GP Matchmaking & “Fluff”

Replies

  • So nothing would be fluff if u lvled everything to g8 lvl 85 just to have more kitchen sink in p4 of hstr? Gave it a reason so it that perspective nothings is fluff cause if its 7* its useable even as a kitchen sink
  • No_Try
    3542 posts Member
    So nothing would be fluff if u lvled everything to g8 lvl 85 just to have more kitchen sink in p4 of hstr? Gave it a reason so it that perspective nothings is fluff cause if its 7* its useable even as a kitchen sink

    Hmm that doesn't make too much difference. Let me rephrase then: "for the primary reason of gaining GP". I sometimes just keep on putting teams on auto on HSTR p4 because I'm bored, they are absolutely useless, 4k-30k worth of damage in their fluffy state.

    You know well the showstopper of developing a character begins at g7-8 gear. The 1.3M of fluff I mentioned are all lvl 85 with most of their abilities maxed to the point of omegas, majority of them are 7*. I just kept putting these on upto the point of my most important resources mostly to gain GP for TB, but also because I never ever considered CG would make any kind of development a disadvantage in the future.
  • Waqui
    5672 posts Member
    Yea fluff is usless toons pretty much g9 maybe g10 and below are all useless so it increases my gp with nothing to use them on so fluff and yes i have probably 500k+ in fluff from jawas for mods wsy back when and other faction used for mods but they do not help with current so = useless and usless gp =fluff

    I believe, you still use the mods, you won by using you jawa way back then. Hence they are not useless fluff. You still benefit from those mods today.
  • Waqui
    5672 posts Member
    edited March 19
    Ur using gp im using toons i dont touch or use for anything atm as fluff

    Are you still using the gear/mods/whatever which those characters have helped you earn in the past?
  • Not really all my mods then had 5 or less speed so i sold all of them by now and even if i did still fluff i have almost every toon at lvl 85 at g8 except for a few that are g6/7
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Ur using gp im using toons i dont touch or use for anything atm as fluff

    Are you still using the gear/mods/whatever which those characters have helped you earn in the past?

    v9343g8ys8mq.jpg

    Has no reason for its existence as in none past tense so yes everything that is old and has no reason to be usef that was geared or lvled up is fluff gp
  • Waqui
    5672 posts Member
    Not really all my mods then had 5 or less speed so i sold all of them by now and even if i did still fluff i have almost every toon at lvl 85 at g8 except for a few that are g6/7

    Did you use them at any point before selling them? Did they help you to increased rewards?
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    How do you unfluff G10 jawas?

    In addition to what ALS2021 suggested:

    No matter how much fluff you have currently, you will increase non-fluff to fluff ratio simply by not creating new fluff while still developing your roster.

    If you used your jawa back then (f.ex. for mod challenges, with droids, JE for non-heroic STR or Datcha lead in p1 of hAAT) I wouldn't consider them fluff. You geared them to g10 for a reason / to use them and you probably profitted from it.

    Nope.
    CD mod challenge dont require that high gear level.
    I gear them for tank raid, and they suck even with teh bonus.

    A lot of people did - including me. I used JE an Nebit with my droids, and the remaining three in a B-team in phase 3 in the early months of AAT. Later I used Datcha lead for p1.

    So no, for me Jawa are not fluff. I geared them with a purpose other than just inflating my roster GP.

    Thats you, not me.

    Why dont you tell the whole story then, which chars are fluff and whichs are not.

    Characters, you leveled with the sole purpose of increasing your GP.
    Jawas are a team, but that's all they've got. No faction wide synergies, not required for anything, generally bad at everything other than dying, so for me they are fluff, and thats why I am asking for a assault battle or something like smugglers event for them.

    A. Jawa do have faction wide synergies - not many and not strong, but they are there.
    B. You used your jawa in the past and benefited from it. Not fluff in my oppinion - yours apparently differs.

    Ppl have been complaining about their fluff char being counted, and you said those chars are not fluff because you think so.

    So my G10 tuskens dont even fight a single battle, but they are not fluff because I lv them up and benefits from....uh...great mood?

    Stop playing on words.

    Stop twisting my words. Please read my comments in our discussion again - and read them more carefully.

    If f.ex. you used your tusken shaman in the past under Zader lead in hAAT, I don't consider your shaman as fluff. Your shaman helped you earn better rewards - rewards which you still benefit from today. However, if you never used your tusken for anything other than inflating your GP, I consider them fluff.

    You may see it differently, but if you do please provide your definition, instead of wasting both our time with misinterpretations.

