Grand Arena Megathread

Replies

  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    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. 😂

    That's my point tho. Gp matching should be fine, at least for now, but it would be even better if they tweaked the gp calculation process to be more accurate (or explain all the word bumps and such)

    But more pressing concerns like empty boards, TW sandbagging (dropping ppl) and so many other things should prolly be fixed first
  • TVF
    25521 posts Member
    @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.

    I am not trolling. I have my positions and I stand by them. What I do not have is patience for anyone who calls me a troll because they disagree with me.

    Enough said.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Gannon wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't necessarily say it was fine, more like "close enough to work for now" lol
    Since all the toons undergo the same gp calc, it's fair enough in the broad range, but hopefully they'll add other matching parameters in the future

    And I think that’s all people are asking for—at least what I am. Just more fairness in the future, in whatever form it may take, since the current system is not infallible.
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    Gannon wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't necessarily say it was fine, more like "close enough to work for now" lol
    Since all the toons undergo the same gp calc, it's fair enough in the broad range, but hopefully they'll add other matching parameters in the future

    And I think that’s all people are asking for—at least what I am. Just more fairness in the future, in whatever form it may take, since the current system is not infallible.

    In the meantime, if you need advice for counter teams, just ask. I post vids anyway for my guild all the time of 3 or 4 man counters to GA meta defenses.
  • TVF wrote: »
    @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.

    I am not trolling. I have my positions and I stand by them. What I do not have is patience for anyone who calls me a troll because they disagree with me.

    Enough said.

    Sorry for victimizing you on the anonymous Internet, but you are free to ignore me. 😜
    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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 tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
    Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

    Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

    I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

    A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

    I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.
  • No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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 tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
    Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

    Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

    I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

    A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

    I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.

    I’m still a fan of mixing Grand Arena’s themes up to occasionally require, say, 16 defense teams. The 3v3 was weird and interesting, GA’s a good setting for such weirdness.

    Member of ‘Thugs in White Armor’
  • Gannon wrote: »
    Gannon wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't necessarily say it was fine, more like "close enough to work for now" lol
    Since all the toons undergo the same gp calc, it's fair enough in the broad range, but hopefully they'll add other matching parameters in the future

    And I think that’s all people are asking for—at least what I am. Just more fairness in the future, in whatever form it may take, since the current system is not infallible.

    In the meantime, if you need advice for counter teams, just ask. I post vids anyway for my guild all the time of 3 or 4 man counters to GA meta defenses.

    Where could I find the videos?
    I am a believer that "Knowledge is power".
  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    Gannon wrote: »
    Gannon wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't necessarily say it was fine, more like "close enough to work for now" lol
    Since all the toons undergo the same gp calc, it's fair enough in the broad range, but hopefully they'll add other matching parameters in the future

    And I think that’s all people are asking for—at least what I am. Just more fairness in the future, in whatever form it may take, since the current system is not infallible.

    In the meantime, if you need advice for counter teams, just ask. I post vids anyway for my guild all the time of 3 or 4 man counters to GA meta defenses.

    Where could I find the videos?
    I am a believer that "Knowledge is power".

    Find me in LINE, it's still the best 3rd party app for video. My tag is: gannon009
  • No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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 tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
    Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

    Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

    I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

    A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

    I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.

    It’s a very important element of fairness because ressources spent are directly correlated to time. In this game setting aside money you can only get a limited amount of ressources each day.
    It’s important because it’s the origin of the current « unfairness » of the matchmaking : since fluff requires less ressources but awards same gp, a 3m lean roster cost more than a 3m fluffy roster, which means it takes more time to achieve in average, which means by fluffing you might get matched against players who got access to much more ressources than you in an « unfair » way : they played longer. Not better, not smarter, longer.

    I disagree with those gp calculation changes because to me they don’t make it more fair just more equal, which again requires rewards tiers i don’t want, otherwise you have zero incentive of making your roster stronger since you’ll just meet someone stronger too with no gain on the line.
    It’s important because as a newer player i don’t see how that’s fair for me to meet someone who played longer just because i managed to acquire ressources faster than others. Me going faster is supposed to be a good thing, and it ends up being neutral. If i’m more invested and play better than the people who started with me, i rank higher in arenas, i rank higher in raids, i complete more events thanks to smart ressource allocation, i end up just playing stronger older players in ga and having as hard a time as the others ? For no reward ?

