GA banners add up to mismatches

I cleared all squads except for revan because i don't have revan to counter. So effectively i had 1 squad unconquered.

My opponent cleared all squads but left 1 ship fleet unconquered.

270+16 = 286. The minimum banners earned if i had been able to clear the final squad.

155+16= 181. The minimum banners earned by opponent if able to clear the final fleet. That's over 100 banners of difference for essentially the same outcome. 1 unfinished battle. But because the opponent had higher character gp by over 200K the opponent was in a stronger position to win the zone worth more banners. The opponent didn't even have to try to attack the fleet because the outcome was predetermined

Or to put it in different terms. Winning character zone + defending character zone = 540 banners.

Winning ships + defending ships = 310 banners.

A difference of 230

"Kyno;c-1837004" wrote:
Beating 1 team should be equal to beating multiple? (Number dependent on GP)

I don't take your meaning?

Edited * i do understand your question but i pose a question of my own. ... when two opponents win the same number of battles. (5 each) and two opponents each have 1 battle unfinished and 1 zone unconquered.... why is the point differential 230 regardless of strength of win?

There is an insurmountable difference in total banners. *

My point is that the zones are preferential to character gp. So the matchmaking taking into account total gp will predominantly favor players who neglect ships

If you face someone who neglects ships, then simply beat all his teams and his ships. If you cant beat all his toons, ships shouldnt reward you for that. They should punish people who neglect them.

Unfortunately the power creep totally negates this logic. If you dont have revan. You can't beat revan.


Anyway the point is being avoided. If a player neglects ships their gp will be predominantly character based. The current matchmaking and the current territory structure is biased towards character gp. A balanced roster is ALWAYS at a disadvantage. I'm not saying anyways going to lose. I'm saying ALWAYS HANDICAPPED

"Kyno;c-1837100" wrote:
The point is, ships is not meant to be a main focus of GA, meaning it will never be a tipping point.

Says who? Is there an official statement to that effect or is it just your personal opinion?

"Kyno;c-1837100" wrote:
Winning 1 ships match shouldnt be equal to winning 1 character match.

No, it should be worth more. Matchmaking is by GP and a fully powered up ship is valued at over 2x the GP of a fully powered up character.

"Cykodrumzz;d-201579" wrote:


The ship zone is useless. 155+66=221 < 270
So because i have stronger ships and held the zone it had no correlative effect on the outcome of the match.
.

Let's get back to basics here. This is the only comment that bears weight

There is literally no benefit to having ships in this current ga. The math is blatantly obvious. It's completely rigged against players who invest in ships

"Cykodrumzz;c-1837158" wrote:
Then perhaps the 2 zone layout is the greater dilemma.

It’s not just the 2 zone layout. For my GA bracket, ships account for about 25% of the total possible points earned. Even with 4 zones, ships are still roughly 25%. The problem is not weighting ship GP for matchmaking. The GP system was never set up for comparing ship GP to character GP...mostly because there wasn’t much of a reason to before this.

Here. I failed in my strategy to save my strongest characters to beat revan. Because unless you have revan or God mods you can't beat revan. But the disparity is obvious.

Let's do some more math. My character gp = 58.5% of my total gp so my ship gp is 41.5%. This is like 2nd grade division here....

My opponent has 65.9% character and 34.1% ship gp.


Follow me along this journey because it gets really easy here........ maximum win is 811 banners offense. 270 for zone + 64 ea per squad. Max character banners = 590. That's 72.7% weight.

It's inherently biased towards characters. This is basic math. When the variance from ship to character can fluctuate by at least 10% and the outcome is already weighted at a 3:1 ratio the more balanced a players portfolio the more of a disadvantage they face

"Cykodrumzz;c-1837279" wrote:

Here. I failed in my strategy to save my strongest characters to beat revan. Because unless you have revan or God mods you can't beat revan. But the disparity is obvious.

Let's do some more math. My character gp = 58.5% of my total gp so my ship gp is 41.5%. This is like 2nd grade division here....

My opponent has 65.9% character and 34.1% ship gp.


Follow me along this journey because it gets really easy here........ maximum win is 811 banners offense. 270 for zone + 64 ea per squad. Max character banners = 590. That's 72.7% weight.

It's inherently biased towards characters. This is basic math. When the variance from ship to character can fluctuate by at least 10% and the outcome is already weighted at a 3:1 ratio the more balanced a players portfolio the more of a disadvantage they face

So because your fleet GP accounts for x% of your total GP, the fleet portion of GA should account for rougly the same percantage of total banners?
Personally i don't see the logic in that.

"leef;c-1837485" wrote:
so because your fleet GP accounts for x% of your total GP, the fleet portion of GA should account for rougly the same percantage of total banners?
Personally i don't see the logic in that.

I was just presenting an example case. If the banners are skewed towards characters at a 3:1 ratio then its inherently biased towards character gp. Players who neglect ships have a clear and present advantage in a GA that uses total GP for match making. They have more and/or stronger characters to defend a zone worth more banners and attack a zone worth more banners.