GP Matchmaking & “Fluff”

Replies

  • No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    Sorry, I misread the question. I wouldn’t say that I am excelling. 2 wins and 1 loss in every GA but I suffer from heavy ship GP, so I’m behind in squads by 200-400k each GA.
  • No_Try
    3812 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    I have approx. 1.28M worth of fluff. If 900K of it never happened, I'd get matched with you, but then there's almost no comparison in terms of our roster contents. Not trying to race horses with you. Just don't understand where your claim comes from.
  • Dk_rek
    3180 posts Member
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    CG has said, and it's apparent, that GP is the only criteria in GA matchmaking.

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?

    It's really not hard to find. From the Dev megapost on GA (below). Also it's been consistently observed, I haven't seen anyone call out a GP disparity in their GA matchups.
    m85a9fojsq25.jpg

    I know this dev post already. It says that you're matched with players of the same GP, yes. We have all experienced, that this is correct. Nobody is disputing that. However, you claimed, that it is the only criteria. So, again:

    Are you sure about this? Do you have a source for this?


    You have to be trolling.

    You may not be able to prove your claim, but that doesn't justify personal attacks.
    If CG was using more than GP to calculate matchups we would see evidence of that like we do in TW and they'd likely have said so by now like they did with TW. We have no evidence that they use anything else but we do have evidence that it's the only factor.

    So, you don't have a resource that supports your claim.

    No, you don't have any evidence, that it's the only factor. You only have your theory. I have a different theory, which I have explained previously in this discussion and in other similar discussions:

    I believe, it's on purpose and part of the match-making algorithm, that players with stronger rosters and players with weaker rosters (or lean/broad rosters) of the same GP are mixed during match-making. Yes, it's just a theory, but that's what I'm seeing in those few GAs I've played so far.

    I'm sorry, I wasn't going to anything about this thread for a while cause it's just too much but...

    Are you actually suggestion a theory that CG is INTENTIONALLY pitting fluffy rosters vs lean rosters via their matchmaking algorithm? You're not serious are you?

    That's a HORRIBLE play on their part if that's true. To deliberately create a system that gives certain players a huge disadvantage and others a huge advantage just because they play the game certain way is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    We've discussed ad nausem that there's no "wrong way" to have a roster, only our choices are made and there is no right or wrong eay. So to believe they discriminate against fluffy rosters is ridiculous.

    And don't say "I never said they discriminate" because that's what your suggested theory entails. You even used "stronger" against "weaker" in regards to the rosters and you admit that fluffy is weaker.

    Would CG really create a matchmaking system that punishes players on purpose by putting them in matches they are clearly (and you admitted to by saying stronger vs weaker) outmatched? People pay money to play this game, if that paying player is fluffed, they are doing a huge disservice to their financial contribution to this game.

    You can't honestly believe that.

    Yes, that's what I'm.suggesting. I've done so previously in this discussion as well. With that system players, who built strong rosters (strong for GA) have a higher chance of winning 3/3 than players with rosters of the same GP, who built less strong (or even significantly weaker) rosters. I don't believe it's such a horrible idea. If CG wanted the match-ups to be different, they could relatively easily create an algorithm that matches players with strong/lean rosters against players with strong/lean rosters only. However, they don't. This discussion supports that.


    Under the current matchup system seeing a tighter leaner roster in your matchup gives you a goal to reach for... to be that person in a future GA and be able to stomp faces. I feel sorry for the fluff players in the matchup but they still get good rewards with at least 1 win, and motivation to improve.


