Total GP is not very relevant to be honest. Only your top 80 GP counts towards matchmaking. Sure, more GP means more depth, but that doesn't win you GACs. Having a good roster and knowing what you're doing does. I constantly face people that have more GP than I have, sometimes even over a million more, but I still manage to beat them with superior strategy.
Also... Ships... I see 1m GP differences in ships all the time some people have all roster and limited ships where other people invest more in ships but they can have equal top 80.
Also... Ships... I see 1m GP differences in ships all the time some people have all roster and limited ships where other people invest more in ships but they can have equal top 80.
I am often against 1M more GP as my top of roster is a little heavier than it should be for where I am. It can come into play, but I win plenty of those. Ships is my challenge as I just switched guilds to increase my GET2 rewards.
Man, when I was division 2, I was like what they are talking about. I win game against more gp all the time. But division 1 is ridiculous, there is like no balance...
Man, when I was division 2, I was like what they are talking about. I win game against more gp all the time. But division 1 is ridiculous, there is like no balance...
Checking your GAC history (I assume it's yours: https://swgoh.gg/p/127991533/gac-history/ ) I really don't see how you can conclude that a difference in total GP is what caused your two losses so far this championship. In your most recent loss (GA 41) it's a question of tactics. Neither you nor your opponent cleared the board but while you cleared the two top territories your opponent cleared the two bottom territories which reward more banners. Your opponent simply outsmarted you. In your first loss (GA 40) it looks like you wasted your DR, Malak and Wat by mistake. If you hadn't wasted them you could have won two more battles (one with DR, HK-47 and SET - the other by adding Malak to your Vader team) and possibly cleared one more territory.
With much higher gp you can set a stronger defense and still have enough to clear your opponent. I routinely face guys 800k-1mil higher. You're talking about 7 or 8 more very strong teams that person can have over you with that gp.
With much higher gp you can set a stronger defense and still have enough to clear your opponent. I routinely face guys 800k-1mil higher. You're talking about 7 or 8 more very strong teams that person can have over you with that gp.
Throwing the kitchen sink at whatever's left on defense is a highly inefficient strategy, though. Especially if you want to safely reach kyber.
Assuming you have your counters modded (or that they even exist in the first place), 1-2 back up teams is really all you should normally need. Having a relic Jawa, Rogue One and Phoenix team in that 800k-1m GP, on top of what both sides should have, will make little difference with proper strategy.
With much higher gp you can set a stronger defense and still have enough to clear your opponent. I routinely face guys 800k-1mil higher. You're talking about 7 or 8 more very strong teams that person can have over you with that gp.
If you want to talk GP, that's not really correct. MM is based on the number of toons placed on D, times 2.
This means that the GP of their defense and what they have left for offense (first time wins), is equal. Yes they would have more options for second attacks, but if you can cause your opponent to lose a match, then the ball is in your court for the win.
With much higher gp you can set a stronger defense and still have enough to clear your opponent. I routinely face guys 800k-1mil higher. You're talking about 7 or 8 more very strong teams that person can have over you with that gp.
If you want to talk GP, that's not really correct. MM is based on the number of toons placed on D, times 2.
This means that the GP of their defense and what they have left for offense (first time wins), is equal. Yes they would have more options for second attacks, but if you can cause your opponent to lose a match, then the ball is in your court for the win.
That's the exact point. A person with a much higher gp can put a way tougher defense out there and still have a lot remaining outside of the top 80 for 2nd attacks. Where if the person with the lower gp (and still the same top 80 gp) set's a defense of similar difficulty, he will have way less to attack with.
So the person with the higher gp and at least mediocre strategy will always be working for a larger pool of teams.
Don’t know what sort of GACs you’re involved in, but in mine if I need more than one squad to clear each of their defences, I’m almost certainly going to lose.
At top end of div 1 almost every defence is the same, so the attack toons are almost always the same every time. No advantage in having additional things available
With much higher gp you can set a stronger defense and still have enough to clear your opponent. I routinely face guys 800k-1mil higher. You're talking about 7 or 8 more very strong teams that person can have over you with that gp.
If you want to talk GP, that's not really correct. MM is based on the number of toons placed on D, times 2.
This means that the GP of their defense and what they have left for offense (first time wins), is equal. Yes they would have more options for second attacks, but if you can cause your opponent to lose a match, then the ball is in your court for the win.
