GAC matchmaking - supposed to be funny?

Replies

  • Waqui
    7165 posts Member
    Ultra wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Lysandrax wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It was fine before it's last change too.

    Good talk, lets never improve anything.

    People's idea of improvement generally boils down to "let me win."
    Everyone's idea of a perfect matchmaking is same number of zetas, gear tiers, relics, toons (if I don't have GAS, or Revan I shouldn't face an opponent that does), equal GP and speed mods

    Mine isn't. It may be an even matchmaking but it's far from perfect. What you describe wouldn't give incentive for improving your roster.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Mine isn't. It may be an even matchmaking but it's far from perfect. What you describe wouldn't give incentive for improving your roster.

    So the eternally unanswered question is: What is perfect matchmaking?
  • Waqui
    7165 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Mine isn't. It may be an even matchmaking but it's far from perfect. What you describe wouldn't give incentive for improving your roster.

    So the eternally unanswered question is: What is perfect matchmaking?

    I don't really care, since what we have currently works fine.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    I don't really care, since what we have currently works fine.

    Glad to hear it.
  • Waqui
    7165 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    I don't really care, since what we have currently works fine.

    Glad to hear it.

    The observant reader would have known, already.
  • TVF wrote: »
    Lysandrax wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It was fine before it's last change too.

    Good talk, lets never improve anything.

    People's idea of improvement generally boils down to "let me win."

    Anecdotal.
  • TVF
    22441 posts Member
    Here's one.
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    I do not have anything that beats a R7 Malak.

    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Guess i'll post this again,i won many times against players who had both revans and i had none,so i dont know what you want from matchmaking.
    I won last one as well my gp at 2.7mil opponent had 3.1mil,so way more options.

    PS:I finally have jkr now but i locked him at g2,so whatever.
  • Waqui wrote: »

    The observant reader would have known, already.

    The inobservant reader last saw mention of it more than a week ago I believe, you must excuse my failing memory 5 pages and 8 days later.
  • GAC mm is good at yielding competitive matches. That's something. It does, however, seem unfair that strong players are not much more likely on average to get good rewards than weaker players in the same division. Rewards for finishing #2 or #5 in your group are the same for groups full of Rancors and groups full of Mynock, and mm selects groups of relatively equal strength. Why not select that way for the first round, then select by record or point totals afterward? Div1 might have to be split so matches aren't too lopsided, but that would at least provide some mm benefit to improving your roster. At present, only optimally targeted improvements help. Any other improvements yield more difficult opponents and probably worse rewards.

    I should add that I really like the game, GA is my favorite part of it, and I've generally done well in GA, although not this time. I'm just perplexed that the logic of GA matchmaking is to handicap players who improve their rosters in any way except the most efficient way. The result is that competitive Div1 matches are routinely between players with very similar rosters. And that seems less interesting than what we'd get with a full 12-match tournament (rather than four similar 3-match tourneys).
  • Ultra wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Lysandrax wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It was fine before it's last change too.

    Good talk, lets never improve anything.

    People's idea of improvement generally boils down to "let me win."
    Everyone's idea of a perfect matchmaking is same number of zetas, gear tiers, relics, toons (if I don't have GAS, or Revan I shouldn't face an opponent that does), equal GP and speed mods

    The only thing CG can do is have players fight themselves every round every bracket because they don't realize how unrealistic the request is and even if they did that, people would still complain MM is broken

    You are right with one thing:
    What you described would be a perfect matchmaking.

    But I strongly disagree with you that we either need to find the magic bullet and have the perfect matchmaking all the time or we don’t improve anything at all. This is not how the world works. You strive for perfect, but take it step by step.

    There is no “only thing CG can do”!
    There are in fact MANY things CG can do. E.g. include addition criteria into the matchmaking. (Gear, meta toons, mods, etc). Will that be easy for CG? Probably not. Will it be perfect? No. But will it be an improvement over the current mm? Absolutely!
  • TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It’s fine FOR YOU. And you write that people’s ideas for mm improvement boil down to “let me win”. Looks like somebody is projecting...
  • KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Lysandrax wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It was fine before it's last change too.

    Good talk, lets never improve anything.

    People's idea of improvement generally boils down to "let me win."
    Everyone's idea of a perfect matchmaking is same number of zetas, gear tiers, relics, toons (if I don't have GAS, or Revan I shouldn't face an opponent that does), equal GP and speed mods

    The only thing CG can do is have players fight themselves every round every bracket because they don't realize how unrealistic the request is and even if they did that, people would still complain MM is broken

    You are right with one thing:
    What you described would be a perfect matchmaking.

    But I strongly disagree with you that we either need to find the magic bullet and have the perfect matchmaking all the time or we don’t improve anything at all. This is not how the world works. You strive for perfect, but take it step by step.

