"BenQuadinaros;c-2134513" wrote:
Can anyone confirm you need Vader in the lead or not?
\"kaisercdk;c-1898280\" wrote:
If GP is not the only criteria for matchmaking, should it be the criteria for deciding who wins in a tie?
\"kaisercdk;c-1898280\" wrote:
If GP is not the only criteria for matchmaking, should it be the criteria for deciding who wins in a tie?
\"Bulldog1205;c-1898288\" wrote:\"kaisercdk;c-1898280\" wrote:
If GP is not the only criteria for matchmaking, should it be the criteria for deciding who wins in a tie?
I don’t think it should have ever been a tie break, but an interesting question is what is the tiebreak now? I assume the current listed order is done by the tiebreak, since everyone has 0 wins, and it’s not GP. Is it this GP of Top 80 characters?
\"Bulldog1205;c-1898288\" wrote:\"kaisercdk;c-1898280\" wrote:
If GP is not the only criteria for matchmaking, should it be the criteria for deciding who wins in a tie?
I don’t think it should have ever been a tie break, but an interesting question is what is the tiebreak now? I assume the current listed order is done by the tiebreak, since everyone has 0 wins, and it’s not GP. Is it this GP of Top 80 characters?
\"dcbfan;c-1898382\" wrote:
Although I'm disadvantaged in my GAC, most of the players are similar. All of them have both revan, I have JR. 6 of them have traya, i dont. All are in the top 50 in arena, I'm at 75. This isnt really fair, but im going to make the best of it. I will just set my lowest characters on defense as to not give them any satisfaction, plus I will still get last place rewards. If I knew for sure it would work I would only set 1 team on defense. Either way you look at it, you may not be the best in this GAC. Maybe next GAC you will be in a better position. You still get rewards either way. Quit complaining and earn your place in your group. Besides because of my wide roster I'm in better position for TB's.
\"dcbfan;c-1898382\" wrote:
Although I'm disadvantaged in my GAC, most of the players are similar. All of them have both revan, I have JR. 6 of them have traya, i dont. All are in the top 50 in arena, I'm at 75. This isnt really fair, but im going to make the best of it. I will just set my lowest characters on defense as to not give them any satisfaction, plus I will still get last place rewards. If I knew for sure it would work I would only set 1 team on defense. Either way you look at it, you may not be the best in this GAC. Maybe next GAC you will be in a better position. You still get rewards either way. Quit complaining and earn your place in your group. Besides because of my wide roster I'm in better position for TB's.
\"dcbfan;c-1898402\" wrote:\"CCyrilS;c-1898387\" wrote:\"dcbfan;c-1898382\" wrote:
Although I'm disadvantaged in my GAC, most of the players are similar. All of them have both revan, I have JR. 6 of them have traya, i dont. All are in the top 50 in arena, I'm at 75. This isnt really fair, but im going to make the best of it. I will just set my lowest characters on defense as to not give them any satisfaction, plus I will still get last place rewards. If I knew for sure it would work I would only set 1 team on defense. Either way you look at it, you may not be the best in this GAC. Maybe next GAC you will be in a better position. You still get rewards either way. Quit complaining and earn your place in your group. Besides because of my wide roster I'm in better position for TB's.
What is it with ppl not wanting to \"give them the satisfaction\"?
First, why do you blame them for being better than you?
And why do you think they care? I'm sure they appreciate the time you're saving them. I know I would.
I hope you get matched up with me at some point in time. Mixed up teams and 1 shooting character may save time but not exactly fun or challenging. Either way eventually the match ups will go in your favor. That's the true point!
\"dcbfan;c-1898402\" wrote:\"CCyrilS;c-1898387\" wrote:\"dcbfan;c-1898382\" wrote:
Although I'm disadvantaged in my GAC, most of the players are similar. All of them have both revan, I have JR. 6 of them have traya, i dont. All are in the top 50 in arena, I'm at 75. This isnt really fair, but im going to make the best of it. I will just set my lowest characters on defense as to not give them any satisfaction, plus I will still get last place rewards. If I knew for sure it would work I would only set 1 team on defense. Either way you look at it, you may not be the best in this GAC. Maybe next GAC you will be in a better position. You still get rewards either way. Quit complaining and earn your place in your group. Besides because of my wide roster I'm in better position for TB's.
What is it with ppl not wanting to \"give them the satisfaction\"?
First, why do you blame them for being better than you?
And why do you think they care? I'm sure they appreciate the time you're saving them. I know I would.
