AP Gains’ solution to GAC matchmaking…
… is great. His solution is to allow relatively lower-tiered GP accounts to advance to higher brackets through wins, but disable relatively large-tiered GP accounts from falling below a certain bra...
Forum Discussion
"Kathark;c-2342815" wrote:
Ok perhaps the Yankees metaphor breaks down. Let’s get finer with our gradations. To a little league team the functional difference between the local high school team and the Yankees is moot. If my OP is 2x better equipped or 100x is irrelevant, my chance of winning if they play is 0. My solution works in either case though. I maintain that the only way the high school team ends up in my pool is sandbagging. Kick out the sandbaggers. I looked at the top 10 of my division and they actually have rosters that look like mine. This means there are a bunch of overpowered players bumming around the little leagues, playing now and again but mostly forfeiting, floating around the middle of the pack. Boot them. Let the rest of us play against our peers.
It's easy to come up with a concept for a fix. The hard part is to come up with some quantified criteria and a complete algorithm that would cause as few side effects as possible.
For example, it's easy to say "well my opponent has 3m GP and 2 GLs on me, so they are obviously overpowered and we should never have been matched." But how do you teach a program to decide that a roster is "overpowered" compared to others around it? You would have to come up with some kind of quantified rules. Once you start doing that, you'll soon realize that we are back in the match-by-gp hell, where people will always find new grounds to complain no matter how deep your algorithm looks into their rosters - "we have the same GP but my opponent has 1 more GL!", "we have the same number of GLs but my opponent has JMK which beats my SLKR!", so on so forth.
It's also easy to say "let's boot the sandbaggers," but what exactly is the pattern for a sandbagger? Plays one match and forfeits every other two? Or gives up one whole event but plays the next one? And what exactly does "boot" do here? Ban them? You can't ban people just because they didn't play all the GAC matches. Prevent them from signing up for the next match? Well that's just the same effect as them forfeiting. Reduce their rewards? That's kind of what the current system already does.
