Crap teams winning GAC Divisions Needs to stop

"shaun51422;c-2186796" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2185468" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185278" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185018" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185010" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184561" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2184489" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184292" wrote:
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?

The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.

The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.

The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.

Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.

They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.

Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division.

No thanx - for very obvious reasons:

1. This would result in far more uneven matches.
2. It would give players incentive to leave every unused character at lvl 1, g1 and put players who didn't at a significant disadvantage.

"shaun51422;c-2185278" wrote:

Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.

Did you check the title of your discussion? Or did you change your mind about it?

I didn't change my mind, I left out a word. *so that the weaker players 'don't' ONLY play other....

"shaun51422;c-2186796" wrote:

weighted - so maybe they have more matches against the other less powerful squads, but they can't duck the powerful squads completely. Or maybe after these players are 9-0 or 8-1 after the 1st 3 rounds it triggers something to bump them up?

"shaun51422;c-2186795" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185329" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185281" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185027" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185014" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2184671" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2184488" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2184294" wrote:

"shaun51422;d-237355" wrote:
I'm pretty new to the game at just under a year, so I understand it has all been said, but there is no excuse for the crap I see at the top of my GAC division. I am in Div 9 and I have not had an opponent that some of the top 10 would have any chance against. I understand the concept of matchmaking, but how can you give top spots and top rewards to players that have not developed a single good character, much less a single good team. I have not faced an opponent this time with less than 3 or 4 relics and I have seen over 10, yet the current #2 in the division has a best character as a Gear 11 Vader. I have not faced 1 opponent that roster with have any chance to beat. How can you try to improve when you see rosters so much worse than yours that are winning the GAC?

I have tried to develop so that I could compete in Arena, help my guild in TW/TB, and compete in GAC. I can't contribute a lot to a good guild right now, but at least I can somewhat help by picking up 3 or 4 wins. These crap teams are useless to a guild, useless in Arena, and if it were not for being put against only other otherwise useless rosters, then they would also be useless in GAC.

This is comparable to all of college football playing only in their conference and then saying the national champion is in the MAC because they did really well against the other MAC teams. I guess it can be considered a strategy if you researched the game a lot before starting that you can "succeed" by keeping your roster crap, but this just doesn't make any sense. You are rewarding being not good.

You mention the roster being crap but lack any details except that they don't have g12 or relics.

You mentioned vader but he is hardly a crap toon. In fact, he is probably one of the best characters in the game after his rework. So the statement about this guy only having crap toons is just false. He wouldn't be winning if he only had crap toons. The opposite is likely true. He likely has a very focused pvp roster but hasn't gotten to g12 or relics yet.

I'm sure your total gp is likely higher so you'll probably hit another division soon where your rewards will increase more sooner.

And on my alt account, I use vader under an ep lead we're with only the merciless zeta (it takes time to get more ftp). And with merciless massacre, I have beaten teams that have a relic character or two with a g10 vader as my strongest character. Mods make a huge difference. I knew how to farm mods early on and have a 274 speed thrawn so I can usually go first in that early of a shard. Between stuns, fracture, and fear from dark Bastilla, a fast ep team can hit above it's weight by quite a bit.

And on my main, I frequently use Vader to counter GLs in arena so he's definitely not useless.

I love Vader. I didn't mean Vader is crap, but he isn't going to have a chance against the high relics. He is my best character and at Relic 5. But a G11 Vader leading any team of of G11 and lower has 0 chance against the solid Relic 5-7 Padme or Bug teams I'm seeing that have good Mods as well.

Depends on mods. If a relic padme team is pretty slow, it is probably possible. The gear on thrawn doesn't matter that much since fracture still takes someone out of the battle temporarily. Ep can still mass stun at low gear with proper mods. Dark Bastilla still puts fear out at low gear.

All of th is can delay a relic team long enough for vader to one shot anakin and padme. At gear 11 he has enough offense to do so if he gets enough debuffs.

I have beaten padme teams with a g10 ep team in my arena even though they had some relics. It really comes down to mods. If they go quickly enough and get the stacks of courage and protection up, it doesn't work.

This is really a bit off topic at this point, but you are operating under the assumption that these high relic characters have very bad mods, which isn't the case. I can assure you that a set of mods that make a G11 Vader better than my R4 Vader do not exist.

I can assure you that people that play grand arena do in fact sometimes have teams modded worse than others. I also know from experience, that often when I am matched on my main account against opponents that have more relics, they often have worse mods.