    There is also the problem of the value you assign to those gear tiers. You’ve said repeatedly that to you g8-9 should be basically worthless gp-wise since they’re worthless in ga. I very strongly disagree with that. It’s easy to see how stats are already more or less in line (Gannon started to show that a bit). G7-9 chars can be used in strong teams to take down strong teams (my g8 c3po works well against full g12 teams). It’s also important to note that stars give you access to game content (and rewards) which is hard to quantify but important. Overall defining the « use » or « efficacy » of a toon related to gp is not only very hard it’s also very subjective.

    Again matchmaking based on w/l = rankings = reward tiers = arena. Not to say it’s impossible, i just personally much prefer the current format.
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    Resources vs. GP

    - The aim here is to see whether a correlation between resource usage and GP gain from it exists.
    - I'm going by 1 toon only which comes as the 1st toon on swgoh.gg for the sake of simplicity. And I'm only gonna consider g7-g8 and g11. I'll consider g7 as the baseline with value 1 to not get boggled in high numbers
    - Disclaimer: obviously amount of gear pieces and each pieces value differ in between toons. One can base gear GP and it's progression using averages across all toons, or any single toon can have it's own GP gear progression tree for a perfection in the correlation.
    - All will converge to an energy cost. Remember we are not looking into our piles of 10k gears, gear bottlenecks or consider challenges. Ignoring multiple gear types/pieces on nodes. The point is to make GP calculation fair regardless of them. One can simply not consider people's various shop purchases and that's not neccessary for a fair GP calculation either.
    - White: 6, Green: 6, Blue: 6, Purple: 8, Yellow: 10 energy
    - To make the calculation easier for myself I'm gonna use gear type (color) values already provided on swgoh.gg and assume their lowliest farmable energy node. This is introduces an approximation as gear tiers can have pieces where the lowliest nodes that they can be farmed in differs.
    - Ignoring credit cost of gearing since it's rather miniscule and I chose energy as the primary metric.
    - I'll consider a reasonable correlation to be %+-20
    - If you reject the outcomes based on the method, please do your own calculation and share with us.


    u6nra6ivodyj.png

    Conclusion: A correlation between gear farming costs based on energy (approx. "resourced used") and gear GP does not exist.

    Used info:

    vcrxrxjbprcs.png
    5uu1clq94d03.png
    xdq9wza5vbda.png
    qi00q19kxs1f.png

  • cannonfodder_iv
    962 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    @No_Try This is great, but have you considered the impact of nodes that contain multiple pieces of salvage? As such, the per energy cost of the white, green, and blue gear is already included in some fashion when farming the purple gear. We get it for free as we're not (usually) explicitly obtaining those resources.

    I understand and applaud what you're trying to do, but this model isn't accurate within the way we actually spend energy.

    Edit: also doesn't exclude things like challenge gear that we get for free. A more accurate model could lead to different conclusions.
  • Gannon, I downloaded the app (I think it was the correct "line" app) and signed up but have no idea how to use it or find your videos.
  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    That power power gear tier table is wrong tho, remember? I don't have all the exact values in hand atm, but gear parts at g6= 84gp, parts at g9= 283

  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    Gannon, I downloaded the app (I think it was the correct "line" app) and signed up but have no idea how to use it or find your videos.

    What's your username, I'll find you
  • Ha ha ha, I obviously did something wrong because I do not seem to have a username except my 1st name.
  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    Ha ha ha, I obviously did something wrong because I do not seem to have a username except my 1st name.

    40uhnxj7z6ys.jpeg

    Go to more, add friends, search for me: gannon009
  • @No_Try @Bubblechomp

    Instead of GP, would some variant of "lifetime free energy obtained + lifetime crystals obtained" be a fair basis for matching? These are the raw materials used to construct a roster, either directly (via energy and crystal spend) or indirectly (via resources gained through exercising that roster) and would truly represent the level of efficiency in employed in roster construction?
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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 tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
    Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

    Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

    I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

    A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

    I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.