I hope you get matched up with me at some point in time. Mixed up teams and 1 shooting character may save time but not exactly fun or challenging. Either way eventually the match ups will go in your favor. That's the true point!
\"Nikoms565;c-1898246\" wrote:\"Bulldog1205;c-1898232\" wrote:\"Nikoms565;c-1898227\" wrote:\"Bulldog1205;c-1898216\" wrote:\"Nikoms565;c-1898208\" wrote:\"swgohfan29;c-1898017\" wrote:
2 of us have both revans. 2 have none.\"TVF;c-1898111\" wrote:
What's the problem exactly?
I'll type nice and slow, so you'll understand...
From the GAC match-up rework post from Crumb.... \"they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them.\"
Now look at the bolded from the post you quoted. I'll wait. You'll see it eventually.
I wouldn't consider having the two characters that have been meta for the past 6+ months, while others have neither to be\" looking like them. \"
I disagree with your fundamental complaint that the characters should be the same or similar. But even we accept that as a flaw, how does it make it worse than it was before? The matchmaking process has never factored that in. The only change we have identified is that it previously counted your entire character GP, and now it only counts the GP of the top X number of toons. If you want to argue it's worse, it has to be based around that change. I'd argue that they need to expand that number slightly (I'd suggest diminishing returns as you go past X), but I still can't see how this is worse.
First off, the fact that you disagree with what CG has clearly stated the intent of the matchmaking GAC rework was to accomplish is irrelevant.
And no one has indentified anything. There are a few theories that don't seem consistent when applied across the larger number of cases.
To this point, CG has maintained radio silence as to what the issue is....or if they even think there is one.
If you can't see how 2 of 8 having both Revans while 2 others in the same group, competing for the same rewards, have neither, doesn't seem to be fair match-up, or worse than previous iterations of GA, I really can't help you.
It’s not really speculation. They say so right in Grand Arena, and it’s been pretty consistent from the examples we’ve seen.
CG never said they wanted only people with similar meta toons to face each other. You keep quoting that everywhere but are adding your own meaning to it.
I apologize in advance if English isn't your primary language. The quote from the GAC rework post clearly states that the intent is for players to \"be matched up against someone who looks more like them.\". I'm fairly certain CG didn't mean physically looks like them.
If they don't mean similarly constructed rosters, please explain what you think they mean? And please try to be intellectually honest and not steer it to what you hope they meant or what you woukd prefer they meant, as others posting in this thread and other threads have done.
I do appreciate the screen shot, as it is the precise reason for this thread. Rosters without either Revan would be severely underpowered versus players that could use both, as both are some of the higher powered toons in the game.
\"leef;c-1898572\" wrote:
Better for some, worse for others. It doesn't really matter how they adjust matchmaking, that statement will always be true. Whether it's objectively more \"fair\"/\"even\" is open for debate.
- Previous matchmaking: accumulative GP of all characters
- Current matchmaking: accumulative of highest GP characters. Number of characters dependent on the amount of def slots. (defslots * 2 * 5 = amount of characters used for matchmaking)
Both methods have their (dis)advantages. Whether you like the new or old method probably depends on your roster. The new method definately helps out players with a lot of fluff.
On a side note, i do wonder how it works for players who drop 1 or 2 divisions. Why am i matched based on my top80 and not on my top60 for example? Do players only drop division and get less defslots when their topX doesn't have enough GP to find a suitable match? Seeying as there are quite a few players dropping a division that doesn't seem to be the right explanation. I can't figure it out, but it's probably flawed ;)
\"leef;c-1898572\" wrote:
Better for some, worse for others. It doesn't really matter how they adjust matchmaking, that statement will always be true. Whether it's objectively more \"fair\"/\"even\" is open for debate.
- Previous matchmaking: accumulative GP of all characters
- Current matchmaking: accumulative of highest GP characters. Number of characters dependent on the amount of def slots. (defslots * 2 * 5 = amount of characters used for matchmaking)
Both methods have their (dis)advantages. Whether you like the new or old method probably depends on your roster. The new method definately helps out players with a lot of fluff.
On a side note, i do wonder how it works for players who drop 1 or 2 divisions. Why am i matched based on my top80 and not on my top60 for example? Do players only drop division and get less defslots when their topX doesn't have enough GP to find a suitable match? Seeying as there are quite a few players dropping a division that doesn't seem to be the right explanation. I can't figure it out, but it's probably flawed ;)