It probably has to do with spending to get relics quicker often results in having a similar roster but less good mods.

But regardless of the reason, I have observed it often enough that it does happen.

And a set of mods to make a g10 vader beat an r4 vader absolutely exist. In fact it only relies on one stat. Speed. An r4 vader can't kill a g10 vader if he never goes. And with an ep team that is full g10 vs an ep team with an r4 vader, if thrawn in the lower gear team goes first and fracture vader, then the g10 vader can go and merciless the rest of the team. From there it is rather easy to keep the r4 vader locked down with stun, fear and ability block until you can kill him. And s g10 vader has ef enough offense to kill an r4 vader.

If you don't know that speed mods is often the deciding factor on teams that require a lot of control, then I'm not surprised that players that have lower gear characters are still doing better than you in grand arena.

I get all of that, but you are talking extreme cases there.

Not really. I see it in my arena shard on my alt all day long. My thrawn only needs 1 more speed than both their thrawn and vader (after bonuses) to make relics on an enemy vader meaningless.

I will choose a relic vader as an opponent any day vs one with merciless Zetaed that is too fast for me to control.

You are kind of at an extreme still. Unless your arena is very young, then nobody should be using a Vader without a Merciless Zeta.

"shaun51422;c-2186798" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2185473" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185257" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2185092" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185010" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184561" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2184489" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184292" wrote:
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?

The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.

The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.

The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.

Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.

Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?

Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.

Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.

If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.

I'm pretty sure I am defining "ability to put together decent teams" the same as having high matchmaking GP. I don't have the ability or desire to provide you "proof" of anything as that would require hacking into their program and showing you matchmaking algorithm.

"shaun51422;c-2186802" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185474" wrote:
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.

Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.

It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.

That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.

Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.

The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2186879" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2186802" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185474" wrote:
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.

Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.

It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.

That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.

Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.

The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.

I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).

But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.

"Waqui;c-2186831" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2186798" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2185473" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185257" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2185092" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185010" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184561" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2184489" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184292" wrote:
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?

The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.

The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.

The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.

Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.

Do you have any proof that they were matched by anything other than matchmaking GP, division and league? How does this matching by their ability to put together decent teams of 5 work?

Of course I don't have proof, but it's obvious to anyone that knows the game even a little and looks at the discrepancy in the players character level on the leader boards. And if it were totally random, then the odds of me playing 2 seasons in the same division and not facing an opponent with multiple high level characters would be 0.

Players are matched by matchmaking GP - not by "ability to put together decent teams". Players with weak rosters can still be matched with players with strong rosters from the same division and league as long as they have matching matchmaking GP.

If one day you find proof of matching by "ability to put together decent teams" feel free to post it here.

I'm pretty sure I am defining "ability to put together decent teams" the same as having high matchmaking GP.

It could be defined in many ways and your whole discussion about "crap teams" vs "decent teams" doesn't really suggest that you refer to matchmaking GP. Players with the same matchmaking GP can have very different "ability to put together decent teams". One player in your division 9 could have invested in g12 Empire and clones while their opponent could have invested in g12 Phoenix and jawa.

I hope you have a better understanding of how MM works and why you see the matches and leader boards you see.

"Waqui;c-2186837" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2186796" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2185468" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185278" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185018" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2185010" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184561" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2184489" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2184292" wrote:
Apparently they developed strong enough teams and tactics to gain top ranks. And you call their rosters useless?

The leader boards rank players by GAC score - not by roster strength. It's all it is. I wouldn't worry too much about how strong (or weak) the top ranking players' rosters are.

The point is that if they were going against the other good teams in the division they wouldn't win a match.

The point is that they were matched against players with similar matchmaking GP and won.

Exactly - they matched the teams that can't put together a decent team of 5 against other teams that can't put together a decent team of 5. They have the GP, so if they didn't use their resources well then they should have to deal with it.

They matched them to others that have a similar top 80 go (or top 60 or 40 or whatever for lower division). Ability to put teams together isn't taken into account fo rrc matchmaking.

Either way, that is my point. It should be random throughout the division.

No thanx - for very obvious reasons:

1. This would result in far more uneven matches.
2. It would give players incentive to leave every unused character at lvl 1, g1 and put players who didn't at a significant disadvantage.

"shaun51422;c-2185278" wrote:

Or at least some sort of weighted distribution so that the weaker players (aka "similar") only play other weaker players.

