition of it, it sounds fairly meaningless TBH.

    It was the term the developers used to refer to GA in the recent TW change post. It matters in the context of the post I made that you responded to.

    Ah, see, context is everything. I believe what they said (at least based on your previous statements - I didn’t go back and reread the thread) is that GA would be the purely competitive (as opposed to the fun and playful, now to to be TW) game mode. In other words, it’s a game mode in which you can use your characters as designed without random buffs, exclusions, and whatever else they come up with to spice up TW.

    That’s very different from saying that GA is a “pure competition.”

    I’m going off the limited posts the devs have made. These forums would be better if the devs better communicated and were less opaque.

    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Gannon
    1473 posts Member
    Gannon wrote: »
    @Bubblechomp Are you the TWA Bubblechomp of the Thugs in White Armor?
    Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.
    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    I agree there are scenarios where better balance of character and ship GP would equal more "fair" matches, depending on how you define fair, but there's no better way to compare how players spent their resources than GP.

    What would you consider "fair" match making? The exact same toons unlocked, at the exact same gear levels? Should mods be factored in as well, so if you ignored mods you're not penalized in the competition? Everyone griping about "fair" matches has yet to define "fair" outside of "one that I win."

    This "paper zombie" roster argument and "fair matchmaking" argument all boils down to people making choices that aren't conducive to success in this game mode. Maybe they're conducive to success in other game modes, but not this one.

    All that said, outside of pride, what's the big deal? The rewards between first and second through fourth place are within the bounds of RNG. I understand pride is a thing. I lost my first match because of some really really bad execution on my part, then I realized that I'm basically one lucky challenge away from getting that omega back.

    I’ve recently answered/replied to those questions in the past, they’re easily searchable.

    So I'm confused, thought you were on the same page as helmet, notry, liath, tvf and such. Are you saying you want gp matchmaking to change cuz you can't win currently?

    I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.

    Oh ok. The rest of us discussed all that in the other thread, and broke down how the gp calculates everything and came to the conclusion (most of us, at least) that it was about as close as you could get to an accurate matchmaking baseline.
    I mean, I don't even get to use all my teams in GA anymore.. But it's all about finding the most efficient counters to teams really, and making them good enough to work.. Mine are mostly g10-11 and do just fine, even against full g12s and such.
  • I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.

    GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness, but it is an accurate indicator of resource spend.

    You're basically arguing that a bad football team shouldn't have to play a good football team even though they both have the same salary cap, just because the bad football team will get beat.

    And have faith, matchmaking includes won / loss record (per the announcement posts), so eventually you will get matched up against rosters with usefulness such as your own. It's apparently just taking awhile to get there.
  • Gannon wrote: »
    Gannon wrote: »
    @Bubblechomp Are you the TWA Bubblechomp of the Thugs in White Armor?
    Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.
    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    I agree there are scenarios where better balance of character and ship GP would equal more "fair" matches, depending on how you define fair, but there's no better way to compare how players spent their resources than GP.

    What would you consider "fair" match making? The exact same toons unlocked, at the exact same gear levels? Should mods be factored in as well, so if you ignored mods you're not penalized in the competition? Everyone griping about "fair" matches has yet to define "fair" outside of "one that I win."

    This "paper zombie" roster argument and "fair matchmaking" argument all boils down to people making choices that aren't conducive to success in this game mode. Maybe they're conducive to success in other game modes, but not this one.

    All that said, outside of pride, what's the big deal? The rewards between first and second through fourth place are within the bounds of RNG. I understand pride is a thing. I lost my first match because of some really really bad execution on my part, then I realized that I'm basically one lucky challenge away from getting that omega back.

    I’ve recently answered/replied to those questions in the past, they’re easily searchable.

    So I'm confused, thought you were on the same page as helmet, notry, liath, tvf and such. Are you saying you want gp matchmaking to change cuz you can't win currently?

    I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.

    Oh ok. The rest of us discussed all that in the other thread, and broke down how the gp calculates everything and came to the conclusion (most of us, at least) that it was about as close as you could get to an accurate matchmaking baseline.
    I mean, I don't even get to use all my teams in GA anymore.. But it's all about finding the most efficient counters to teams really, and making them good enough to work.. Mine are mostly g10-11 and do just fine, even against full g12s and such.

    I may be wrong, but I believe even TW relies on more than solely GP. I think a lot of the problems come from Devs dropping GA then going on vacation. Like when they only implemented the auto defense deployment for one day of one tournament. They probably just need more time to work the kinks out; changes are inevitable. I’m just making noise where I think it needs to be made, whether I’m right or wrong, heard or unheard
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    JohnAran wrote: »

    Exactly what Liath said : to ask for something to be fair you need to define fair.