That's the exact point. A person with a much higher gp can put a way tougher defense out there and still have a lot remaining outside of the top 80 for 2nd attacks. Where if the person with the lower gp (and still the same top 80 gp) set's a defense of similar difficulty, he will have way less to attack with.
So the person with the higher gp and at least mediocre strategy will always be working for a larger pool of teams.
Ok.
I believe that's why you win due to strategy..... ya know, what you set and what you can use.
If you can get then to need a second team, you are on the offensive, and the ball is in your court....
With much higher gp you can set a stronger defense and still have enough to clear your opponent. I routinely face guys 800k-1mil higher. You're talking about 7 or 8 more very strong teams that person can have over you with that gp.
If you want to talk GP, that's not really correct. MM is based on the number of toons placed on D, times 2.
This means that the GP of their defense and what they have left for offense (first time wins), is equal. Yes they would have more options for second attacks, but if you can cause your opponent to lose a match, then the ball is in your court for the win.
That's the exact point. A person with a much higher gp can put a way tougher defense out there and still have a lot remaining outside of the top 80 for 2nd attacks. Where if the person with the lower gp (and still the same top 80 gp) set's a defense of similar difficulty, he will have way less to attack with.
So the person with the higher gp and at least mediocre strategy will always be working for a larger pool of teams.
I'll take a higher GP opponent with mediocre strategy any day! It's the lower GP opponents with a focused roster and good strategy that you need to watch out for.
He outsmarted me by having 500k more gp and a gl. Man I wish I could be smart like this.
Well, if your top 80 character GP is the same as someone else's that owns a GL, there certainly are things you have chosen to do that have caused that to happen
He outsmarted me by having 500k more gp and a gl. Man I wish I could be smart like this.
I believe you're referring to my previous respons, @Ripperpa.
In GAC 41 rnd 3 you cleared 6 squads (only 1 additional battle) and 2 fleets while your opponent cleared 9 squads (with great difficulty and wasting lots of strong teams on additional battles on your SE squad) and zero fleets. Your opponent appears to have blocked you from clearing their bottom front territory while you likely blocked them from clearing your top front territory instead (which is the inferior strategy if you rely on blocking a territory). Yes, your opponent appears to have outsmarted you.
Yes, having a GL which you had no counter for helped your opponent win but you still haven't provided an explanation for how those extra 500k roster GP helped them win.
Yeah he could throw more stuff at me because he had more gp, gimme same gp enemy's and outsmart me then. Don't be so full of your self, I hate people talking down like that. If he has like same gp, then maybe his ships are not as good mine and I can do more points there etc. etc. And my strongest teams where down south btw.
Yeah he could throw more stuff at me because he had more gp, gimme same gp enemy's and outsmart me then. Don't be so full of your self, I hate people talking down like that. If he has like same gp, then maybe his ships are not as good mine and I can do more points there etc. etc. And my strongest teams where down south btw.
Did you clear them on 1st attacks at each position?
Yeah he could throw more stuff at me because he had more gp, gimme same gp enemy's and outsmart me then.
Did you check your GAC history? In GAC 41 rnd 3 your opponent used 36 characters to take out those 9 squads of yours (not counting the 3 from a battle where he quit, and 6 from attempts on teams he didn't beat). That extra 500k GP didn't help him much when considering that you had matching top-X GP, did it?
Don't be so full of your self, I hate people talking down like that. If he has like same gp, then maybe his ships are not as good mine and I can do more points there etc. etc. And my strongest teams where down south btw.
If you check your GAC history you will see how relatively few characters you (or your opponents) use to win the rounds. If you use many more characters than the 33 on defense and 33 on offense (and similarly for ships) you are not likely to win the round. You are matched by top-X GP and most often most of the characters/ships that make those 500k GP (or whatever the difference is between you and your opponent) are never used and don't influence the outcome of the round at all. The important thing is not the difference in total roster GP. It's how you built the part of your roster you used.
Before championships were introduced you were matched by total roster GP (just like you described) in GA. It resulted in many uneven matches where the outcome was more or less given beforehand. Also, if you developed the lower part of your roster it would give tougher matches in GA. I prefer the current system which is relatively close to matching by the GP of the characters you actually use.
It wasn't my intention to talk down to you. My apologies if it felt like I did. I intended to to describe what I saw from your GAC history and to explain how differences in total roster GP isn't significant for the outcome of the round.