    It’s a very important element of fairness because ressources spent are directly correlated to time. In this game setting aside money you can only get a limited amount of ressources each day.
    It’s important because it’s the origin of the current « unfairness » of the matchmaking : since fluff requires less ressources but awards same gp, a 3m lean roster cost more than a 3m fluffy roster, which means it takes more time to achieve in average, which means by fluffing you might get matched against players who got access to much more ressources than you in an « unfair » way : they played longer. Not better, not smarter, longer.

    I disagree with those gp calculation changes because to me they don’t make it more fair just more equal, which again requires rewards tiers i don’t want, otherwise you have zero incentive of making your roster stronger since you’ll just meet someone stronger too with no gain on the line.
    It’s important because as a newer player i don’t see how that’s fair for me to meet someone who played longer just because i managed to acquire ressources faster than others. Me going faster is supposed to be a good thing, and it ends up being neutral. If i’m more invested and play better than the people who started with me, i rank higher in arenas, i rank higher in raids, i complete more events thanks to smart ressource allocation, i end up just playing stronger older players in ga and having as hard a time as the others ? For no reward ?

    There is also the problem of the value you assign to those gear tiers. You’ve said repeatedly that to you g8-9 should be basically worthless gp-wise since they’re worthless in ga. I very strongly disagree with that. It’s easy to see how stats are already more or less in line (Gannon started to show that a bit). G7-9 chars can be used in strong teams to take down strong teams (my g8 c3po works well against full g12 teams). It’s also important to note that stars give you access to game content (and rewards) which is hard to quantify but important. Overall defining the « use » or « efficacy » of a toon related to gp is not only very hard it’s also very subjective.

    Again matchmaking based on w/l = rankings = reward tiers = arena. Not to say it’s impossible, i just personally much prefer the current format.

    Sorry but Gannon hasn't illustrated anything since he hasn't isolated different aspects that runs into the stats and GP calculation and quantified them. He just provided some info to be able to do so. If stat gains based on various GP contributors turns out to correlate with GP gains, I'll retract my claim that current GP calculation is not fair already.

    Please do illustrate how changing how GP is calculated by either of the approaches I proposed make the rosters equal. Nothing implies me of as such.

    As a newer player you will be investing in vastly different things than I have been doing as a day 1 player and can end up in the same GP (in the current method too). And in that you are vastly advantegous as the newer player, don't understand why you don't see that. All your choices will be based on more recent events in the game, your resource allocations will be much more directly effective than mine. You also have the option to not fluff ever which I can't ever do. I can only max some of my fluff to decrease the total amount of fluff. But since my fluff is -level, gear, ability, star all toons as much as possible without hurting the high end resources- I will always have that baggage.

    Ofc you will need way more bottlenecked resources than I did to reach my GP and when you do you'll be roflstomping me if we ever get matched.
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    edited January 2019
    @No_Try This is great, but have you considered the impact of nodes that contain multiple pieces of salvage? As such, the per energy cost of the white, green, and blue gear is already included in some fashion when farming the purple gear. We get it for free as we're not (usually) explicitly obtaining those resources.

    I understand and applaud what you're trying to do, but this model isn't accurate within the way we actually spend energy.

    Edit: also doesn't exclude things like challenge gear that we get for free. A more accurate model could lead to different conclusions.

    I included everything I have and have not considered in the method notes. The disparity in the conclusion is so huge that nothing will overcome it. But by all means, since the baseline is established, it will be way easier to another calculation. If you are not as lazy as me, you also have to consider the lowest nodes each piece is located on. Tenfolds more work xD. Btw you should be aware considering the extra lowbie gear will drive the disparity upwards and not downwards. It will make g7 cost almost nothing while still providing half the GP g11 does.

    I dunno how to consider challenge gear accurately. If you will go gear by gear then you can exempt some gear types assuming you will always have an unusable stock of those.

    I hope you saw the % difference at the bottom of the table. %182 and and %318. Thus g7-g8 comparison has a factor of 2.82 in between energy cost and GP gain and g7-11 has 4.18.
  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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 tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
    Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

    Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

    I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

    A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

    I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.