    Except with current rewards systems for GA and Raid you will NEVER catch up to those people you can spend a ton and power up all your awesome characters and you will still be fighting people with 5 million GP that are unbeatable because you still have the fluff...that never goes away

    Awesome system we spend, they make money, we fluffers still suck.... why spend if it only still get's you in the bottom.... rather not spend and be on the bottom..... it's literally a trap
  • Waqui
    6037 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.
  • No_Try
    3812 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.
  • Dk_rek
    3180 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    Good example G12+5 Zbohdi are fluff.... G8 Lvl 80 Ztraya is lean
  • No_Try
    3812 posts Member
    Dk_rek wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    Good example G12+5 Zbohdi are fluff.... G8 Lvl 80 Ztraya is lean

    I don't agree. I'm against introducing player toon choices into this discussion. It's about non-maxed toon/ship GP vs. maxed ones.
  • Dk_rek wrote: »
    Good example G12+5 Zbohdi are fluff.... G8 Lvl 80 Ztraya is lean

    Out of topic but..
    2hyp2scmsdud.jpg

    Proud.

    And yes my traya is at G8.
  • Waqui
    6037 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    No. Did I claim, that I was?
    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    It does benefit lean rosters, yes, but that's not the only criteria for success in GA. If a 3.4 million GP roster is missing key characters like Starck, GK (his is 7*, lvl. 1), Traya and Nihilus it's at a disadvantage compared to lean rosters, that include those characters as well. Also, having several g12 pilots with limited use outside of fleet combat, may be considered fluff in a character only GA.

  • Tanzos
    197 posts Member
    edited March 7
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    No. Did I claim, that I was?
    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    It does benefit lean rosters, yes, but that's not the only criteria for success in GA. If a 3.4 million GP roster is missing key characters like Starck, GK (his is 7*, lvl. 1), Traya and Nihilus it's at a disadvantage compared to lean rosters, that include those characters as well. Also, having several g12 pilots with limited use outside of fleet combat, may be considered fluff in a character only GA.

    Correct. And if matchmaking was improved to be more even/fair based on the more useful gear tiers and Zetas or whatever, those folks that don't have key characters would still have a tough time.

    That's cause they chose to use their RARE and difficult to obtain resources on not good characters.

    I don't have any poor G12 choices or Zetas (In my opinion) but I'm disadvantaged because I have every character at lvl 85.
    Again, because I have way more than enough credits to do so.

    That's why we rally for better matchmaking. We didn't make illadvised and poor choices on which characters to gear up and Zeta. We just used our excessive amount of credits to do something with them.

  • Waqui
    6037 posts Member
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    No. Did I claim, that I was?
    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    It does benefit lean rosters, yes, but that's not the only criteria for success in GA. If a 3.4 million GP roster is missing key characters like Starck, GK (his is 7*, lvl. 1), Traya and Nihilus it's at a disadvantage compared to lean rosters, that include those characters as well. Also, having several g12 pilots with limited use outside of fleet combat, may be considered fluff in a character only GA.

    Correct. And if matchmaking was improved to be more even/fair based on the more useful gear tiers and Zetas or whatever, those folks that don't have key characters would still have a tough time.

    Even and fair are two different things. Even != fair if rewards remain the exact same. So, which one do you mean?
    That's cause they chose to use their RARE and difficult to obtain resources on not good characters.

    I don't have any poor G12 choices or Zetas (In my opinion) but I'm disadvantaged because I have every character at lvl 85.
    Again, because I have way more than enough credits to do so.

    That's why we rally for better matchmaking.

    Better in what way? I don't believe you and I agree on what would be better.
  • Waqui
    6037 posts Member
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    No. Did I claim, that I was?
    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    It does benefit lean rosters, yes, but that's not the only criteria for success in GA. If a 3.4 million GP roster is missing key characters like Starck, GK (his is 7*, lvl. 1), Traya and Nihilus it's at a disadvantage compared to lean rosters, that include those characters as well. Also, having several g12 pilots with limited use outside of fleet combat, may be considered fluff in a character only GA.

    Correct. And if matchmaking was improved to be more even/fair based on the more useful gear tiers and Zetas or whatever, those folks that don't have key characters would still have a tough time.

    Even and fair are two different things. Even != fair if rewards remain the exact same. So, which one do you mean?
    That's cause they chose to use their RARE and difficult to obtain resources on not good characters.

