GAC matchmaking system

Replies

  • Waqui
    8551 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    You could argue that both MM designs were fair. However, the current system creates significantly more even matches and doesn't disincentivise building the lower part of your roster like the old design did.

    This. Both systems are fine. There are arguments for either. There are people who will do better under one than another.

    [...]

    I would also be ok with it if they mixed up the matchmaking every so often. Have one gac based on total gp and another based on top 80. Maybe alternate. It's like playing monopoly with extra money one game and without the next. Some people will do better one way and others will do better another way.

    I wouldn't say that both systems are fine - just that you could argue that both are fair.

    I prefer the current system by far. The more even matches are more fun - yet they are not so even that it becomes 12 mirror matches every championship (which would be really boring). With the current system there is a good balance between evenness and the impact of your roster management.

    I also like that the lower part of your roster is removed from the equation. This way you can gear up characters to complete those themed feats (or simply because you like the characters and want to play them) without being weighed down by that fluff GP in future MM.

    My personal win rate remained more or less the same after the new system was introduced along with championships. However, with the old system if I had the advantage in a round I often only fought just enough battles to win the round (and left the remaining defenses standing). If I had a clear disadvantage I often only fought the strongest team(s) and if I failed (and the round was lost) I stopped attacking. I didn't care much about clearing rounds. I only cared about winning the rounds. That also changed with the introduction of championships.

    So again:
    I wouldn't say that both systems are fine. I prefer the current system by far.
  • LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    How many of your characters outside of top 80 are actually useful? How many would do better if you actually had them at higher gear? Doubtful that having a g12-g13 Phoenix squad over a g8-g11 one allows you to have the flexibility of placing more meta squads.
  • LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    How many of your characters outside of top 80 are actually useful? How many would do better if you actually had them at higher gear? Doubtful that having a g12-g13 Phoenix squad over a g8-g11 one allows you to have the flexibility of placing more meta squads.

    High roster have a lot of good G12 (and G13) teams not top ranked.
  • LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    How many of your characters outside of top 80 are actually useful? How many would do better if you actually had them at higher gear? Doubtful that having a g12-g13 Phoenix squad over a g8-g11 one allows you to have the flexibility of placing more meta squads.

    High roster have a lot of good G12 (and G13) teams not top ranked.
    At what level are you talking about?

    I’m 6.6M GP, and I’ve got next to nothing outside my top 80 that gets used.
  • LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    How many of your characters outside of top 80 are actually useful? How many would do better if you actually had them at higher gear? Doubtful that having a g12-g13 Phoenix squad over a g8-g11 one allows you to have the flexibility of placing more meta squads.

    High roster have a lot of good G12 (and G13) teams not top ranked.
    At what level are you talking about?

    I’m 6.6M GP, and I’ve got next to nothing outside my top 80 that gets used.

    6.5m, lots of things that get used, lemme count. To be fair, I'll divide it in 2. Firstly the ones that absolutely get used: 14. Lastly the ones that can get used if needed for repeats: 12. Relics in top 80 that don't ever get used and even got demodded: 8
  • LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    How many of your characters outside of top 80 are actually useful? How many would do better if you actually had them at higher gear? Doubtful that having a g12-g13 Phoenix squad over a g8-g11 one allows you to have the flexibility of placing more meta squads.

    High roster have a lot of good G12 (and G13) teams not top ranked.
    And most people playing in those leagues already realized total GP makes little to no difference.

    Are you trying to create a non-existent problem based on what you imagine other people struggle with (hint: they don't, when g13 falls out of your top 80, you usually have a good enough roster to not rely on your below B/C-tier teams) or you actually ended up burning through all your roster wishing you had another g11/12 team (that's not in top 80)?
  • Waqui
    8551 posts Member
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    How many of your characters outside of top 80 are actually useful? How many would do better if you actually had them at higher gear? Doubtful that having a g12-g13 Phoenix squad over a g8-g11 one allows you to have the flexibility of placing more meta squads.

    High roster have a lot of good G12 (and G13) teams not top ranked.