    It’s a very important element of fairness because ressources spent are directly correlated to time. In this game setting aside money you can only get a limited amount of ressources each day.
    It’s important because it’s the origin of the current « unfairness » of the matchmaking : since fluff requires less ressources but awards same gp, a 3m lean roster cost more than a 3m fluffy roster, which means it takes more time to achieve in average, which means by fluffing you might get matched against players who got access to much more ressources than you in an « unfair » way : they played longer. Not better, not smarter, longer.

    I disagree with those gp calculation changes because to me they don’t make it more fair just more equal, which again requires rewards tiers i don’t want, otherwise you have zero incentive of making your roster stronger since you’ll just meet someone stronger too with no gain on the line.
    It’s important because as a newer player i don’t see how that’s fair for me to meet someone who played longer just because i managed to acquire ressources faster than others. Me going faster is supposed to be a good thing, and it ends up being neutral. If i’m more invested and play better than the people who started with me, i rank higher in arenas, i rank higher in raids, i complete more events thanks to smart ressource allocation, i end up just playing stronger older players in ga and having as hard a time as the others ? For no reward ?

    There is also the problem of the value you assign to those gear tiers. You’ve said repeatedly that to you g8-9 should be basically worthless gp-wise since they’re worthless in ga. I very strongly disagree with that. It’s easy to see how stats are already more or less in line (Gannon started to show that a bit). G7-9 chars can be used in strong teams to take down strong teams (my g8 c3po works well against full g12 teams). It’s also important to note that stars give you access to game content (and rewards) which is hard to quantify but important. Overall defining the « use » or « efficacy » of a toon related to gp is not only very hard it’s also very subjective.

    Again matchmaking based on w/l = rankings = reward tiers = arena. Not to say it’s impossible, i just personally much prefer the current format.

    Sorry but Gannon hasn't illustrated anything since he hasn't isolated different aspects that runs into the stats and GP calculation and quantified them. He just provided some info to be able to do so. If stat gains based on various GP contributors turns out to correlate with GP gains, I'll retract my claim that current GP calculation is not fair already.

    Please do illustrate how changing how GP is calculated by either of the approaches I proposed make the rosters equal. Nothing implies me of as such.

    As a newer player you will be investing in vastly different things than I have been doing as a day 1 player and can end up in the same GP (in the current method too). And in that you are vastly advantegous as the newer player, don't understand why you don't see that. All your choices will be based on more recent events in the game, your resource allocations will be much more directly effective than mine. You also have the option to not fluff ever which I can't ever do. I can only max some of my fluff to decrease the total amount of fluff. But since my fluff is -level, gear, ability, star all toons as much as possible without hurting the high end resources- I will always have that baggage.

    Ofc you will need way more bottlenecked resources than I did to reach my GP and when you do you'll be roflstomping me if we ever get matched.

    You should search me in LINE also, I recorded some vids of upgrading gear tiers and adding gear at different levels, so I can give more accurate numbers to show that that table in the pic is way off
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    @No_Try @Bubblechomp

    Instead of GP, would some variant of "lifetime free energy obtained + lifetime crystals obtained" be a fair basis for matching? These are the raw materials used to construct a roster, either directly (via energy and crystal spend) or indirectly (via resources gained through exercising that roster) and would truly represent the level of efficiency in employed in roster construction?

    Nop, whether a player is f2p or spent to get there is irrelevant for fairness. As in my reply to JohnAran neither is the playing period (as far as I can predict this is very disadvantegous to me my roster has many battle scars, I'm looking at you my geared up Tusken Shaman). People of all ages and background should be able to gather in DAAAAH GRAND ARENA and match eachother :D.
  • Liath
    5140 posts Member
    I refused to answer the question on the other thread (and stopped reading it) out of anger, but it occurs to me here that your focus on farming gear for energy might go a ways towards explaining our differing perspectives.

    I almost never farm gear for energy (aside from what I get incidentally while farming for shards) so a calculation based on that does little to affect my view of the required investment.
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    I refused to answer the question on the other thread (and stopped reading it) out of anger, but it occurs to me here that your focus on farming gear for energy might go a ways towards explaining our differing perspectives.

    I almost never farm gear for energy (aside from what I get incidentally while farming for shards) so a calculation based on that does little to affect my view of the required investment.

