I feel a solution to the matchmaking issue is to still use top 80 GP to create divisions for the matchmaking take the total or average of a players top 5 characters to determine matches the number of GL (50k) will result in players with similar numbers of GL to be matched together while to rest of the characters are typically 30-35k once fully developed
So if I am at 4.4 mil that puts me in my division but If don’t have any GL and my top 5 character average is 34k I can be easily matched with another 34k opponent, a player with 1 GL will average closer to 38k, 2 GL will be at 41K there isn’t too much room to manipulate that besides trying to have an underdeveloped GL with a lower GP.
Thoughts on that solution for match ups?
0
Replies
Total GP of top 5 characters (average is meaningless if you always use top 5) is a longwinded way of saying “number of GL”. It is inconceivable that a 1 GL owner could ever engineer the GP of their top 5 to be equal to or lower than someone that doesn’t own a GL.
Whilst you think this will lead to fairer matchups, I disagree. Take the current GAC, for example, where in top divisions players need to set 35 toons on defence and use (nominally) 35 toons on offence. At the moment, the matchmaking algorithm is looking at the GP of the ~70 characters that players need to use.
You’re suggesting that they switch to only considering the top 5 toons on each player’s roster? This will absolutely not get rid of “mismatches” it will just pit those who have gone with laser focus for a GL above all other roster developments against those who have got deep, broad rosters but dragged their heels in getting their first GL.
1st grouping is based on your top 80 (or whatever number)
Then from that group you are matched by your top 5.
My current matchup
========= GA Stats =========
Rank :: 31,652 vs 1,176
How much fun is that going to be for either of us?
As for matching on GAC performance/wins/points, that puts better players against each other, which sounds good from a challenge perspective, but the rewards would have to be adjusted to reflect that, meaning higher rewards for the better players. Else you're essentially punishing people for being successful.
This doesn’t seem a valid complaint to me.
And here we eventually will come to the idea of PvP rating and matchmaking based on it. CG already commented on that in the past, they dropped this idea for very vague (in my opinion) reasons. So it's very unlikely they will return to it.
You've only played one round of the twelve this championship. Leagues have no effect yet. The next 3 GAs your will be matched partly on your past performance (your league).
Your proposal will lesser the importance of strategy, so I don't fancy it very much.
To the OPs point, this could be a viable solution to the divisions problem.
Keep divisions where they are, as they are really just there for prizes.
Sub divide in divisions based on the top 80, so now you have groups within divisions.
From each group you make matches based on top X(some other sub set).
I honestly dont see this changing much in the roster build strategy as you are still grouped with your top 80, but it may lead to more fair matches, that some do not see with the current very broad range setup.
Divisions were supposed to do this to some extent, but now as a majority approach Div 1, and top 80s become more similar, something like this could help.
If you put a top 5 inside the top 80, you give more importance to micro management and GAC specific decisions instead of roster building as a whole. For instance: the top 5 of my actual opponent range from 32.3k to 37.3 GP, no GLs. Rey R1 is worth 32.7k GP. So I could easily game the system, unlock GLs, don't gear them past R1 and have a decisive advantage, because I'll be in the same bracket as "no GLs players" and avoid the GL owners that didn't use this tactic. I can even have 4 of them and it won't matter, as long as I don't gear them all the way Considering the current state of the game (RPS meta), I'm not even sure you need a R7 GL to climb in arena. Having a Rock R1 and a Paper R1 may be enough to smash Scissors R7 and Rock R7.
Which brings me to my favorite subject regarding mm: I think the real issue is the GP value of Relics. They give too much GP.
But then your GL would not be eligible for the raid.
It would all be about choices. The rough tune of decisions is too rough for the "fine tune" of top 80.
I honestly have no problem with MM, but there are some who do, and others who have issues with Div 1. So I kind of saw a possibility here to resolve both.
That top 5 could also be a top 10-15 to make it harder to game in that way, and still server the same purpose.
As long as you don't cross a 35k-37k GP barrier, GLs you own are on par with not-GLs R7 characters. This system will make it actually easier to avoid facing GLs when you have GLs if you build your roster accordingly. So players who made previous choices of R7 "unnecessary" characters will pay a higher price, because correcting this decision will be much, much harder.
About R5 minimum for raid: R5 Rey is 36.5k GP. High, but not significantly higher than a non-GL R7.
I still think a lot of mm problems will be solved by tuning down the GP gain via Relics instead of changing mm.
Brought it back, and that makes sense, but does nothing for divisions, so we would still have that problem.
As many people say, and I believe also, MM isnt really the problem, it's a system we can work within to fine tune our development. And I certainly dont want a system that allows anyone to game it any more than they could, currently R1 vs R7 development would be seen as a bad choice, and keeping a GL at that level does have down sides, but I get it.
One point that has been brought up many times is that certain matches that are made, even when close, just seem "unfair" and if they could make that happen less, that would be interesting to the whole setup. I honestly think that would involve a much deeper change than anything we are discussing here.
I still don't understand the "division problem" you're refereing too. The only issue I see with divisions is the numbers of slots, because you should have more slots in D1 than D2 and nowadays, the upper tier of D1 has too many teams for the numbers of slots. It may be anecdotal, but when I crossed the D1 line i didn't see any difference in mm and I dont' see how it could be, except for a few sandbagging now and then but it seems too seldom too really be a problem.