    I don't have any poor G12 choices or Zetas (In my opinion) but I'm disadvantaged because I have every character at lvl 85.
    Again, because I have way more than enough credits to do so.

    That's why we rally for better matchmaking.

    Better in what way? I don't believe you and I agree on what would be better.
  • I am of the belief that CG DO NOT manipulate the pools of players, so there are 4 lean and 4 fluffed rosters (for example) for several reasons.

    First, why honestly would they? What possible reason could they have for doing it?

    Secondly, they would need some kind of measure to quantify a lean or fluffy roster. How do they measure this? We've been discussing this on this forum and we can't see any particular number or measure, so I'd be very surprised if they had one

    Given the vast pool of players that play this game and the vastly different ways they play and build their rosters I think just naturally gives you a diverse pool of players in each 8 man GA group and a corresponding range of rosters to see and fight
  • Waqui
    6037 posts Member
    I am of the belief that CG DO NOT manipulate the pools of players, so there are 4 lean and 4 fluffed rosters (for example) for several reasons.

    First, why honestly would they? What possible reason could they have for doing it?

    To encourage players to improve their rosters and spend real cash while doing so.
    Secondly, they would need some kind of measure to quantify a lean or fluffy roster. How do they measure this? We've been discussing this on this forum and we can't see any particular number or measure, so I'd be very surprised if they had one

    Given the vast pool of players that play this game and the vastly different ways they play and build their rosters I think just naturally gives you a diverse pool of players in each 8 man GA group and a corresponding range of rosters to see and fight

    If it's all random apart from the match by roster GP on some (rare) occasionas we would see groups of 8 players all with more or less even (assumed) roster strength or with little difference in strength between the strongest and the weakest roster. I haven't experienced this yet during the first few GAs and havent seen any reports of it happening (it may have happened without being reported, though, I know).
  • Waqui wrote: »
    I am of the belief that CG DO NOT manipulate the pools of players, so there are 4 lean and 4 fluffed rosters (for example) for several reasons.

    First, why honestly would they? What possible reason could they have for doing it?

    To encourage players to improve their rosters and spend real cash while doing so.
    Secondly, they would need some kind of measure to quantify a lean or fluffy roster. How do they measure this? We've been discussing this on this forum and we can't see any particular number or measure, so I'd be very surprised if they had one

    Given the vast pool of players that play this game and the vastly different ways they play and build their rosters I think just naturally gives you a diverse pool of players in each 8 man GA group and a corresponding range of rosters to see and fight

    If it's all random apart from the match by roster GP on some (rare) occasionas we would see groups of 8 players all with more or less even (assumed) roster strength or with little difference in strength between the strongest and the weakest roster. I haven't experienced this yet during the first few GAs and havent seen any reports of it happening (it may have happened without being reported, though, I know).

    I think the sheer volume of players and therefore the multitude of ways that they can build rosters, will make a huge variant of rosters to see at most GP numbers. Very high or low GP rosters may be different as the choices/differences will be less at low GP and most very high GP rosters will probably be developed along the same general lines.

    There are so many possible variants that I think it very unlikely to see 8 very similarly developed rosters being grouped together randomly, though as you get higher in GP, certain factors will be more common (Revan, Traya, CLS, RJT, etc)

    I also don't think CG are putting weaker rosters together with stronger (leaner) rosters to try and encourage players (I may be doing them a disservice though), I think that the motivation to improve is a possible by-product, if the player themselves are so inclined
  • Waqui
    6037 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    I am of the belief that CG DO NOT manipulate the pools of players, so there are 4 lean and 4 fluffed rosters (for example) for several reasons.

    First, why honestly would they? What possible reason could they have for doing it?