    Not really. I was just looking for a reliable metric to base the study on. Consider any metric you want as long as it's quantifiable. Resource costs and GP gains by using them will not correlate...not even if you consider your error threshold %100.
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    Gannon wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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 tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
    Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

    Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

    I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

    A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

    I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.

    It’s a very important element of fairness because ressources spent are directly correlated to time. In this game setting aside money you can only get a limited amount of ressources each day.
    It’s important because it’s the origin of the current « unfairness » of the matchmaking : since fluff requires less ressources but awards same gp, a 3m lean roster cost more than a 3m fluffy roster, which means it takes more time to achieve in average, which means by fluffing you might get matched against players who got access to much more ressources than you in an « unfair » way : they played longer. Not better, not smarter, longer.

    I disagree with those gp calculation changes because to me they don’t make it more fair just more equal, which again requires rewards tiers i don’t want, otherwise you have zero incentive of making your roster stronger since you’ll just meet someone stronger too with no gain on the line.
    It’s important because as a newer player i don’t see how that’s fair for me to meet someone who played longer just because i managed to acquire ressources faster than others. Me going faster is supposed to be a good thing, and it ends up being neutral. If i’m more invested and play better than the people who started with me, i rank higher in arenas, i rank higher in raids, i complete more events thanks to smart ressource allocation, i end up just playing stronger older players in ga and having as hard a time as the others ? For no reward ?

    There is also the problem of the value you assign to those gear tiers. You’ve said repeatedly that to you g8-9 should be basically worthless gp-wise since they’re worthless in ga. I very strongly disagree with that. It’s easy to see how stats are already more or less in line (Gannon started to show that a bit). G7-9 chars can be used in strong teams to take down strong teams (my g8 c3po works well against full g12 teams). It’s also important to note that stars give you access to game content (and rewards) which is hard to quantify but important. Overall defining the « use » or « efficacy » of a toon related to gp is not only very hard it’s also very subjective.

    Again matchmaking based on w/l = rankings = reward tiers = arena. Not to say it’s impossible, i just personally much prefer the current format.

    Sorry but Gannon hasn't illustrated anything since he hasn't isolated different aspects that runs into the stats and GP calculation and quantified them. He just provided some info to be able to do so. If stat gains based on various GP contributors turns out to correlate with GP gains, I'll retract my claim that current GP calculation is not fair already.

    Please do illustrate how changing how GP is calculated by either of the approaches I proposed make the rosters equal. Nothing implies me of as such.

    As a newer player you will be investing in vastly different things than I have been doing as a day 1 player and can end up in the same GP (in the current method too). And in that you are vastly advantegous as the newer player, don't understand why you don't see that. All your choices will be based on more recent events in the game, your resource allocations will be much more directly effective than mine. You also have the option to not fluff ever which I can't ever do. I can only max some of my fluff to decrease the total amount of fluff. But since my fluff is -level, gear, ability, star all toons as much as possible without hurting the high end resources- I will always have that baggage.

    Ofc you will need way more bottlenecked resources than I did to reach my GP and when you do you'll be roflstomping me if we ever get matched.

    You should search me in LINE also, I recorded some vids of upgrading gear tiers and adding gear at different levels, so I can give more accurate numbers to show that that table in the pic is way off

    I don't use LINE anymore. Only discord. Please do put them down. Ofc I won't question your honesty as long as you put the numbers in front of me in a usable manner. How did they change? Did g11/g7 GP suddenly became 4 folds or are we talking about a miniscule alteration? ;)
  • No_Try wrote: »
    Nop, whether a player is f2p or spent to get there is irrelevant for fairness. As in my reply to JohnAran neither is the playing period (as far as I can predict this is very disadvantegous to me my roster has many battle scars, I'm looking at you my geared up Tusken Shaman). People of all ages and background should be able to gather in DAAAAH GRAND ARENA and match eachother :D.

    Neither factor has anything to do with what how much money has been spent on the game. I include "free energy obtained" to differentiate it from energy purchased using crystals. The only thing this doesn't accommodate is flat out buying stuff for money from the stores (character packs, omegas, zetas, gear packs, etc.).

    So, measuring roster as constructed using GP isn't fair. And measuring the inputs to roster construction isn't fair. Is there a link somewhere where you've defined what "fair" looks like? Or is it just "it looks different than me paying for all my G7/G8 toons?"