It all depends of what people mean by "unfair". A better use of resources leading to a strategical advantage isn't "unfair" imo, that's the whole point of strategic decisions. It's fine by me if there are no "lethal errors" that you can't reverse (which is what I fear in the system described in this thread) and if it's not counter-intuitive, which would be "gaming the system" with my standards.
Not saying there are no problems, just that mm ain't one. However, sorry to sound like a broken record, but I really think GP gain via Relic is a major issue.(Major Issue!)
If you scroll through the roster of people complaining about unfair mm, it's almost always the same pattern: they R6-7'd a bunch of guys, usually much more than their "unfair" opponents. Let's look at my opponents in round 1 and 2. They had 41 and 42 relic'd characters, while I have 53. They overrelic'd them, I didn't, that gave me a decisive advantage. 12 more Relic'd characters is a lot and allows me an extra GL easily. If you would consider only top10-15, it won't change a thing, as I have very few R7 compared to them. And they can't change this. However, if you would tune down the GP gain via Relic level, this won't happened.
And you know what ? If Relics didn't bloat GP as much, I'm pretty sure more people would R5 characters to Challenge the Rancor.
And while top 80 will make some separation from the top to bottom of that range, there is actually a huge group that are within matching range, that really shouldn't be, because it can lead to a match that has a far more predictable outcome, than a fair match.
So an example would be you can have 3 players, 3 Gls, 2 GLs, and 1 GL, all as possible matches for each other (mathematically speaking) based on top 80. 1v3 is less fair than 1v2 or 2v3.
Fair is not about anything other than more even for better game play between the players. I agree some make better choices than others, but with the pool as big as it is, they could still make better matches without actually making it easier to harder for the players.
Based on what you mean by "fair", I understand your point. However, Division size won"t change anything, I really doesn't understand "players sentiments" here. For MM I disagree with "players sentiment", but for the Div thing influencing mm I just don't understand Oo On the contrary, a large number of players in the same divisions, however wide it can be, means it's more likely to face an opponent which top 80 is very close to yours, GP-wise. The more, the closer matchups.
These two players should absolutely not be in the same division on the same leaderboard.
This I get
And I'm all for a Galactic Division with the highest GP and more slots in this regards. More slots, more chances to face different teams each round, more fun.
I know that a lot of you watch your GP like a super model watches calories and while I can see the joy you take in the efficiency in your roster I would also like to see you be able to metaphorically pig out on you GP with out worrying that it will throw off your opponent assignment.
If grouped by upper divisions that are set every 1.5 mil (3-4.49) (4.5-5.99) (6-7.49) provide greater rewards for higher divisions to promote GP growth rather than GP starvation (make a loss at the next division worth more than a win in a lower division)
And then the top 5 matching that for the most part groups us by equality in our strongest leaders aka GLs this to me secures engaging fun content in GA. I know others will feel different they want to be the super model winning beauty contests at the county fair
Thank you all for your thoughts and contributions to this discussion
For whatever reason you still don't get that since you're matched by top-X GP it's not a question of "gearing minimum toons" - it's a question of gearing the right toons.
****, eaten by spam again. Tried to copy/paste but couldn't pass the filter. I'll try to give you the gist of it (Edit: ok, maybe more than the gist after all):
I understand that you enjoy tactics more than strategy. Totally valid, to each his own, no argument there.
Still, your top 5 idea won't solve your problem, as I tried to explained earlier. Actually it will probably make it worse. Allow me to quote myself: "the top 5 of my actual opponent range from 32.3k to 37.3 GP, no GLs. Rey R1 is worth 32.7k GP. So I could easily game the system, unlock GLs, don't gear them past R1 and have a decisive advantage, because I'll be in the same bracket as "no GLs players" and avoid the GL owners that didn't use this tactic".
About the supermodel thing. We, the Scrooge McGear clan, are stingy with gear, that's true. It helps keep our GP down, that's true. But it's not to avoid jumping Division. It doesn't matter which Division you are, only top 80 matters. I didn't see any difference in matchups since I jumped to D1. No, we're stingy because we only give gear where it will give us the most Return on Investment (For instance, g12 to g13 is a huge boost, more than R6 to R7 is most cases. I had a g12 Sith trooper that fitted his pretaunt purpose pretty well during the Sith Empire meta). Chosing the right character to gear and the right amount of gear to invest is a strategic decision and it's actually fun if you're into this kind of things (which you are not it seems, but again, to each his own ) Usually people who complains about matchups overgeared characters and it's a move than will punish them big time in GAC (on top of that, they can't correct it, they just have to gear more characters to even things out. And it could very well be a good move for other parts of the game). Let's me give you an example:
Luke and Leia have the same amount of resources at their disposal to gear up 2 teams.
Luke use his stash to R7 a team and G12 another.
Leia use her stash to R1 two teams.
Luke put his R7 on D. Leia, using clever modding and smart choices during battles, dispose of Luke's team with her R1.
Luke, even with clever modding, is outgunned with his G12 against R1 and can't pass Leia's team.
That's why we supermodels only gear when it's absolutely needed. It allows us to have more strong teams,
My 2 R1 = R7+G12 is based on GP cost. I think that's where there is room to make matchmaking "fairer", if people want it: changing the GP value of Relics level. But maybe I'm wrong and GP gain is spot on if you compared the resources needed to Relic a character.
I appreciate your strategic view point but I feel there is less room for manipulation in a top 5 average vs a top 80 total