Did you check the title of your discussion? Or did you change your mind about it?

I didn't change my mind, I left out a word. *so that the weaker players 'don't' ONLY play other....

That little negation makes a significant difference. I can only comment on what you post - not on what you meant to post.

But ok:
As it is now weaker players DON'T only play other weak players. They play other players with matching division, league and matchmaking GP - disregarding whether they built a strong roster or a weak one. Some of them may have strong rosters - others may have weak ones.

"shaun51422;c-2186796" wrote:

weighted - so maybe they have more matches against the other less powerful squads, but they can't duck the powerful squads completely. Or maybe after these players are 9-0 or 8-1 after the 1st 3 rounds it triggers something to bump them up?

Isn't this what leagues are supposed to do? F.ex. if you end up in chromium league after the first GA in the second GA you will only be matched with other players who went 3-0 in their first GA. If you end up in bronzium after the first GA you can be matched with players who went 3-0 in the first GA as well as players who went 0-3.
The effect of leagues grows as you progress through the championship.

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2186879" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2186802" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185474" wrote:
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.

Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.

It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.

That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.

Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.

The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.

I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).

But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.

"Rath_Tarr;c-2186883" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2186879" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2186802" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185474" wrote:
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.

Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.

It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.

That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.

Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.

The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.

I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).

But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.

They actually started GA that way, before it evolved into GAC.

The problem with matching on total GP is that it encourages complete suppression of unnecessary roster development, far more so than anything we are seeing today, and it punishes those who star, level and gear the low end of their roster even though those toons are of absolutely no use in GA.

The general consensus on the forums after the shift to top {x} GP was that match quality improved.

"shaun51422;c-2187357" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2186883" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2186879" wrote:

"shaun51422;c-2186802" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2185474" wrote:
I think there may be an actual solution to this that doesn't break matchmaking. And since the op doesn't seem to understand how the system works let alone how to make it better, I'll throw out the possible solution for Discussion.

Basically we just need to redo the division placement to also be based on effective go with matchmaking rather than total gp. This would likely result in people who have vastly different rosters at the top being in different divisions.

It's a bit more complicated unfortunately since what determines effective gp varies based on your division. But it is something to consider since there are calls to rework the divisions anyway due to division 1 filling up.

That sounds like it would be more fair than it is now. Being that the only thing currently dividing the teams by division is GP, I think that is all that should really determine matchmaking - GP. Everyone at the same GP has had the same opportunity to develop their roster in whatever way they want - basically GP says that you have applied. If a player hasn't done that in a way that is effective for GAC, then so be it. Keep in mind that the players developing only very few characters at a very high level could also find themselves in a bad position when they need more defensive slots in higher divisions, so then that is something they should have to deal with.

Maybe a good solution would be to have a "B" league within at least the lower divisions for players without well developed characters. They could have easier competition, but would have a smaller prize pool as well. And if they wanted to, then they could opt into the "A" league, but then they would get randomized into the competition
Like someone pointed out early in this thread, if you are just matched up against teams that they feel are of equal competition, then what is the point of having a division at all? It really doesn't make sense.

The Division one problem seems like a really easy solution - add another division tier at the top. I'm to far away to even care what it is, but if it is "over 3M GP", then I'm sure that was fine when they made it and the top players had maybe 4 or 5M. But as the top players get more powerful, then there is more separation of GP.

I agree with you that matchmaking on total gp is fine. And it may solve the issue you have (at least in some cases those at the low end of a division would still face those at the low end).

But they actually started gac that way when it first launched and they changed it because of complaining of unfair matchmaking. So it is really unlikely they will change it back.

They actually started GA that way, before it evolved into GAC.

The problem with matching on total GP is that it encourages complete suppression of unnecessary roster development, far more so than anything we are seeing today, and it punishes those who star, level and gear the low end of their roster even though those toons are of absolutely no use in GA.

The general consensus on the forums after the shift to top {x} GP was that match quality improved.

But shouldn't that be right? Using your limited resources on "toons with toons are of absolutely no use" seems like it should be good strategy. This is a strategy game. I'd like to have a good Jawa team just to deal with bugs, but at this point in my progress that just isn't a good use of my resources. Shouldn't good use of resources be rewarded? Why would anyone want to level and gear toons that are of no use in GA? If they are not of use in GA, then they are of no use in squad Arena or TW/TB, so it seems that you wouldn't be playing very well from a strategy standpoint.