    On an unrelated note, once you hit a certain GP, how does this matter anymore? I need 12 squads. That's at most 1.2M GP. Even with my paltry 2.0M character GP, that leaves 800k, or 40% for fluff (and crew if you want, though there is some overlap). If I had 12 maxed squads and couldn't win, I'd probably question my tactics, mods, or both.
  • Liath
    5140 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    I refused to answer the question on the other thread (and stopped reading it) out of anger, but it occurs to me here that your focus on farming gear for energy might go a ways towards explaining our differing perspectives.

    I almost never farm gear for energy (aside from what I get incidentally while farming for shards) so a calculation based on that does little to affect my view of the required investment.

    Not really. I was just looking for a reliable metric to base the study on. Consider any metric you want as long as it's quantifiable. Resource costs and GP gains by using them will not correlate...not even if you consider your error threshold %100.

    I doubt there is a quantifiable method that would make universal sense for my playing style honestly. It would have to consider, for example, how likely the pieces are to drop as rewards from raids, events, TB/TW, etc.

    Mk1 gels and mk5 syringes: close to zero.
    Most of the g11 pieces: many times higher.
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Nop, whether a player is f2p or spent to get there is irrelevant for fairness. As in my reply to JohnAran neither is the playing period (as far as I can predict this is very disadvantegous to me my roster has many battle scars, I'm looking at you my geared up Tusken Shaman). People of all ages and background should be able to gather in DAAAAH GRAND ARENA and match eachother :D.

    Neither factor has anything to do with what how much money has been spent on the game. I include "free energy obtained" to differentiate it from energy purchased using crystals. The only thing this doesn't accommodate is flat out buying stuff for money from the stores (character packs, omegas, zetas, gear packs, etc.).

    So, measuring roster as constructed using GP isn't fair. And measuring the inputs to roster construction isn't fair. Is there a link somewhere where you've defined what "fair" looks like? Or is it just "it looks different than me paying for all my G7/G8 toons?"

    On an unrelated note, once you hit a certain GP, how does this matter anymore? I need 12 squads. That's at most 1.2M GP. Even with my paltry 2.0M character GP, that leaves 800k, or 40% for fluff (and crew if you want, though there is some overlap). If I had 12 maxed squads and couldn't win, I'd probably question my tactics, mods, or both.

    Yes, did define exact ways of fairness, 2 approaches. Then later agreed some others are also possible. You can look a few pages back or just check the GP calculation topic. I'm not a vague thinker, fluff hasn't gone to my brain yet ;).

    How you get your resources should be immaterial. If you factor in free energies we will never be in a close GP quarters. That should be the case though given that I'm a day 1 f2p and let's say you're a 2017 starter whale. Why not?

    On your unrelated note, it matters in that between an extreme case of fluff vs. no fluff I'm getting matched by effectively a 1.28M GP more powerful opponent. That GP could have gone to anything, i.e. my g12+ resources are extremely limited, my opponent may be non stop buying the pieces which makes a significant difference, he's out of my league simply on that front. Let's disregard my fluff, we are both perfectly lean, I only have a few g12+ and he has many, he gains a good amount of GP on that (which is not the case for current GP calculation) and I would have put that GP into g11-flat g12 toons, I will have more toons to battle with, he has better. I can take his superios teams apart by more than one match (which g7-g8 fluff can't do, even g11-12s hardly does it). We meet on an even ground.
  • Gannon
    1500 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Gannon wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    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 tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
    Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

    Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

    I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

    A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

    I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.

    It’s a very important element of fairness because ressources spent are directly correlated to time. In this game setting aside money you can only get a limited amount of ressources each day.
    It’s important because it’s the origin of the current « unfairness » of the matchmaking : since fluff requires less ressources but awards same gp, a 3m lean roster cost more than a 3m fluffy roster, which means it takes more time to achieve in average, which means by fluffing you might get matched against players who got access to much more ressources than you in an « unfair » way : they played longer. Not better, not smarter, longer.

