#1 IW Maksomaniya: https://swgoh.gg/p/385525921/
#2 Lifeazure: https://swgoh.gg/p/626873282/
#3 MartinNi: https://swgoh.gg/p/886145185/
#4 darksrevan: https://swgoh.gg/p/533269823/
#5 SpartaN: https://swgoh.gg/p/692467664/
#6 GaurWrath: https://swgoh.gg/p/648611186/
#7 DarthSpeed: https://swgoh.gg/p/512953529/
#8 Chet Manley: https://swgoh.gg/p/455378485/
#9 DrazZ: https://swgoh.gg/p/357746445/
#10 DarthJeyanus: https://swgoh.gg/p/386369535/
Zetas: 58 Arena ranks (squad/fleet): Rank 59 / Rank 54 Number of G11: 12 Number of G12: 88 Number of G13: 1 Number of 6 dot mods: 46 Number of 10+ speed mods: 193 Number of 15+ speed mods: 58 Number of 20+ speed mods: 14 Number of 25+ speed mods: 0 Number of 100+ offense mods: 31
#5: Zetas: 60 Arena ranks (squad/fleet): Rank 13 / Rank 49 Number of G11: 46 Number of G12: 52 Number of G13: 5 Number of 6 dot mods: 62 Number of 10+ speed mods: 246 Number of 15+ speed mods: 84 Number of 20+ speed mods: 19 Number of 25+ speed mods: 1 Number of 100+ offense mods: 27 no Padme #8: Zetas: 66 Arena ranks (squad/fleet): Rank 17 / Rank 56 Number of G11: 73 Number of G12: 40 Number of G13: 4 Number of 6 dot mods: 38 Number of 10+ speed mods: 238 Number of 15+ speed mods: 63 Number of 20+ speed mods: 17 Number of 25+ speed mods: 1 Number of 100+ offense mods: 17 and #13: Zetas: 53 Arena ranks (squad/fleet): Rank 17 / Rank 2 Number of G11: 97 Number of G12: 41 Number of G13: 2 Number of 6 dot mods: 44 Number of 10+ speed mods: 176 Number of 15+ speed mods: 38 Number of 20+ speed mods: 8 Number of 25+ speed mods: 2 Number of 100+ offense mods: 23 and Padme g8 no zetas.
Replies
Top end players like to compete but, based on your findings, that competition does not appear to be happening on an "even" playing field.
I'd prefer they scrap the whole thing, go back to the old GA format (with whatever MM you want, couldn't care less at this point) with the old rewards structure.
different chet manly than i thought, still the man though !
It's not that i disagree about the leaderboard being meaningless, but the the definition of "even playing field" ea/cg are using for the ranking is that everyone faces players with roughly equal rosters. So a "mediocre" roster ending up in the top of the leaderboard is arguably a argument in favour of the "even playing field".
I for one will cheer that no one from the top-10 guilds in term of GP has been admitted into the top-10 or this GA and will call THAT a refreshing "World's First", hahaa!
Power to the Underdogs, yeah!
One in the list is from my guild and I know how crazy tactical that person can play it to the utmost capability of his roster.
Firstly we are still in an exhibition, this means that it is possible this will change as time moves on.
Secondly, it actually makes sense that from a division a "mid level" GP would have a chance to get more points than the "top dogs", some possible reasons are- facing slightly easier defenses, which could lead to more feats being completed, more points gained from teams/zones cleared, and general wins
Third, as has been stated before, "top player" doesn't have any direct correlation to GP. This is what makes GP a good base for matching, it allows the player to shine through with skill.
That may make sense, but it's definately an argument in favour of the leaderboard being meaningless.
I think you mean that in the context of GAC and the way we understand matchmaking to work it's not surprising. It definitely doesn't "make sense" if you consider this to be a competition and the leaderboard to be reflective of the best.
DSR bot's recruit function.
Once again, I am not saying he didn't get there legitimately. I am saying his roster doesn't hold up against many other players who took GAC seriously. As for his roster... g12s are nice, but mods and zetas are the real dealbreaker. A 278 speed Darth Revan is not scaring anybody (just to be clear: my thrawn is faster than that), nor are a 244 speed Bossk without his unique zeta... or a Mother Talzin without her unique zeta.
Now given the matchmaking system he may simply have gotten matched with other people who don't have the number of zetas or mods to compete with the rest of the top 50 in division 1. And that's completely fair, but that the ranking system subsequently "decides" he is the very best player in SWGOH means that ranking system is simply broken.
That is another way of looking at it. But does it really make sense to have a top 10 with players who have absolutely no chance at beating the real top rosters? And I'm not saying "pick a random whale". I am saying that players like Maraxus (top ranked TI player), Zetre (top ranked MAW player) or any of those Wolfpack players in the top 10 would wreck these players without breaking a sweat. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that MOST of the players from any of the guilds that dominate the monthly TW top 10 will all beat them without breaking a sweat.
There are plenty of players who take PvP seriously and have rosters built for it, and not just random whales. In fact, there are whole guilds built around PvP.