    My experience from checking GAC histories is that they don't use all those extra g12/g13 teams they may have access to to win rounds but they rather use more or less the same teams/characters with only little variation round after round to win. You could check your own GAC history to see if it's the same for you.
  • TVF
    30979 posts Member
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    How many of your characters outside of top 80 are actually useful? How many would do better if you actually had them at higher gear? Doubtful that having a g12-g13 Phoenix squad over a g8-g11 one allows you to have the flexibility of placing more meta squads.

    High roster have a lot of good G12 (and G13) teams not top ranked.
    At what level are you talking about?

    I’m 6.6M GP, and I’ve got next to nothing outside my top 80 that gets used.

    At 5.8m gp I use Sun Fac, Dengar, Geo Spy, Death Trooper, IG-100, Vet Han, L3, Poggle, TFP, Cad Bane, IG-88 (sometimes - GG nuke), Geo Soldier, Darth Nih, NS Spirt, HR Scout, NS Acolyte, Nest, Shoretrooper, Starck, Snowtrooper, Range Trooper, CwC.

    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    The more characters you use, the less likely you are to win.
  • TVF
    30979 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    For what reason? It is definitely fairer now.

    Not agree, higher GP player have a lot of teams than can use to attack and put the best one in defence. You can use more than 80 teams during a GA match.
    The more characters you use, the less likely you are to win.

    Well ultimately yes, but I showed I use a bunch outside of my top 80 and I win almost all my matchups.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • The overall point stands. Whether it's the top 80 or not, you are probably losing that match, if you are using more than 80. And it wouldn't be logical to expect any mm to be made on -toons that I preferably use-.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    You could argue that both MM designs were fair. However, the current system creates significantly more even matches and doesn't disincentivise building the lower part of your roster like the old design did.

    This. Both systems are fine. There are arguments for either. There are people who will do better under one than another.

    But as in any game, fairness is determined more by the rules applying equally to everyone. And under either matchmaking system, they do. So they are fair.

    It's like creating house rules in monopoly. A whole assortment of different rules can be fair as long as they apply equally to all players.

    Unfortunately adding GAC was like staring a monopoly game with whatever money you had. No set of rules at that point will be perfect. But any set of uniform rules that base matchmaking on resources put into the game are fair.

    One idea for another matchmaking system that would be interesting to see if they could somehow measure resources collected and base matchmaking on that rather than resources used. It would be similar to the original gp matchmaking except it would include hoarded Crystal's and gear at the rate it raises gp. Basically it wouldn't matter whether you gear the low end or hoard because matchmaking would treat both equally.

    Probably not feasible but it would be interesting.

    I would also be ok with it if they mixed up the matchmaking every so often. Have one gac based on total gp and another based on top 80. Maybe alternate. It's like playing monopoly with extra money one game and without the next. Some people will do better one way and others will do better another way.
    I don’t know if I agree that both systems are fine.

    Kyno mentioned it above - if we match on total GP then people are forced to live with the consequences of every single item of gear, zeta, level that they’ve applied to any toon or ship in their roster. There is nothing anyone can do to rectify mistakes, or to rectify what was originally a perfectly valid strategy of gearing / levelling everything.

    That’s what made that system worse than the current one. At least now you can do something to manipulate your matchmaking GP positively over time.

    Your opponents are in the same boat so it is still fair. I'm not saying it is inherently better than what it is now. Just that it isn't unfair.

    And after awhile your GP at the top becomes high enough that the sea of g8 characters at the bottom of your roster becomes a very small portion of your gp. I doubt that tb fluff would play much of a role in a division one matchmaking (assuming you stopped gearing useless characters when gac became a thing). The characters you have to relic to get a GL put a much heavier anchor on your roster than a bunch of g8. And that happens under the current system as well.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    You could argue that both MM designs were fair. However, the current system creates significantly more even matches and doesn't disincentivise building the lower part of your roster like the old design did.

    This. Both systems are fine. There are arguments for either. There are people who will do better under one than another.

    But as in any game, fairness is determined more by the rules applying equally to everyone. And under either matchmaking system, they do. So they are fair.

    It's like creating house rules in monopoly. A whole assortment of different rules can be fair as long as they apply equally to all players.