    I gear my tusken up at CLS flash event, they never fight a sibgle battle.
  • Ecen if they did they are useless
    Waqui wrote: »
    Not really all my mods then had 5 or less speed so i sold all of them by now and even if i did still fluff i have almost every toon at lvl 85 at g8 except for a few that are g6/7

    Did you use them at any point before selling them? Did they help you to increased rewards?

    Even if they where then but are useless now its still fluff as per the definition below as it is in current tense not past tense


    xaekknkvi2y1.jpg
  • No_Try
    3542 posts Member
    Ok then maybe we should ask CG for a special gadget where players decide what toons to include in their GP. See if that's possible, viable or even desirable xD
  • No_Try wrote: »
    Ok then maybe we should ask CG for a special gadget where players decide what toons to include in their GP. See if that's possible, viable or even desirable xD

    I've suggested that too. Let us "deploy" who we want to use in the GA when we initially join and only be matched based on those toons.

    But alternately, a ladder system where eventually after successive GAs top-heavy rosters end up pitted against each other, etc. seems like another good resolution. GP brackets like we have now and then a ladder within that bracket.
  • Waqui
    5672 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Ur using gp im using toons i dont touch or use for anything atm as fluff

    Are you still using the gear/mods/whatever which those characters have helped you earn in the past?

    v9343g8ys8mq.jpg

    Has no reason for its existence as in none past tense so yes everything that is old and has no reason to be usef that was geared or lvled up is fluff gp

    Here's another definition (from thefreedictionary.com): Inflated or padded material.

    And from the Cambridge dictionary (noun): "to shake a mass of fibers, feathers, or hair so the mass appears larger." or "to fail something or do it badly".
  • No_Try
    3542 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Ok then maybe we should ask CG for a special gadget where players decide what toons to include in their GP. See if that's possible, viable or even desirable xD

    I've suggested that too. Let us "deploy" who we want to use in the GA when we initially join and only be matched based on those toons.

    But alternately, a ladder system where eventually after successive GAs top-heavy rosters end up pitted against each other, etc. seems like another good resolution. GP brackets like we have now and then a ladder within that bracket.

    Doesn't work for me. Sounds nice as an idea but it presents way too much problems of it's own. Obviously everyone would want to put their best foot forward in that case...and throughout changing metas. i.e. why shouldn't I just go with my best 6 teams instead of my whole roster if that gets me a way easier win?

    So I'll stay doubtful until someone comes up with a very solid explanation of a working system like this, it doesn't boil down to just implementation of the mechanics that allows it.
  • Vicarious
    239 posts Member
    Now with the TW/GA mod bug.... I say GA has completely dropped the ball on these two modes. How such things can be simplified so and completely missed is mindblowing
  • SemiGod
    1402 posts Member
    Instead of leveling up a toon asap how about you finish off a specific squad before moving onto the next. It will lower your gp and produce usable squads in tw tb ga ect
  • shhfiftyfive
    83 posts Member
    edited May 9
    yeah, 6 months later, CG still refuses to public acknowledge/speak in regard to the blatantly obvious 100% identical comparison between paper zombie and GA matchmaking formula...
    this is disgusting. more so because the GA is now running nearly every day of the month, and the rewards are now a large source of zeta mats, of which is now 2019's thing... (2018 was the year of the marquees, 2019 is the year of the reworks that REQUIRE new zetas to even FUNCTION. so far we've seen something like 16 new zetas in 3 months. getting 1st in fleet daily can't even produce 1/3 of that)
    here we are being punished for having built up our rosters, before GA was even in the game... the formula is 100% bogus, heavily favoring the "pure" accounts (like those players who were able to make use of paper zombie, while those who had geared zombie up before HSTR was released were punished...)
    CG, you can't ignore this forever. its been 6 months. you guys have really went to great efforts over this period of time to behave much like Donald Trump. by that i mean you do reprehensible things so often, that we can't pin you guys down and hold you accountable on anything. the news cycle moves along, you're constantly implementing more and more things that the players hate, and ignoring the players when they give you feedback... with bad news dumped on Friday, etc... as a company, you are treating us like insignificant fools. it is a massively deep insult.
  • No_Try wrote: »

    Doesn't work for me. Sounds nice as an idea but it presents way too much problems of it's own. Obviously everyone would want to put their best foot forward in that case...and throughout changing metas. i.e. why shouldn't I just go with my best 6 teams instead of my whole roster if that gets me a way easier win?

    So I'll stay doubtful until someone comes up with a very solid explanation of a working system like this, it doesn't boil down to just implementation of the mechanics that allows it.

    That’s kind of the problem though. You only use your 6 best teams (or more accurately 12,) and the rest are useless. I ended up writing a 4 paragraph rant in response to this, but I’ll save everyone the time time of reading it.