Now, once again, I am not claiming they climbed to their ranks illegitimately. Everybody got matched in CG's system and the points are scored the way they are. But clearly the ranking is not working.
I didn't fight any of these players. I am also not accusing them of cheating. And in fact, I think it's great that there are upsets happening. But the ranking as is, unfortunately gives us no way of distinguishing someone who legitimately punches way above his weight class, someone who was matched with chumps and lucked his way to the top, and, yes, someone who cheated.
1. No cross division matchup.
2. Elo based system.
3. Recalculating the scoring system.
Our current system is based largely on luck, both in who you're matched against and inside matches. And, oddly, more even opponents tend to lead to lower scores, not higher.
Lastly it's obvious rosters that everyone would gawk at, those ones with 40-50 g13s are also getting matched with eachother. Why would anyone expect them to be at the top? Is this a -best roster to exist in swgoh- tournament?
Old reward was better
Well, something ELO-like would go a long way. I know CG said there were weird knock-on effects that made it perform poorly, but the mathematician in me doesn't understand their reasoning. Yes, it's a collection game, and growing your collection is a way of improving. But so are Hearthstone and to a certain extent LoL and they use MMR with great success. Moreover, what is so categorically different between "growing your collection" and "increasing in skill" that invalidates the use of ELO? The main thing I can think of is the release of new legendary/mythic characters that shake up the meta completely (JKR, Malak). That will no doubt cause instability in the ranking. Maybe have these coincide with seasonal ladder resets, when you shake up the ladder anyway?
As for rosters everybody gawks at vs minnows: if the minnows can't fight the krakens, they shouldn't be in the same league, should they? I mean, the little league champion is a real accomplishment, but them beating the Baltimore Orioles would still be a giant upset, let alone challenge any of the actual contenders for the World Series, right?
Meaningless, not entirely. It's just not going to show what players expect. That doesnt mean that the player in position 1 didnt complete more feats and score more points in the current system we have.
The competition as a whole is a series of ways to score points, some people will always be better at that then others. Winning is a major point system, but after that it breaks down to a player by player basis.
Why not, to get there that player had to win almost the exactly the same amount as the players around them, and then also found ways to score more points within the given system.
You dont have to have the beat vocabulary to win at scrabble, a little luck and the better understanding of the point system will prevail.
The major driving force is absolutely the win record, after that there is some "skill" to gaining points.
Lets put it this way: at the very least it places serious questions what the developers understand as "being good" at their game.
I mean.... anybody can come up with a scoring system. The developers *could* have given scores for the number of times you used an ugnaught on defense, or the number of teams you beat using Tuskens.
That would definitely be a scoring system. But if the developers tried to claim that that is the score that determines who is the best player in SWGOH, I don't think you'd find many players agreeing with them. And that is what is at stake here.
I don't do irrelevant sports corellations, sorry. It's just too context specific to fall on that trap.
Not against an elo-like system whatsoever. But that doesn't get rid of the necessity for further matchmaking either. Or do you just randomly bunch up people and expect winning ratios to sort it out? This is not chess and everyone is not playing by the same pieces obviously. No matter whatever is further implemented, matchmaking itself needs improvement.
Currently we have a league-based system which is very abruptly elo-like. You can only get matched inside your league...which then only kicks into real effect in later weeks as there are less accomplishers in higher leagues. And even then it's also mingled with cross-division still.
Going elo-like success based system persistent through seasons, I'm neutral about that. It has to be pondered on really well. i.e. take a case where a new starter spender has been very successful with a beginner roster in a season, that sets his precedent which he has to carry out in following seasons...and he keeps spending which gives the roster mobility in divisions reaching far tougher opponents, and now he's getting matched with people above his punching power due to previous success. I dunno if a persistent elo is the right choice for an actively developing game, namely this particular one and not X football team, or go championship or whatever.
Really?
In many sports there is a time, usually as the finals are approaching (but not always)that some teams no matter what they do cant effect others whether they win or lose and those teams could have beaten the top team earlier in the season.
This leader board just represents the pointed gained. It doesn't necessarily represent who would win when face to face. I'm not saying this represents a player to player "skill", this represents a player to player skill of this game mode as a whole.
Over time the lifetime board will represent that. Will it represent it at the very minute level of who is first or 5th, no I dont think it ever will, but that is a product of the tournament style, since we will never be able to pit each player against each other the way its currently set up.
It doesn't even do that accurately, because I am quite confident the #2 would kick the #1s derriere (sorry for the earlier word) in the GA "game mode". But because the matchmaking never matched them, and the #1 probably had far more fortuitous matches, we have this higgledypiggledy "leaderboard".
I don't think the difference between "meaningless" and "not entirely meaningless" matters when it comes to leaderboards.
I'm not sure where you're going with the whole showing something other than what players expect. I thought it was pretty obvious that you were giving reasons as to why some players got a higher rank which had nothing to do with player skill. Some players being able to earn points more easily due to the circumstances than other players within the same division makes the leaderboard (not entirely) meaningless.
thats not true, at the start of 3rd GA me and others were chromium and one guy was already in aurodium league