    Unfortunately adding GAC was like staring a monopoly game with whatever money you had. No set of rules at that point will be perfect. But any set of uniform rules that base matchmaking on resources put into the game are fair.

    One idea for another matchmaking system that would be interesting to see if they could somehow measure resources collected and base matchmaking on that rather than resources used. It would be similar to the original gp matchmaking except it would include hoarded Crystal's and gear at the rate it raises gp. Basically it wouldn't matter whether you gear the low end or hoard because matchmaking would treat both equally.

    Probably not feasible but it would be interesting.

    I would also be ok with it if they mixed up the matchmaking every so often. Have one gac based on total gp and another based on top 80. Maybe alternate. It's like playing monopoly with extra money one game and without the next. Some people will do better one way and others will do better another way.
    I don’t know if I agree that both systems are fine.

    Kyno mentioned it above - if we match on total GP then people are forced to live with the consequences of every single item of gear, zeta, level that they’ve applied to any toon or ship in their roster. There is nothing anyone can do to rectify mistakes, or to rectify what was originally a perfectly valid strategy of gearing / levelling everything.

    That’s what made that system worse than the current one. At least now you can do something to manipulate your matchmaking GP positively over time.

    Your opponents are in the same boat so it is still fair. I'm not saying it is inherently better than what it is now. Just that it isn't unfair.

    And after awhile your GP at the top becomes high enough that the sea of g8 characters at the bottom of your roster becomes a very small portion of your gp. I doubt that tb fluff would play much of a role in a division one matchmaking (assuming you stopped gearing useless characters when gac became a thing). The characters you have to relic to get a GL put a much heavier anchor on your roster than a bunch of g8. And that happens under the current system as well.

    At the time GA was done with, the fluff in my roster was worth 1.2m gp (and my total at 4.4m). So it's not true in the least that -it wouldn't matter-. They are not equally fair whatsoever.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LastNeuron wrote: »
    Agree, original GP MM was fair than this one, sure for 3v3

    You could argue that both MM designs were fair. However, the current system creates significantly more even matches and doesn't disincentivise building the lower part of your roster like the old design did.

    This. Both systems are fine. There are arguments for either. There are people who will do better under one than another.

    But as in any game, fairness is determined more by the rules applying equally to everyone. And under either matchmaking system, they do. So they are fair.

    It's like creating house rules in monopoly. A whole assortment of different rules can be fair as long as they apply equally to all players.

    Unfortunately adding GAC was like staring a monopoly game with whatever money you had. No set of rules at that point will be perfect. But any set of uniform rules that base matchmaking on resources put into the game are fair.

    One idea for another matchmaking system that would be interesting to see if they could somehow measure resources collected and base matchmaking on that rather than resources used. It would be similar to the original gp matchmaking except it would include hoarded Crystal's and gear at the rate it raises gp. Basically it wouldn't matter whether you gear the low end or hoard because matchmaking would treat both equally.

    Probably not feasible but it would be interesting.

    I would also be ok with it if they mixed up the matchmaking every so often. Have one gac based on total gp and another based on top 80. Maybe alternate. It's like playing monopoly with extra money one game and without the next. Some people will do better one way and others will do better another way.
    I don’t know if I agree that both systems are fine.

    Kyno mentioned it above - if we match on total GP then people are forced to live with the consequences of every single item of gear, zeta, level that they’ve applied to any toon or ship in their roster. There is nothing anyone can do to rectify mistakes, or to rectify what was originally a perfectly valid strategy of gearing / levelling everything.

    That’s what made that system worse than the current one. At least now you can do something to manipulate your matchmaking GP positively over time.

    Your opponents are in the same boat so it is still fair. I'm not saying it is inherently better than what it is now. Just that it isn't unfair.

    And after awhile your GP at the top becomes high enough that the sea of g8 characters at the bottom of your roster becomes a very small portion of your gp. I doubt that tb fluff would play much of a role in a division one matchmaking (assuming you stopped gearing useless characters when gac became a thing). The characters you have to relic to get a GL put a much heavier anchor on your roster than a bunch of g8. And that happens under the current system as well.