    To encourage players to improve their rosters and spend real cash while doing so.
    Secondly, they would need some kind of measure to quantify a lean or fluffy roster. How do they measure this? We've been discussing this on this forum and we can't see any particular number or measure, so I'd be very surprised if they had one

    Given the vast pool of players that play this game and the vastly different ways they play and build their rosters I think just naturally gives you a diverse pool of players in each 8 man GA group and a corresponding range of rosters to see and fight

    If it's all random apart from the match by roster GP on some (rare) occasionas we would see groups of 8 players all with more or less even (assumed) roster strength or with little difference in strength between the strongest and the weakest roster. I haven't experienced this yet during the first few GAs and havent seen any reports of it happening (it may have happened without being reported, though, I know).

    I think the sheer volume of players and therefore the multitude of ways that they can build rosters, will make a huge variant of rosters to see at most GP numbers. Very high or low GP rosters may be different as the choices/differences will be less at low GP and most very high GP rosters will probably be developed along the same general lines.

    There are so many possible variants that I think it very unlikely to see 8 very similarly developed rosters being grouped together randomly, though as you get higher in GP, certain factors will be more common (Revan, Traya, CLS, RJT, etc)

    With thousands and thousands of active players taking part in GA, it would be bound to happen at rare occasions. With such a large number of groups of 8, some of them would be bound to be evenly matched on several parameters - not only GP. That's how randomness works. However, you and I may never see any reports of it happening.
  • Tanzos
    197 posts Member
    Well upon reviewing my competitors it seems like they're actually all very similar in roster style with me.

    All of them have everyone unlocked, and mostly leveled to 85. We have similar amounts of G12 characters. No one sticks out as a clear "Winner" in my opinion.

    Usually there has always been one "This dude's gonna win" but I don't see that for this one.

    Maybe this is that rare/random occasion. Otherwise, I actually might enjoy this one.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    No. Did I claim, that I was?
    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    It does benefit lean rosters, yes, but that's not the only criteria for success in GA. If a 3.4 million GP roster is missing key characters like Starck, GK (his is 7*, lvl. 1), Traya and Nihilus it's at a disadvantage compared to lean rosters, that include those characters as well. Also, having several g12 pilots with limited use outside of fleet combat, may be considered fluff in a character only GA.

    Not trying to hijack this discussion too much, but since we’re going into detail about my roster...

    I completely understand that I have a lean roster with an excessive amount of g12 pilots (all were used in my arena fleets at one point). I understand that gearing these pilots meant I couldn’t gear others like Starck. And I also understand that my choice to stay in guilds that were late to HAAT and now haven’t started HSTR is costing me on raid toons.

    I think I’m the perfect example of why the current matchmaking algorithm is lopsided against ship builders. Let me suffer from choosing to gear pilots to g12 as opposed to other toons (most pilots are some of the worst toons in the game). Don’t triple down on me (since ships provide so much more GP) by factoring ships into the algorithm the way it currently is.

    I unlocked the Palpmobile at 5* which gave me 38k GP at level 1!!! How is that at all balanced? I can get a g12 Revan and a g8 Revan at that price and both would be functional. No more unlocking ships for me until they’re absolutions necessary.

    My whole discussion is getting exhausting. Maybe I’ll start another thread for this, but I’m starting to think my voice won’t matter on he forums so ehh...

    I only joined this discussion because someone made the comment that low level gear shares nothing with high level gear which is absolutely not true.

    Have fun continuing the discussion everyone.
  • Aydnie
    432 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Place 2 Olympic level runners in a race, the can both have the best mile times and may even be close.

    One runs marathons and the other shorter races.

    They are equals athletically and in many respects, but one will have a clear advantage in a marathon.

    It's about how you build your roster and how you develop in the game. If you developed more competitively or not. That's the players choice.

    But they didnt knew that something like Grand Arena was going to exist. So they didnt knew everything when building their rosters.