    TL;DR the power creep in this game has become insane, so only the top tier is of any use to anyone. I have 50 toons above 10,000 GP that I won’t ever use in GA. Why should that 600k of GP help decide my matchup if it won’t play any part in it?
  • Austin9370
    1068 posts Member
    edited May 9
    SemiGod wrote: »
    Instead of leveling up a toon asap how about you finish off a specific squad before moving onto the next. It will lower your gp and produce usable squads in tw tb ga ect

    I think you mean it will not increase your GP. However, you're missing the point of this thread. The damage was mostly done prior to wanting to have a lower GP was a thing...
  • DocDoom wrote: »
    Rather than clicking through 43 pages of players restating their entrenched opinions and failing to convince one another of anything...does anyone know if the devs have weighed in on the matter in recent times?

    That is, whether or not they consider the GA matchmaking good "as is" (minus the mod-lock kerfluffle), or if they see a need to adjust for the "fluff" factor.

    they will not publicly talk about it, because they are profiting from it - by design.
  • Waqui
    5672 posts Member
    DocDoom wrote: »

    [...] ...does anyone know if the devs have weighed in on the matter in recent times?

    That is, whether or not they consider the GA matchmaking good "as is" (minus the mod-lock kerfluffle), or if they see a need to adjust for the "fluff" factor.

    There are no indications/official announcements of such changes. However, the road ahead post announced plans to introduce tiered GA with tiers based on previous performances.

  • No_Try
    3542 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »

    Doesn't work for me. Sounds nice as an idea but it presents way too much problems of it's own. Obviously everyone would want to put their best foot forward in that case...and throughout changing metas. i.e. why shouldn't I just go with my best 6 teams instead of my whole roster if that gets me a way easier win?

    So I'll stay doubtful until someone comes up with a very solid explanation of a working system like this, it doesn't boil down to just implementation of the mechanics that allows it.

    That’s kind of the problem though. You only use your 6 best teams (or more accurately 12,) and the rest are useless. I ended up writing a 4 paragraph rant in response to this, but I’ll save everyone the time time of reading it.

    TL;DR the power creep in this game has become insane, so only the top tier is of any use to anyone. I have 50 toons above 10,000 GP that I won’t ever use in GA. Why should that 600k of GP help decide my matchup if it won’t play any part in it?

    I have merely 10 toons below 10k GP. I provided how matchmaking can be significantly improved throughout this topic. While we probably agree on the nature of the problem, player selected filters is not a solution imo.
  • No_Try
    3542 posts Member
    edited May 18
    Does the statements also make clear it was/is based on pure GP upto this point despite to the contrary claims of @Kyno ? Or does it mean there were already other factors in play?

    0l29zm66su91.png
  • Kyno
    21326 posts Moderator
    No_Try wrote: »
    Does the statements also make clear it was/is based on pure GP upto this point despite to the contrary claims of @Kyno ? Or does it mean there were already other factors in play?

    0l29zm66su91.png

    as you can read they are reducing the weight of GP. which means there were other factors as they have said, but will now favor those more then they have been in the past.
  • No_Try
    3542 posts Member
    edited May 18
    Kyno wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Does the statements also make clear it was/is based on pure GP upto this point despite to the contrary claims of @Kyno ? Or does it mean there were already other factors in play?

    0l29zm66su91.png

    as you can read they are reducing the weight of GP. which means there were other factors as they have said, but will now favor those more then they have been in the past.

    The statement can read both ways. Still not clear for me unless it's clarified. Anyway it's not an important point as this is how it will be going from here on.
  • Ultra
    3569 posts Member
    No_Try wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Does the statements also make clear it was/is based on pure GP upto this point despite to the contrary claims of @Kyno ? Or does it mean there were already other factors in play?

    0l29zm66su91.png

    as you can read they are reducing the weight of GP. which means there were other factors as they have said, but will now favor those more then they have been in the past.

    The statement can read both ways. Still not clear for me unless it's clarified. Anyway it's not an important point as this is how it will be going from here on.
    I know where your question for Q &A is going :wink:
  • Kyno
    21326 posts Moderator
    No_Try wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    No_Try wrote: »
    Does the statements also make clear it was/is based on pure GP upto this point despite to the contrary claims of Kyno ? Or does it mean there were already other factors in play?

    0l29zm66su91.png

    as you can read they are reducing the weight of GP. which means there were other factors as they have said, but will now favor those more then they have been in the past.

    The statement can read both ways. Still not clear for me unless it's clarified. Anyway it's not an important point as this is how it will be going from here on.

    i guess it can be but if it was going from no other considerations to adding other considerations wouldn't it be written differently. would you really word it to be weighted, if it were the only one?

    wouldn't it read that they are adding other factors not weighting it differently?
Sign In or Register to comment.