    I’ll partially agree with that.

    The bit I have issue with is opponents being in the same boat. In the early GA days, the forums were awash with matchmaking complaints from people who did have a huge amount of fluff at the bottom of their roster being matched with people with 30+ g1 level 1 toons. Maybe those guys were newer players who knew that this was now advantageous roster management, or maybe they just didn’t fluff their roster, but either way these people weren’t in the same boat.

    That’s the bit I think was unfair. Some people had roster fluff and could do nothing about removing it. Others had lean fluff-free rosters and remained in control of their matchmaking GP.

    Of course this was less and less of an issue the higher up the food chain you went, as you suggest
  • MetaThumper
    496 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    2 GLs? Pfff hold my drink hahaha.s3wr0l38bdga.png

  • Saada
    586 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    2 GLs? Pfff hold my drink hahaha.s3wr0l38bdga.png

    I've had someone with 3 in my group but I at least have one lol. The 20 extra zetas must make up the gp difference and that's another issue with mm.
  • TVF
    30979 posts Member
    It's an issue with roster construction.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF
    30979 posts Member
    Oh hey I used to be in a guild with your opp. He was very smart with his roster. Looks like he still is.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    It's an issue with roster construction.
    Indeed. Takes a lot of GP bloat to get matched up with 3 GL & 1 JKLS worth of reliced toons when you have none of them.
  • furyousgeorge74
    13 posts Member
    edited June 2
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?
    Post edited by furyousgeorge74 on
  • Wimma
    152 posts Member
    Some interesting suggestions there.
    For me, I don't think using mod stats (eg speed) is a good way to measure effectivness - selecting mods is part of the decision making, so you choose whatever works for you best. I do like the idea of opening up the back though. Typically when someone has a massive team (eg a GL advantage) they plonk it on the front line with crap at the back, so even if you could smack down all bar 1 team, you miss a lot of points. Some will argue that's strategy, but I guess it is a big advantage when one player has a GL advantage.
    GLs in general seem GP balanced in 5v5 to me, as there are counters, or multi-attack solutions, but it becomes far less balanced in 3v3, where GLs (in my opinion) are worth far more.
    I don't agree using accumulated GAC score in MM, as you end up with the better players fighting each other for essentially the same rewards. If you want to go that way, rewards need to scale appropriately, and likely no-one would agree how that would be fair.
    I'm glad they got rid of the original GP MM, as that discouraged players from building up their rosters, which seemed to me to go completely against the idea of the game. Top X seems to work much better in my view, so you can either focus on your GAC teams, or collect those crappy teams you like, but aren't really that helpful, and not be penalised for it.
    Looking forward to seeing the GAC changes in the next 5v5 anyway.

  • RandomSithLord
    2325 posts Member
    edited June 2
    Any of those suggestions would make GAC worse, not better.

    1. Building your roster is part of the strategy. GP is a good measure because it's a metric of resources invested, it's perfectly fine to not be tailored for individual toons. If somebody decided to r7 Tuskens while someone else gave those 3 r7 mats to an actual meta team, the second player rightfully deserves an advantage.

    2. Secondary stats like mods should not be included, everyone is responsible for building their own roster and farm a mod depth proportional to their GP. If someone at 7-8m is still sitting on 20-30 mods above 20 speed, they shouldn't wait for matchmaking to fix their problems.

    (3.) If you can't clear a zone, there is no reason to open up the zone behind it. Blocking a portion of the board is a viable strategy, if you can't clear a front wall, you shouldn't even have a remote chance to win.

    GAC is a competitive game mode by its nature. It shouldn't be adjusted to be more in favor of the casual PvP players instead of those who actually put in that little extra effort to build their roster for it.
  • Starslayer
    1301 posts Member
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.
  • Waqui
    8551 posts Member
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage.[...]

    The latter would:
    A. Remove the incentive to build a strong roster since however you build it you will be matched with similar rosters.
    B. Make GAC a boring set of 12 mirror-rounds every championship.



  • Waqui
    8551 posts Member
    [...] Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage.

    [...]

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC.