    There is no “only thing CG can do”!
    There are in fact MANY things CG can do. E.g. include addition criteria into the matchmaking. (Gear, meta toons, mods, etc). Will that be easy for CG? Probably not. Will it be perfect? No. But will it be an improvement over the current mm? Absolutely!

    How would gear improve mm? A relic 7 zzBossk and a relic 7 zzMalak would be considered equals if gear was factored in, just as they are currently considered equals. Matching on gear would only increase the impact of meta characters and mods.

    MM accounting for meta teams and/or relative team power is an awful idea. This de-incentivises getting the latest meta in order to game the system. It does not promote roster growth and it decreases the value of new characters.

    How would mods improve mm? Mods are a competitive edge over others that can differentiate similar rosters. The only way would be blind comparisons that only factor in mod level, and not stats (like speed).
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • TVF wrote: »
    Here's one.
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    I do not have anything that beats a R7 Malak.

    Not getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does not guarantee a win for me.
    Getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does guarantee a loss for me.

    So if you are using my quote to make the point my idea of mm improvement is “let me win” then you must have skipped or ignored the many posts I made with reasonable suggestions what other factors should be included in mm.

    What was your argument again against changing mm? “It’s fine” and “I win every match”?
  • KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Lysandrax wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It was fine before it's last change too.

    Good talk, lets never improve anything.

    People's idea of improvement generally boils down to "let me win."
    Everyone's idea of a perfect matchmaking is same number of zetas, gear tiers, relics, toons (if I don't have GAS, or Revan I shouldn't face an opponent that does), equal GP and speed mods

    The only thing CG can do is have players fight themselves every round every bracket because they don't realize how unrealistic the request is and even if they did that, people would still complain MM is broken

    You are right with one thing:
    What you described would be a perfect matchmaking.

    But I strongly disagree with you that we either need to find the magic bullet and have the perfect matchmaking all the time or we don’t improve anything at all. This is not how the world works. You strive for perfect, but take it step by step.

    There is no “only thing CG can do”!
    There are in fact MANY things CG can do. E.g. include addition criteria into the matchmaking. (Gear, meta toons, mods, etc). Will that be easy for CG? Probably not. Will it be perfect? No. But will it be an improvement over the current mm? Absolutely!

    How would gear improve mm? A relic 7 zzBossk and a relic 7 zzMalak would be considered equals if gear was factored in, just as they are currently considered equals. Matching on gear would only increase the impact of meta characters and mods.

    MM accounting for meta teams and/or relative team power is an awful idea. This de-incentivises getting the latest meta in order to game the system. It does not promote roster growth and it decreases the value of new characters.

    How would mods improve mm? Mods are a competitive edge over others that can differentiate similar rosters. The only way would be blind comparisons that only factor in mod level, and not stats (like speed).

    All those would improve mm since currently only GP is used.
  • KyoO1234 wrote: »

    Not getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does not guarantee a win for me.
    Getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does guarantee a loss for me.

    So if you are using my quote to make the point my idea of mm improvement is “let me win” then you must have skipped or ignored the many posts I made with reasonable suggestions what other factors should be included in mm.

    What was your argument again against changing mm? “It’s fine” and “I win every match”?

    Then you should probably work on something that counters an R7 Malak. He's been about for almost a year now, if you still have no way to combat it, it is beyond your own fault and you must have as hard a time in arena as you do GAC. As for changing it, you haven't provided a solution, every post I speak to you I ask for one and you simply don't reply, so let's see if anything changes here. Also the suggestions you made a week ago aren't worth parroting, they were shot down by people pointing out they would be detrimental then, that is still the case now.
  • Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.
  • Waqui
    7165 posts Member
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Lysandrax wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It was fine before it's last change too.

    Good talk, lets never improve anything.

    People's idea of improvement generally boils down to "let me win."
    Everyone's idea of a perfect matchmaking is same number of zetas, gear tiers, relics, toons (if I don't have GAS, or Revan I shouldn't face an opponent that does), equal GP and speed mods

    The only thing CG can do is have players fight themselves every round every bracket because they don't realize how unrealistic the request is and even if they did that, people would still complain MM is broken

    You are right with one thing:
    What you described would be a perfect matchmaking.

    It would be perfectly even but far from perfect. It would have at least one major flaw.
  • KyoO1234 wrote: »
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Lysandrax wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've never seen a single person claim matchmaking is perfect.

    Cool. Then everyone agrees that it needs improvement? Ok.

    There is no such thing as "perfect" matchmaking.

    It's fine.

    It was fine before it's last change too.

    Good talk, lets never improve anything.