    Guild war at least makes a high gp rewarded because prices goes higher the more you have gp, even when losing. Why not in ga ? Why giving the same rewards to 200k pg players and 3m pg people ?
  • I like how some people are ok with fluff, just not with ship fluff. Fluff is fluff. I will borrow a common argument and say that yall choose to build ships; noone forced you.
    Seriously yall are being hypocritical. Yall want fluff to be counted when it gives you an advantage but the moment it puts you at a disadvantage, yall whine.
  • I like how some people are ok with fluff, just not with ship fluff. Fluff is fluff. I will borrow a common argument and say that yall choose to build ships; noone forced you.
    Seriously yall are being hypocritical. Yall want fluff to be counted when it gives you an advantage but the moment it puts you at a disadvantage, yall whine.

    I’m assuming this was directed at my comment since I was the last to discuss ships. What you’re saying is not at all what I’m suggesting. You should probably reread my comment and previous ones to get a better idea of what I’m saying.

    Maybe some time this weekend, I’ll put together an argument on why the current ship calculation is imbalanced even when there are ship battles in GA. I’ll post it in the GA section.
  • I like how some people are ok with fluff, just not with ship fluff. Fluff is fluff. I will borrow a common argument and say that yall choose to build ships; noone forced you.
    Seriously yall are being hypocritical. Yall want fluff to be counted when it gives you an advantage but the moment it puts you at a disadvantage, yall whine.

    I’m assuming this was directed at my comment since I was the last to discuss ships. What you’re saying is not at all what I’m suggesting. You should probably reread my comment and previous ones to get a better idea of what I’m saying.

    Maybe some time this weekend, I’ll put together an argument on why the current ship calculation is imbalanced even when there are ship battles in GA. I’ll post it in the GA section.

    My apologies, I did not see your post. I was making a generalized comment based on overall sentiment I see on this forum as well as reddit.
  • Dk_rek
    3180 posts Member
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Dk_rek wrote: »
    Good example G12+5 Zbohdi are fluff.... G8 Lvl 80 Ztraya is lean

    Out of topic but..
    2hyp2scmsdud.jpg

    Proud.

    And yes my traya is at G8.

    A+ sir actually i guess if you can beat TB final stage with him it aint fluff..... people lol at my rose n holdo zetas heh
  • Waqui
    6037 posts Member
    I like how some people are ok with fluff, just not with ship fluff. Fluff is fluff. I will borrow a common argument and say that yall choose to build ships; noone forced you.
    Seriously yall are being hypocritical. Yall want fluff to be counted when it gives you an advantage but the moment it puts you at a disadvantage, yall whine.

    No, ships GP in a character-only GA is not fluff. A level 60, g8 CUP is. Including ships GP in the matchmaking in a character-only GA is nonsense - plain and simple. I guess, it was an oversight on CG's part, when they implemented all those different types of GAs. CG has already announced, that they will change this.

    Including my (relatively high) ships GP in the algortithm, when it has a fleet zone is fine - both GP from my strong ships and from my useless ships (fluff).
  • JohnAran
    312 posts Member
    There is also an important fact, that a lot of people seem to forget even though it’s a very obvious one : not all players are at the same point in the game.
    Accusing lean rosters of withholding ressources on purpose to stay lean makes no sense. I have a somewhat « leanish » roster (not that lean though but still undefeated in ga) and i have no credits, no ability mat (even purple ones), and no gear including pieces required before g8-g9 such as holo mk3, bactagel, mk 5 syringes... i actually have 2 holo mk 1 right now. Yes the green one.
    So come tell me again how my roster is lean because i hoard gear on purpose. It may be true for some players, it may be true at some gp levels, but it’s not a global truth.

    I’ve seen someone ask what is lean, what is fluff and think it’s actually a good question related to gp levels also. For example my qi’ra team or my phoenix are definitely not fluff for me and i use those 2 teams a lot. If i don’t touch them, in 2m gp they would be 150k useless, fluff gp.
    So maybe in the end, it would be good to rethink the number of slots relative to gp. Maybe that would solve things in a better way, allowing for even more strategy and diversity. Problem is some people are already saying that ga takes too much efforts (i disagree) and increasing the number of fights required at high gp levels would only make it worse.

    Tldr : the lean vs fluff dynamic varies a lot based on gp levels/start date.
  • No_Try
    3812 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    As with any other game mode it takes time to be able to excel.

