So I was excited that the GA matchup algorithm was going to be improved. I was also excited for GAC to start (correctly this time). The I go into my first round matchup...
The person I am against in round 1 has 220k more character GP than me (2.882 million to 2.661 million). Has a 7*, g12+5 Malak (I don't have Malak at all). Mod-wise he has:
68 15+speed mods to my 36. 57 100+offense mods to my 26.
This is not an improvement. This is far worse than any matchup I have ever faced in any previous GA. It's not better - it's worse. Please fix the game mode - especially if this is going to be the long term "dominant" mode to replace arena.
The new algorithm is simply faulty also. In my grouping, the top guy is division 1, and has 300k more gp than the lowest guy. Top guy has fully developed Malek, bottom guy doesn't have him at all. This is a mess. And for those out there that like to rely on the various bots, those are very flawed as well and pull incorrect data on a regular basis. To look at the true picture, you have to look at the rosters.
Matching players based on the gp of say their tol 30 toons is still terrible. A player with no Revans, could still have a similar go with their top 30 toons, as a player with both Revans and Malek. They did nothing that improved matchmaking.
If, however, MM algorithm is based purely on actual player performance, this allows you don't care about it and develop roster purely around building better squads, counters, etc., as it should be imo.
There's something logically wrong with this paragraph. It's impossible for matchmaking to be purely based on actual player performance, but also allows you to build better squads, counters, etc etc.
It's definitely possible and actually exists in many games. All that you need is some form of permanent PvP rating like Elo or equivalents. Of course you will need some starting point for initial setup, and for this GP is as good as any other sane parameter which allows to approximate power. After initial setup the system will begin to balance itself, and the more games people will play, the less their rating will be affected by anything but actual PvP performance. The only question is "how many games we need before people will get more or less stable rating" but it requires simulation and testing.
Now let's see how different manipulations with roster will affect your matchmaking.
1. Let's assume you are not improving your roster for some time. People who do it will become more powerful but their rating still the same. You begin to lose more often and your rating will fall, as it should be. 2. Let's assume you want to raise some toon to G13 just for collection. If you have limited resources and do it instead of raising some useful toon - see before. People who do something useful for PvP will get advantage, as it should be. But if you just buy this toon and gear - you are not punished but neither get advantage. Again, as it should be. 3. Let's assume you are direct your resources into improving your roster specifically for PvP. Your are pursuing meta, developing counter squads, etc. If you do this better than other players - you will climb higher. If you do it worse - see before, you will fall. Again, as it should be. 4. Let's assume you want to try sandbagging. Well, it just completely impossible. If you will make your roster weaker in any way you still will face same players but with worse roster - it may or may not affect you in bad way but you won't get advantage.
GAC system with climbing into higher leagues may, in theory, produce something similar in long run... IF there were more leagues, movement between leagues in both ways instead climbing only, and no reset of player position with new championship. Sadly currently it's nothing like this.
Okay, it seems like i misunderstood what you meant by "player performance". What you're proposing is basically just a ladder system in which your roster is the main determining factor. You may be able to compensate a little by being a better player, but not by a lot. Better player as in better at anything non-roster related like strategy, with which team you attack, battle skill etc. Basically the things a lot of players think should be the sole determining factor in winning GA; player skill.
Personally i do like my roster to matter o a certain degree because resource management is a large part of this game and one of the aspects i enjoy most. And also because i want to win more than i lose and having the latest and greatest as well as solid counter teams is my main competative advantage, haha.
As a side effect it will also result in a winrate of 50% across the board except for at the very top and very bottom.
"TVF;c-1898255" wrote: People will never, ever be happy. This is an extremely silly place, but not in a good way.
True, but you're on this forum more than anyone. Are there more matchup complaints now than previous GA's? I'd claim yes.
I guess you don't remember when GA was first launched. Or TW for that matter.
This is exactly the same as every single time there's new content.
Correct, but it tapered off. However, we have a new influx of people previously okay with GA matchups now displeased, which indicates a problem.
Previously flocking ones since the beginning of GA also indicated a problem, yet were constantly getting shut down by certain portion of the community which the MM was to their benefit.
Maybe we are making false assumptions. I've read people claiming discrepancies of 800,000 GP in the 3.5 to 4.5 mill GP ranges. Perhaps the devs have data that show the average 3.5 mill GP player isn't that awesomely different than a 4.5 mill player in terms of roster quality.
Just a thought. We often think these things extrapolate linearly and they may not after all. Not saying any certainties here other than the devs are the ones with the data. I lost my 1st round, am winning my 2nd by the skin of my scrotum.
"Mephisto_style;c-1901812" wrote: Maybe we are making false assumptions. I've read people claiming discrepancies of 800,000 GP in the 3.5 to 4.5 mill GP ranges. Perhaps the devs have data that show the average 3.5 mill GP player isn't that awesomely different than a 4.5 mill player in terms of roster quality.
Just a thought. We often think these things extrapolate linearly and they may not after all. Not saying any certainties here other than the devs are the ones with the data. I lost my 1st round, am winning my 2nd by the skin of my scrotum.
I made a rough calculation sometime ago how much fluff I had, the figure was 1.28M GP. And now I'm at 4.78M GP, just reset that part, you get a 3.5M GP roster where everything functional is the same...just less room to move mods xD.