    People's idea of improvement generally boils down to "let me win."
    Everyone's idea of a perfect matchmaking is same number of zetas, gear tiers, relics, toons (if I don't have GAS, or Revan I shouldn't face an opponent that does), equal GP and speed mods

    The only thing CG can do is have players fight themselves every round every bracket because they don't realize how unrealistic the request is and even if they did that, people would still complain MM is broken

    You are right with one thing:
    What you described would be a perfect matchmaking.

    But I strongly disagree with you that we either need to find the magic bullet and have the perfect matchmaking all the time or we don’t improve anything at all. This is not how the world works. You strive for perfect, but take it step by step.

    There is no “only thing CG can do”!
    There are in fact MANY things CG can do. E.g. include addition criteria into the matchmaking. (Gear, meta toons, mods, etc). Will that be easy for CG? Probably not. Will it be perfect? No. But will it be an improvement over the current mm? Absolutely!

    How would gear improve mm? A relic 7 zzBossk and a relic 7 zzMalak would be considered equals if gear was factored in, just as they are currently considered equals. Matching on gear would only increase the impact of meta characters and mods.

    MM accounting for meta teams and/or relative team power is an awful idea. This de-incentivises getting the latest meta in order to game the system. It does not promote roster growth and it decreases the value of new characters.

    How would mods improve mm? Mods are a competitive edge over others that can differentiate similar rosters. The only way would be blind comparisons that only factor in mod level, and not stats (like speed).

    All those would improve mm since currently only GP is used.

    But how would it improve mm? Can you explain how? I have laid out why I think it would be bad for the game/GAC to use those measures, and you come back with "they would improve if because I say so"
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • Waqui
    7165 posts Member
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Here's one.
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    I do not have anything that beats a R7 Malak.

    Not getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does not guarantee a win for me.
    Getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does guarantee a loss for me.

    May I suggest that you work on changing the latter? Your opponents with r7 Malak earned their advantage over you. You need to earn leveling the playing field. What exactly would justify, that the designers/developers level it for you? Wouldn't that be exactly the “let me win” scenario?
  • one squad does not make a GAC Winner. It takes squads. But thank the lord for those who think one squad determines the winner, Keeps me in the loot. Keep on focusing on posting about unfair matchmaking and i will focus on building my roster to beat one team wonders in GAC.
  • TVF
    22441 posts Member
    @KyoO1234 it seems you only want to be matched with yourself. Good luck mate. <3
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF
    22441 posts Member
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.

    Getting stronger in the right areas (most effective toons/squads, counters, etc) will in theory yield some matchups with people that are stronger in the wrong areas. In fact you could argue that if matchmaking were "better" then there would be no incentive to be smart about your choices.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.

    Getting stronger in the right areas (most effective toons/squads, counters, etc) will in theory yield some matchups with people that are stronger in the wrong areas. In fact you could argue that if matchmaking were "better" then there would be no incentive to be smart about your choices.

    What I'm suggesting would still give an advantage to the players making the best choices. It just would make it so players who decide to max their favorite faction don't thereby doom themselves to always losing in GA. (I haven't done that, but I have some sympathy for those who do). They might struggle to do better than 4-8, but they wouldn't necessarily lose just because they maxed Ewoks while everyone else with the same top-80 GP was maxing Clones.
  • TVF wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.

    Getting stronger in the right areas (most effective toons/squads, counters, etc) will in theory yield some matchups with people that are stronger in the wrong areas. In fact you could argue that if matchmaking were "better" then there would be no incentive to be smart about your choices.

    Depending on where you are GP wise in your division, it doesn't. Bottom of Division 1, you surely have some room to play with and still encounter lots of chaff. Top of a division and any additional GP inside the matched toons just makes it a harder road to travel.
  • 0dysseusK wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.

    Getting stronger in the right areas (most effective toons/squads, counters, etc) will in theory yield some matchups with people that are stronger in the wrong areas. In fact you could argue that if matchmaking were "better" then there would be no incentive to be smart about your choices.

    What I'm suggesting would still give an advantage to the players making the best choices. It just would make it so players who decide to max their favorite faction don't thereby doom themselves to always losing in GA. (I haven't done that, but I have some sympathy for those who do). They might struggle to do better than 4-8, but they wouldn't necessarily lose just because they maxed Ewoks while everyone else with the same top-80 GP was maxing Clones.

    What you’re suggesting is the most complicated algorithm ever created that would still not produce the results you want.
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  • 0dysseusK
    55 posts Member
    edited February 10
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.

    Getting stronger in the right areas (most effective toons/squads, counters, etc) will in theory yield some matchups with people that are stronger in the wrong areas. In fact you could argue that if matchmaking were "better" then there would be no incentive to be smart about your choices.