    You mean for people with fluff in their rosters? Not for those with lean rosters because those people are already excelling.

    Is your roster an example of excelling ones?

    I’m mostly lean. I’ve been like that since I started playing the game 2 years ago. But I’m very heavy on ships (about 1.65 million GP out of 3.4 total).

    Most of my fluff comes from toons that we’re built for a purpose but no longer useful (like my old resistance team built only to beat the CLS that I didn’t have). So I can’t do much with guys like resistance pilot any more but she’s g8.

    Why do you ask?

    I don't see it as excelling after carefully going through it. You said the players with lean rosters were excelling, maybe you meant something else.

    A. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to excel. He simply described his roster for you.
    B. Scuttlebutt didn't claim to have a lean roster. He described it as 'mostly lean' and also mentioned the fluff ot has.
    C. Lean / broad are not absoloutes. They are fluffy terms. What another player considers to be lean, you may consider differently.

    I went through his roster. I didn't assume anything. It's the leanest roster I ever went through. And I'm asking how does his two statements correlate with eachother out of curiosity. Are you the advocate of Scuttlebutt though?

    No. Did I claim, that I was?
    My reading of this comparison is that he also suffers from the current lopsidedness of GP calculation even though he has a really lean roster and the widespread assumption has been it benefits lean rosters.

    It does benefit lean rosters, yes, but that's not the only criteria for success in GA. If a 3.4 million GP roster is missing key characters like Starck, GK (his is 7*, lvl. 1), Traya and Nihilus it's at a disadvantage compared to lean rosters, that include those characters as well. Also, having several g12 pilots with limited use outside of fleet combat, may be considered fluff in a character only GA.

    Not trying to hijack this discussion too much, but since we’re going into detail about my roster...

    I completely understand that I have a lean roster with an excessive amount of g12 pilots (all were used in my arena fleets at one point). I understand that gearing these pilots meant I couldn’t gear others like Starck. And I also understand that my choice to stay in guilds that were late to HAAT and now haven’t started HSTR is costing me on raid toons.

    I think I’m the perfect example of why the current matchmaking algorithm is lopsided against ship builders. Let me suffer from choosing to gear pilots to g12 as opposed to other toons (most pilots are some of the worst toons in the game). Don’t triple down on me (since ships provide so much more GP) by factoring ships into the algorithm the way it currently is.

    I unlocked the Palpmobile at 5* which gave me 38k GP at level 1!!! How is that at all balanced? I can get a g12 Revan and a g8 Revan at that price and both would be functional. No more unlocking ships for me until they’re absolutions necessary.

    My whole discussion is getting exhausting. Maybe I’ll start another thread for this, but I’m starting to think my voice won’t matter on he forums so ehh...

    I only joined this discussion because someone made the comment that low level gear shares nothing with high level gear which is absolutely not true.

    Have fun continuing the discussion everyone.

    My take on your roster wasn't about your pick of characters to gear, but the overall economy of your roster...i.e. amount of g11-12s for your GP slice.
  • All that really needs to happen is to make G12 and zetas worth more GP than they are currently worth. Or if the devs don't want to muck around with the current GP formula, they could make the GP leap for G13 extremely large. Players with lean rosters would eventually start to separate from ones with lots of fluff as they would gain GP faster.

    I realize that matchmaking is going to have a range of competitiveness, and that's healthy - I routinely win 1-2 rounds in GA even when I'm generally at a disadvantage in zetas/G12, because I have good mods, know the counters, and can usually lock down the ships area (when it is there). I like the satisfaction of outwitting opponents who have superior resources than I.

    However, any formula where two players can have identical GP, yet one player has an additional 50+ G12 characters (with equal G11), and an additional 30+ zetas just isn't a very good measurement of competitiveness. Those types of match-ups aren't fun for either party, and usually end up with the weaker player not even setting a defense. A game mode where the outcome is predetermined isn't fun.