With much higher gp you can set a stronger defense and still have enough to clear your opponent. I routinely face guys 800k-1mil higher. You're talking about 7 or 8 more very strong teams that person can have over you with that gp.
If you want to talk GP, that's not really correct. MM is based on the number of toons placed on D, times 2.
This means that the GP of their defense and what they have left for offense (first time wins), is equal. Yes they would have more options for second attacks, but if you can cause your opponent to lose a match, then the ball is in your court for the win.
That's the exact point. A person with a much higher gp can put a way tougher defense out there and still have a lot remaining outside of the top 80 for 2nd attacks.
If you check your GAC history, I'm sure you will see that round winners don't use all those many more teams to win the round. A few more maybe (and often they undersize as well) - but not many more.
If my enemies have the same gp it's more fair, take the guy with the gl for instance. If he had the same gp as me, with having a gl he had to make sacrifices in other aspects. But if he also have 500k more gp, those sacrifices are negated. I think the old system is better, I played stronger enemies, weaker enemies and had fair matches. In the new system it's always punching up, but I mean i just hit kyber every time except for one time when i didn't sign up. but sometimes it gets to me, that I have to fight against a gl or the meta fleets and they have like no burdens to overcome, because they also have 300-500k more gp.
If you think max. GP really makes such a difference, start taking characters out of your top 80 to g12 instead of equipping zetas and relics on your top characters (that's what increases your top 80 GP).
If my enemies have the same gp it's more fair, take the guy with the gl for instance. If he had the same gp as me, with having a gl he had to make sacrifices in other aspects. But if he also have 500k more gp, those sacrifices are negated. I think the old system is better, I played stronger enemies, weaker enemies and had fair matches. In the new system it's always punching up, but I mean i just hit kyber every time except for one time when i didn't sign up. but sometimes it gets to me, that I have to fight against a gl or the meta fleets and they have like no burdens to overcome, because they also have 300-500k more gp.
I don't get it. In the old system you played stronger and weaker enemies and you said it was fine. With the top 80 system you play weaker and stronger enemies but it's not fine anymore.
If you reach kyber everytime and you think it's your place, i guess it means matchmaking works just fine and offers you fair matchups that you win more often than not.
In your exemple, you faced an opponent that used a better resource allocation strategy towards gac because he built his top 80 with about the same ressources as you and appeared to end up with a GL that made a difference, while you made other choices that allow you to win quite often, so your choices are solid too.
If my enemies have the same gp it's more fair, take the guy with the gl for instance. If he had the same gp as me, with having a gl he had to make sacrifices in other aspects. But if he also have 500k more gp, those sacrifices are negated.
Yes, having that GL which you weren't able to beat helped your opponent, but you're still avoiding explaining how those 500k extra GP helped them win. Please check your GAC history and then explain how those 500k extra GP (200k from shops and 300k from characters) helped them win. Please explain.
At top end of div 1 almost every defence is the same, so the attack toons are almost always the same every time. No advantage in having additional things available
That's sad and imo the main reason an extra division is needed with more teams to deploy. It's not a balance issue, it's a it's boring issue.
It's the main reason i'm not going for a 3rd GL (kylo) tbh and just hoard. The game will be less fun if i do.
Man I tried to explain where the 500k helped him. If he didn't have 500k more he didn't have as much good teams and fleets, english is not my first language, sorry. Maybe it's a moral thing if I see a gl and like 500k more gp, it's just depressing. With the old system, I just liked it more.
Replies
Why is that a problem?
Those people need to work on their ships then
Checking your GAC history (I assume it's yours: https://swgoh.gg/p/127991533/gac-history/ ) I really don't see how you can conclude that a difference in total GP is what caused your two losses so far this championship. In your most recent loss (GA 41) it's a question of tactics. Neither you nor your opponent cleared the board but while you cleared the two top territories your opponent cleared the two bottom territories which reward more banners. Your opponent simply outsmarted you. In your first loss (GA 40) it looks like you wasted your DR, Malak and Wat by mistake. If you hadn't wasted them you could have won two more battles (one with DR, HK-47 and SET - the other by adding Malak to your Vader team) and possibly cleared one more territory.
Where does the total roster GP factor in in this?