    What I'm suggesting would still give an advantage to the players making the best choices. It just would make it so players who decide to max their favorite faction don't thereby doom themselves to always losing in GA. (I haven't done that, but I have some sympathy for those who do). They might struggle to do better than 4-8, but they wouldn't necessarily lose just because they maxed Ewoks while everyone else with the same top-80 GP was maxing Clones.

    What you’re suggesting is the most complicated algorithm ever created that would still not produce the results you want.

    Lol. What's so complicated about a first-group match based on top-80 GP, then matching by record within division after that? My basic concern with the current mm is that improving any top-80 toon above their sweet spot on a player's gear/relic spectrum will likely yield worse GA results than doing nothing at all. And the remedy to that is simple, would help the best players rise to the top, and would mean fewer competitive players finishing with a winning percentage under 25%.
  • 0dysseusK wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.

    Getting stronger in the right areas (most effective toons/squads, counters, etc) will in theory yield some matchups with people that are stronger in the wrong areas. In fact you could argue that if matchmaking were "better" then there would be no incentive to be smart about your choices.

    What I'm suggesting would still give an advantage to the players making the best choices. It just would make it so players who decide to max their favorite faction don't thereby doom themselves to always losing in GA. (I haven't done that, but I have some sympathy for those who do). They might struggle to do better than 4-8, but they wouldn't necessarily lose just because they maxed Ewoks while everyone else with the same top-80 GP was maxing Clones.

    What you’re suggesting is the most complicated algorithm ever created that would still not produce the results you want.

    Lol. What's so complicated about a first-group match based on top-80 GP, then matching by record within division after that? My basic concern with the current mm is that improving any top-80 toon above their sweet spot on a player's gear/relic spectrum will likely yield worse GA results than doing nothing at all. And the remedy to that is simple, would help the best players rise to the top, and would mean fewer competitive players finishing with a winning percentage under 25%.

    I just don’t think the results you’re looking for are going to happen with such simple matchmaking. If you’re competitive, you don’t have a winning percentage below 25%. Plus, if you’re gearing Ewoks and Jawas over clones and SE for fun, you’re not a competitive GAC player. Which is totally fine, just don’t expect to win in GAC and don’t complain about matchmaking. Have your fun and know some aspects of the game aren’t designed for you.
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  • KyoO1234 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Here's one.
    KyoO1234 wrote: »
    I do not have anything that beats a R7 Malak.

    Not getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does not guarantee a win for me.
    Getting matched with somebody who has a R7 Malak does guarantee a loss for me.

    So nearly a year after the release of Malak, and over 3 months after Relics were introduced, you still have not developed a counter to malak? That is not the fault of mm, nor should it be "fixed" by mm.
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • 0dysseusK wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Adding additional criteria for mm might make matches even more competitive, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue that on average, getting stronger doesn't help in GA, because it only yields stronger opponents.

    Match by GA first round, then by record or points within divisions after that. A 12-match tournament.

    Getting stronger in the right areas (most effective toons/squads, counters, etc) will in theory yield some matchups with people that are stronger in the wrong areas. In fact you could argue that if matchmaking were "better" then there would be no incentive to be smart about your choices.

    What I'm suggesting would still give an advantage to the players making the best choices. It just would make it so players who decide to max their favorite faction don't thereby doom themselves to always losing in GA. (I haven't done that, but I have some sympathy for those who do). They might struggle to do better than 4-8, but they wouldn't necessarily lose just because they maxed Ewoks while everyone else with the same top-80 GP was maxing Clones.

    What you’re suggesting is the most complicated algorithm ever created that would still not produce the results you want.

    Lol. What's so complicated about a first-group match based on top-80 GP, then matching by record within division after that? My basic concern with the current mm is that improving any top-80 toon above their sweet spot on a player's gear/relic spectrum will likely yield worse GA results than doing nothing at all. And the remedy to that is simple, would help the best players rise to the top, and would mean fewer competitive players finishing with a winning percentage under 25%.

    I just don’t think the results you’re looking for are going to happen with such simple matchmaking. If you’re competitive, you don’t have a winning percentage below 25%. Plus, if you’re gearing Ewoks and Jawas over clones and SE for fun, you’re not a competitive GAC player. Which is totally fine, just don’t expect to win in GAC and don’t complain about matchmaking. Have your fun and know some aspects of the game aren’t designed for you.

    Fair enough. I admittedly offered an extreme example before that may not have been the most helpful. But I do think--and this is a matter of personal preference--that if you do well in one group, the next should be more challenging (perhaps with better rewards), and if you do poorly in one group, the next should be easier (perhaps with smaller rewards). The current mm offers no respite to the beleaguered and no greater challenge to the victors, and that would be easy to fix.
Sign In or Register to comment.