    I know the analogies are beaten to death in here, but I'll play. Imagine you have one person that practices playing tennis 40 hours a week, and someone else who practices playing tennis 10 hours a week and swimming the other 30 hours. These people should not be matched in a tennis tournament - one person should be in a tournament for professional tennis players while the other should be in a tournament for amateurs. Correspondingly the professional tournament should have much greater reward for participating.

    Perhaps radical, but why not let the users select the competitive tier they want to be in? Let players determine the risk/reward level that best suits their roster composition and style of play. That way I can chose to come last in a hard bracket for good rewards or have fun being competitive in a lower bracket for a mediocre payout.
  • Tanzos
    197 posts Member
    BeralCator wrote: »
    All that really needs to happen is to make G12 and zetas worth more GP than they are currently worth. Or if the devs don't want to muck around with the current GP formula, they could make the GP leap for G13 extremely large. Players with lean rosters would eventually start to separate from ones with lots of fluff as they would gain GP faster.

    I realize that matchmaking is going to have a range of competitiveness, and that's healthy - I routinely win 1-2 rounds in GA even when I'm generally at a disadvantage in zetas/G12, because I have good mods, know the counters, and can usually lock down the ships area (when it is there). I like the satisfaction of outwitting opponents who have superior resources than I.

    However, any formula where two players can have identical GP, yet one player has an additional 50+ G12 characters (with equal G11), and an additional 30+ zetas just isn't a very good measurement of competitiveness. Those types of match-ups aren't fun for either party, and usually end up with the weaker player not even setting a defense. A game mode where the outcome is predetermined isn't fun.

    I know the analogies are beaten to death in here, but I'll play. Imagine you have one person that practices playing tennis 40 hours a week, and someone else who practices playing tennis 10 hours a week and swimming the other 30 hours. These people should not be matched in a tennis tournament - one person should be in a tournament for professional tennis players while the other should be in a tournament for amateurs. Correspondingly the professional tournament should have much greater reward for participating.

    Perhaps radical, but why not let the users select the competitive tier they want to be in? Let players determine the risk/reward level that best suits their roster composition and style of play. That way I can chose to come last in a hard bracket for good rewards or have fun being competitive in a lower bracket for a mediocre payout.

    I actually really like that idea. Choosing your competitive bracket. Say Easy, Medium, Hard and Expert. As long as rewards for 1st and 2nd-4th place in Medium are better than last place for Hard, people would rather do the bracket where they have a chance for first in to achieve better rewards, but not as good as the next level.

    How you determine the criteria for each competitive bracket is beyond me but there are a lot ways to go about that. But that's not our job.
  • Tanzos wrote: »
    I actually really like that idea. Choosing your competitive bracket. Say Easy, Medium, Hard and Expert. As long as rewards for 1st and 2nd-4th place in Medium are better than last place for Hard, people would rather do the bracket where they have a chance for first in to achieve better rewards, but not as good as the next level.

    How you determine the criteria for each competitive bracket is beyond me but there are a lot ways to go about that. But that's not our job.

    You could have everyone start in the same bracket, and then top 4 finishers would be allowed to move up to the next tier the next time the event occurs, etc. Eventually it would self-sort into groups where everyone feels good about where they are.


  • Kyno wrote: »
    so players who focused on different game modes being at a disadvantage to player who focused on being competitive in TW style of game play. I'm not sure how that is anything other than the way its supposed to be plain and simple.

    no this is different than TW matchmaking. that is an issue of itself but mostly based around matching vs multiple players.

    matching based on GP and other factors can work fine. and if they dont have teams or counter teams built for this style of game mode, thats their fault.

    Your wrong. Someone who doesn't focus on arena and is rank +1000, doesn't battle with those at rank <99 with arena meta teams. You cannot argue against that. Why is GA any different? Its not too difficult to award more GP for certain characters in the GA matchmaking, or other factors in matchmaking for that matter. Obviously some of you want rewards not truly earned.
Sign In or Register to comment.