Assuming you have your counters modded (or that they even exist in the first place), 1-2 back up teams is really all you should normally need. Having a relic Jawa, Rogue One and Phoenix team in that 800k-1m GP, on top of what both sides should have, will make little difference with proper strategy.
If you want to talk GP, that's not really correct. MM is based on the number of toons placed on D, times 2.
This means that the GP of their defense and what they have left for offense (first time wins), is equal. Yes they would have more options for second attacks, but if you can cause your opponent to lose a match, then the ball is in your court for the win.
That's the exact point. A person with a much higher gp can put a way tougher defense out there and still have a lot remaining outside of the top 80 for 2nd attacks. Where if the person with the lower gp (and still the same top 80 gp) set's a defense of similar difficulty, he will have way less to attack with.
So the person with the higher gp and at least mediocre strategy will always be working for a larger pool of teams.
At top end of div 1 almost every defence is the same, so the attack toons are almost always the same every time. No advantage in having additional things available
Ok.
I believe that's why you win due to strategy..... ya know, what you set and what you can use.
If you can get then to need a second team, you are on the offensive, and the ball is in your court....
My current round ranges from 4.61m to 5.66m.
I believe you're referring to my previous respons, @Ripperpa.
In GAC 41 rnd 3 you cleared 6 squads (only 1 additional battle) and 2 fleets while your opponent cleared 9 squads (with great difficulty and wasting lots of strong teams on additional battles on your SE squad) and zero fleets. Your opponent appears to have blocked you from clearing their bottom front territory while you likely blocked them from clearing your top front territory instead (which is the inferior strategy if you rely on blocking a territory). Yes, your opponent appears to have outsmarted you.
Yes, having a GL which you had no counter for helped your opponent win but you still haven't provided an explanation for how those extra 500k roster GP helped them win.
(Hint: It didn't)
Did you clear them on 1st attacks at each position?
Did you check your GAC history? In GAC 41 rnd 3 your opponent used 36 characters to take out those 9 squads of yours (not counting the 3 from a battle where he quit, and 6 from attempts on teams he didn't beat). That extra 500k GP didn't help him much when considering that you had matching top-X GP, did it?
If you check your GAC history you will see how relatively few characters you (or your opponents) use to win the rounds. If you use many more characters than the 33 on defense and 33 on offense (and similarly for ships) you are not likely to win the round. You are matched by top-X GP and most often most of the characters/ships that make those 500k GP (or whatever the difference is between you and your opponent) are never used and don't influence the outcome of the round at all. The important thing is not the difference in total roster GP. It's how you built the part of your roster you used.
Before championships were introduced you were matched by total roster GP (just like you described) in GA. It resulted in many uneven matches where the outcome was more or less given beforehand. Also, if you developed the lower part of your roster it would give tougher matches in GA. I prefer the current system which is relatively close to matching by the GP of the characters you actually use.
It wasn't my intention to talk down to you. My apologies if it felt like I did. I intended to to describe what I saw from your GAC history and to explain how differences in total roster GP isn't significant for the outcome of the round.
If you check your GAC history, I'm sure you will see that round winners don't use all those many more teams to win the round. A few more maybe (and often they undersize as well) - but not many more.
My current opponent has 370k more GP and I am less concerned about him than I was about my last opponent who had 340k less.
It's not just the GP, it's how they allocated it and how well they use it in battle.
Let's see how well it plays out in the long run.
I don't get it. In the old system you played stronger and weaker enemies and you said it was fine. With the top 80 system you play weaker and stronger enemies but it's not fine anymore.
If you reach kyber everytime and you think it's your place, i guess it means matchmaking works just fine and offers you fair matchups that you win more often than not.
In your exemple, you faced an opponent that used a better resource allocation strategy towards gac because he built his top 80 with about the same ressources as you and appeared to end up with a GL that made a difference, while you made other choices that allow you to win quite often, so your choices are solid too.
Yes, having that GL which you weren't able to beat helped your opponent, but you're still avoiding explaining how those 500k extra GP helped them win. Please check your GAC history and then explain how those 500k extra GP (200k from shops and 300k from characters) helped them win. Please explain.
(Hint: it didn't.)
That's sad and imo the main reason an extra division is needed with more teams to deploy. It's not a balance issue, it's a it's boring issue.
It's the main reason i'm not going for a 3rd GL (kylo) tbh and just hoard. The game will be less fun if i do.
(Hint: it did.)