    This other tweak you suggest takes away a tactical aspect of the round which works against your intent when you suggest to make a more "sophisticated" MM algorithm to have more even matches and prioritize the tactics within each round.

  • I’ll be completely honest most of the time for GAC I just auto deploy. It was incredibly fun at the start but now it’s just something I join for whatever rewards come my way
  • Kyno
    31563 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.
  • Any of those suggestions would make GAC worse, not better.

    1. Building your roster is part of the strategy. GP is a good measure because it's a metric of resources invested, it's perfectly fine to not be tailored for individual toons. If somebody decided to r7 Tuskens while someone else gave those 3 r7 mats to an actual meta team, the second player rightfully deserves an advantage.

    You obviously didn't read my post - I mentioned one aspect of game - GAC - focusing more on the battles and toon choices for each battle. Every other part of the game can focus on roster strategy. The more a game can use variety, the better it is, by definition.

    3. Secondary stats like mods should not be included, everyone is responsible for building their own roster and farm a mod depth proportional to their GP. If someone at 7-8m is still sitting on 20-30 mods above 20 speed, they shouldn't wait for matchmaking to fix their problems.

    I agree with this, I just don't know if mods are used in the current calculation. I was asking as a question.

    (3.) If you can't clear a zone, there is no reason to open up the zone behind it. Blocking a portion of the board is a viable strategy, if you can't clear a front wall, you shouldn't even have a remote chance to win.

    It's viable because you say its viable? This an opinion. You state it like it's a fact.

    GAC is a competitive game mode by its nature. It shouldn't be adjusted to be more in favor of the casual PvP players instead of those who actually put in that little extra effort to build their roster for it.

    Again you assume that this was my angle, when it wasn't. All my suggestions are based on game design to engage the most players and to focus rewards based on a variety of decision-making scenarios. If the entire game is based on roster design, that is more limited than one that is based on roster design AND other factors. With roster design as the main strategy, this actually leads to more sameness in the game, since everyone is chasing the same characters. If it was more balanced with other factors other than roster design, different rosters would be competitive and this would lead to less sameness.

  • Kyno
    31563 posts Moderator
    Any of those suggestions would make GAC worse, not better.

    1. Building your roster is part of the strategy. GP is a good measure because it's a metric of resources invested, it's perfectly fine to not be tailored for individual toons. If somebody decided to r7 Tuskens while someone else gave those 3 r7 mats to an actual meta team, the second player rightfully deserves an advantage.

    You obviously didn't read my post - I mentioned one aspect of game - GAC - focusing more on the battles and toon choices for each battle. Every other part of the game can focus on roster strategy. The more a game can use variety, the better it is, by definition.

    3. Secondary stats like mods should not be included, everyone is responsible for building their own roster and farm a mod depth proportional to their GP. If someone at 7-8m is still sitting on 20-30 mods above 20 speed, they shouldn't wait for matchmaking to fix their problems.

    I agree with this, I just don't know if mods are used in the current calculation. I was asking as a question.

    (3.) If you can't clear a zone, there is no reason to open up the zone behind it. Blocking a portion of the board is a viable strategy, if you can't clear a front wall, you shouldn't even have a remote chance to win.

    It's viable because you say its viable? This an opinion. You state it like it's a fact.

    GAC is a competitive game mode by its nature. It shouldn't be adjusted to be more in favor of the casual PvP players instead of those who actually put in that little extra effort to build their roster for it.

    Again you assume that this was my angle, when it wasn't. All my suggestions are based on game design to engage the most players and to focus rewards based on a variety of decision-making scenarios. If the entire game is based on roster design, that is more limited than one that is based on roster design AND other factors. With roster design as the main strategy, this actually leads to more sameness in the game, since everyone is chasing the same characters. If it was more balanced with other factors other than roster design, different rosters would be competitive and this would lead to less sameness.

    This is a META driven game, and that also produces sameness across rosters.

    More balance and less "drive" driven development, means more people can compete without good planning and focus on a development strategy. That would seem to lead down the road of sameness, as the quickest and easiest to get that is "on par" would be the immediate goals. This doesnt reward players who have planned and worked out the plan over a period of time. That seems like a bad way to change the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.