    Two ways you can make it fair differing on what you want fairness to depend on.

    Resources approach. You calculate GP gained by any aspect depending on the resources needed for it.

    Stats approach. You calculate GP gained by any aspect depending on it's contribution to multipliers and additives acting on the stats.

    Both approaches are difficult but solvable problems. There's no snap of the finger solution to it. I tried to write down the difficulties that comes up with each on the GP calculation topic.

    Well...it's also commonly argued changing the system will present other (maybe unforeseeable) problems. It's not like the current one has only minor problems if you go to GP and take a careful look at how it's calculated. Did humanity ever stopped at improving something based on the assumption it will present it's own set of problems?
  • Bubblechomp
    784 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    Nor did humanity ever stop improving based on the assumption by some that things are good enough as is.
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Gannon
    1473 posts Member
    Nor did humanity ever stop improving based on the assumption that things are good enough as is.

    Very true, but leaving things like 'gp matching in GA' as is could allow them to go fix things that really need more fixing
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.

    GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness, but it is an accurate indicator of resource spend.

    You're basically arguing that a bad football team shouldn't have to play a good football team even though they both have the same salary cap, just because the bad football team will get beat.

    And have faith, matchmaking includes won / loss record (per the announcement posts), so eventually you will get matched up against rosters with usefulness such as your own. It's apparently just taking awhile to get there.

    W/L ratios are only considered within each league. I guess you're misinterpreting the announcement. But if it worked like that, that would be another possible solution for fairness and an easy one at that.
  • Gannon
    1473 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    No_Try wrote: »
    I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.

    GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness, but it is an accurate indicator of resource spend.

    You're basically arguing that a bad football team shouldn't have to play a good football team even though they both have the same salary cap, just because the bad football team will get beat.

    And have faith, matchmaking includes won / loss record (per the announcement posts), so eventually you will get matched up against rosters with usefulness such as your own. It's apparently just taking awhile to get there.

    W/L ratios are only considered within each league. I guess you're misinterpreting the announcement. But if it worked like that, that would be another possible solution for fairness and an easy one at that.

    Kyno confirmed it tho, it's about "investment" and not "usefulness" cuz the latter is purely subjective and varies wildly.
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gannon wrote: »
    Fear_77 wrote: »
    This may seem it bit out there..but what if they only took into account the top 1/3 or 1/4 (or some other fraction) of our rosters? This would only include toons that have serious recent investment in it for gear, omegas, zetas. This may help with being grouped with people that have 25 more g12s or 20 less g12s than oneself.

    Then ppl would complain about why the rest of the roster wasn't included. Or tat their opponent is vastly different gp.. Or ships.. Or mods.. Or any number of other things.
    In the end, total gp is the broadest and most general way to match two players' total investments into the game. Which is good..

    The whole point of this thread is to try and figure out how it is calculated, or if it needs to be updated since all the changes like 12.5+ And 6 dot mods and stuff.

    The system never seemed weighted correctly for any "effective rating" vs usefulness from a player perspective (i.e.- combat usefulness). It always seemed to be more of a total investment rated from in game usefulness (i.e. - where they can be used).

    But would redistribution of the weighted score really help?

    7* leading to g12 leading to 6 dot mods, makes 7* really important in the grand scheme, so they may have been thinking about that and not just usefulness in raids and all phases of TB.

    Edit: misread your post, oops.
    🐓
  • Gannon wrote: »
    Nor did humanity ever stop improving based on the assumption that things are good enough as is.

    Very true, but leaving things like 'gp matching in GA' as is could allow them to go fix things that really need more fixing

    Grand Arena is brand new. It has bugs and other issues like people not laying defenses down and disrupting the tournament portion of the mode. Now’s the time to be investigating and implementing changes.

    Especially when their free time “to fix things that really need more fixing” is otherwise spent coming up with weird, lazy ways to disrupt game modes like TW. 😂

    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    Gannon wrote: »
    Gannon wrote: »
    @Bubblechomp Are you the TWA Bubblechomp of the Thugs in White Armor?
    Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

    This argument is a fallacy. Players that have been "witholding" low level gear and levels from the bottom of their rosters haven't been doing it with GA in mind. They've been doing it as a strategy to focus their resources on the top end of their roster and started doing it long before GA came about. Roster composition and mods have far more to do with success in this game mode than GP. I personally have never seen a reason to bring a toon I don't have a squad for up to G8. Then again, I don't have hundreds of MK3 Holos floating around.
    People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

    GP is a direct measure of how you spent the resources you acquired. Generally speaking, the same GP means the same amount of resources spent. Your roster is the result of what you bought with those resources. Some people would spend $10 on 100 lollipops. Others might spend it on a solid meal. Their choice - one will satisfy your sweet tooth, the other keeps you from being hungry.