    I disagree with those gp calculation changes because to me they don’t make it more fair just more equal, which again requires rewards tiers i don’t want, otherwise you have zero incentive of making your roster stronger since you’ll just meet someone stronger too with no gain on the line.
    It’s important because as a newer player i don’t see how that’s fair for me to meet someone who played longer just because i managed to acquire ressources faster than others. Me going faster is supposed to be a good thing, and it ends up being neutral. If i’m more invested and play better than the people who started with me, i rank higher in arenas, i rank higher in raids, i complete more events thanks to smart ressource allocation, i end up just playing stronger older players in ga and having as hard a time as the others ? For no reward ?

    There is also the problem of the value you assign to those gear tiers. You’ve said repeatedly that to you g8-9 should be basically worthless gp-wise since they’re worthless in ga. I very strongly disagree with that. It’s easy to see how stats are already more or less in line (Gannon started to show that a bit). G7-9 chars can be used in strong teams to take down strong teams (my g8 c3po works well against full g12 teams). It’s also important to note that stars give you access to game content (and rewards) which is hard to quantify but important. Overall defining the « use » or « efficacy » of a toon related to gp is not only very hard it’s also very subjective.

    Again matchmaking based on w/l = rankings = reward tiers = arena. Not to say it’s impossible, i just personally much prefer the current format.

    Sorry but Gannon hasn't illustrated anything since he hasn't isolated different aspects that runs into the stats and GP calculation and quantified them. He just provided some info to be able to do so. If stat gains based on various GP contributors turns out to correlate with GP gains, I'll retract my claim that current GP calculation is not fair already.

    Please do illustrate how changing how GP is calculated by either of the approaches I proposed make the rosters equal. Nothing implies me of as such.

    As a newer player you will be investing in vastly different things than I have been doing as a day 1 player and can end up in the same GP (in the current method too). And in that you are vastly advantegous as the newer player, don't understand why you don't see that. All your choices will be based on more recent events in the game, your resource allocations will be much more directly effective than mine. You also have the option to not fluff ever which I can't ever do. I can only max some of my fluff to decrease the total amount of fluff. But since my fluff is -level, gear, ability, star all toons as much as possible without hurting the high end resources- I will always have that baggage.

    Ofc you will need way more bottlenecked resources than I did to reach my GP and when you do you'll be roflstomping me if we ever get matched.

    You should search me in LINE also, I recorded some vids of upgrading gear tiers and adding gear at different levels, so I can give more accurate numbers to show that that table in the pic is way off

    I don't use LINE anymore. Only discord. Please do put them down. Ofc I won't question your honesty as long as you put the numbers in front of me in a usable manner. How did they change? Did g11/g7 GP suddenly became 4 folds or are we talking about a miniscule alteration? ;)

    No, the jump was considerable. I can try to post on discord, but the vid cap is annoying there. Search me: gannon#0905
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    I refused to answer the question on the other thread (and stopped reading it) out of anger, but it occurs to me here that your focus on farming gear for energy might go a ways towards explaining our differing perspectives.

    I almost never farm gear for energy (aside from what I get incidentally while farming for shards) so a calculation based on that does little to affect my view of the required investment.

    Not really. I was just looking for a reliable metric to base the study on. Consider any metric you want as long as it's quantifiable. Resource costs and GP gains by using them will not correlate...not even if you consider your error threshold %100.

    I doubt there is a quantifiable method that would make universal sense for my playing style honestly. It would have to consider, for example, how likely the pieces are to drop as rewards from raids, events, TB/TW, etc.

    Mk1 gels and mk5 syringes: close to zero.
    Most of the g11 pieces: many times higher.

    Your style should be irrelevant as we are looking for a universal approach. That's the whole premise of fairness.

    All factors you listed can be considered, each are existant in the game as rng rolls, thus can be converted into statistical numbers. i.e. over 50 rancies you go into we can come up with an average number of gear you will be gaining. That's why I keep repeating neither of the two approaches are mathematically easy.

    But then I don't like the resources approach and prefer stats approach which is ingame/experienced effectiveness of something (as a result of all resources used for it wherever they may come from). Outcome fairness.

    Anyway, do you have a claim (even intuitively) that current GP calculation is accurate? Are the GP gained by each gear tier accurate comparatively? (GP calculation has many more problems, gear tier comparisons was the easiest the illustrate, that's why I made my case on it)
Sign In or Register to comment.