    I agree there are scenarios where better balance of character and ship GP would equal more "fair" matches, depending on how you define fair, but there's no better way to compare how players spent their resources than GP.

    What would you consider "fair" match making? The exact same toons unlocked, at the exact same gear levels? Should mods be factored in as well, so if you ignored mods you're not penalized in the competition? Everyone griping about "fair" matches has yet to define "fair" outside of "one that I win."

    This "paper zombie" roster argument and "fair matchmaking" argument all boils down to people making choices that aren't conducive to success in this game mode. Maybe they're conducive to success in other game modes, but not this one.

    All that said, outside of pride, what's the big deal? The rewards between first and second through fourth place are within the bounds of RNG. I understand pride is a thing. I lost my first match because of some really really bad execution on my part, then I realized that I'm basically one lucky challenge away from getting that omega back.

    I’ve recently answered/replied to those questions in the past, they’re easily searchable.

    So I'm confused, thought you were on the same page as helmet, notry, liath, tvf and such. Are you saying you want gp matchmaking to change cuz you can't win currently?

    I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.

    Oh ok. The rest of us discussed all that in the other thread, and broke down how the gp calculates everything and came to the conclusion (most of us, at least) that it was about as close as you could get to an accurate matchmaking baseline.
    I mean, I don't even get to use all my teams in GA anymore.. But it's all about finding the most efficient counters to teams really, and making them good enough to work.. Mine are mostly g10-11 and do just fine, even against full g12s and such.

    That hasn't happened really. Besides the noncontributive intrusions from other people, you presented some googley chewie samples where it has multiple moving parts which makes isolating stat bumps from each aspect very hard. You looked at it and said "well....looks fine to me" xD. And I didn't put in the effort to come up with exact numbers. Gear slots flat stat contributions makes it even harder as not all relies on Str/Agi/Tac.

    That's one of the two approaches I proposed. On a resources calculation it's superbly easier that the GP and resources correlation doesn't exist.
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    Gannon wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly stated that GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness; that a more precise matchmaking algorithm would benefit the fairness of a game mode that the developers have described as being the arena for purely competitive play. I’ve been pretty consistent.

    GP is not an accurate indicator of roster usefulness, but it is an accurate indicator of resource spend.

    You're basically arguing that a bad football team shouldn't have to play a good football team even though they both have the same salary cap, just because the bad football team will get beat.

    And have faith, matchmaking includes won / loss record (per the announcement posts), so eventually you will get matched up against rosters with usefulness such as your own. It's apparently just taking awhile to get there.

    W/L ratios are only considered within each league. I guess you're misinterpreting the announcement. But if it worked like that, that would be another possible solution for fairness and an easy one at that.

    Kyno confirmed it tho, it's about "investment" and not "usefulness" cuz the latter is purely subjective and varies wildly.
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gannon wrote: »
    Fear_77 wrote: »
    This may seem it bit out there..but what if they only took into account the top 1/3 or 1/4 (or some other fraction) of our rosters? This would only include toons that have serious recent investment in it for gear, omegas, zetas. This may help with being grouped with people that have 25 more g12s or 20 less g12s than oneself.

    Then ppl would complain about why the rest of the roster wasn't included. Or tat their opponent is vastly different gp.. Or ships.. Or mods.. Or any number of other things.
    In the end, total gp is the broadest and most general way to match two players' total investments into the game. Which is good..

    The whole point of this thread is to try and figure out how it is calculated, or if it needs to be updated since all the changes like 12.5+ And 6 dot mods and stuff.

    The system never seemed weighted correctly for any "effective rating" vs usefulness from a player perspective (i.e.- combat usefulness). It always seemed to be more of a total investment rated from in game usefulness (i.e. - where they can be used).

    But would redistribution of the weighted score really help?

    7* leading to g12 leading to 6 dot mods, makes 7* really important in the grand scheme, so they may have been thinking about that and not just usefulness in raids and all phases of TB.

    Edit: misread your post, oops.
    🐓

    Ok, I'll make you an investment oriented calculation after I eat my dinner. I made a rough one already a few days ago. The amount of pieces on g7 is half of g8 on the single sample I looked at. And we know the GP difference between the gear tiers isn't 1/2.
Sign In or Register to comment.