GA matchmaking

"IDinDooNuffin;c-1759227" wrote:

"Waqui;c-1759198" wrote:

"Javick_Starage;d-193739" wrote:
It could do with some improvement.
I’d recommend a system that looks more closely at specific rosters and teams that are massively advantageous.

E.g. thrawn, treya, palp etc etc.

Maybe putting characters into tiers and comparing gear levels and zetas would make the match-ups more balanced.

In my current event we have a guy who has 20-30 g12 powerful characters (CLS, JTR, Palp, Chewie, 3p0) and at the other end one guy who’s only g12 and zeta is Vader.

So, why should players, who developed a stronger roster (still with the same total GP as his opponents) only be matched with other strong opponents? Why shouldn't he instead benefit from having developed his roster well? Why should a player with a weaker roster (same GP) have an easier path to take first place than the player with the stronger roster and get the same rewards as him/her? How would that be even remotely fair and balanced? I suspect, that the algorithm actually makes sure to not pit all the strong players against each other. From what I've experienced each 'pod' of eight has had a good mix of strongly built and weakly built rosters.

Yes, including ship GP in the algorithm, when ships are not even used is silly. Apart from that using roster GP as the 'main' match-making parameter seems quite fair.

Because those of us who started at inception were told by this forum to raise GP of useless toons to get more GP to max TB (which came first) when the only PVP was arena and not based on GP at all we have now 140 toons 80 of which are lvl 60, gear 5 or 6 and random modded

Now we are being punished for starting the game before you.

So surely you would have gained extra rewards in TB from having a TB focused roster? Wouldn't those extra rewards have been used to boost your roster and the toons in it?

Someone else who didn't have a TB focused roster won't have those extra rewards and so would be at a disadvantage

How you have chosen to spend those rewards is possibly the crux of the matter. If, as you say, you still have a huge amount of toons at lvl 60, gear 5 or 6, then that was your choice.

There is also the arguement you only need to put down x amount of teams, which would mean x amount of total toons needed. If those x amount of toons were all maxed out, it won't matter about the bottom of the roster

"IDinDooNuffin;c-1759227" wrote:

"Waqui;c-1759198" wrote:

"Javick_Starage;d-193739" wrote:
It could do with some improvement.
I’d recommend a system that looks more closely at specific rosters and teams that are massively advantageous.

E.g. thrawn, treya, palp etc etc.

Maybe putting characters into tiers and comparing gear levels and zetas would make the match-ups more balanced.

In my current event we have a guy who has 20-30 g12 powerful characters (CLS, JTR, Palp, Chewie, 3p0) and at the other end one guy who’s only g12 and zeta is Vader.

So, why should players, who developed a stronger roster (still with the same total GP as his opponents) only be matched with other strong opponents? Why shouldn't he instead benefit from having developed his roster well? Why should a player with a weaker roster (same GP) have an easier path to take first place than the player with the stronger roster and get the same rewards as him/her? How would that be even remotely fair and balanced? I suspect, that the algorithm actually makes sure to not pit all the strong players against each other. From what I've experienced each 'pod' of eight has had a good mix of strongly built and weakly built rosters.

Yes, including ship GP in the algorithm, when ships are not even used is silly. Apart from that using roster GP as the 'main' match-making parameter seems quite fair.

Because those of us who started at inception were told by this forum to raise GP of useless toons to get more GP to max TB (which came first) when the only PVP was arena and not based on GP at all we have now 140 toons 80 of which are lvl 60, gear 5 or 6 and random modded

Now we are being punished for starting the game before you.

After TB came TW. In TW your 'fluff GP' could match your guild against higher GP opponents - even if you didn't use your 'fluff' toons during the match. It's nothing new. What people see in GA today was always present in TW. The only difference is, that while players didn't really notice how their 'fluff GP' hurt their guild, now they notice how it hurts themselves.

Furthermore, raising your GP with 'fluff' was a choice - just like it was a choice back when I myself farmed jawas and took my Ugnuahgt to g11 in the early days of the tank raid. IT was my own decision. Now you have another decision to make: Do you continue creating more 'fluff' or do you change your strategy today?

The issue isn't in the matchmaking. Conceptually, matching all players with a near-identical rating is the correct move; players that focused on this game mode exclusively should win more often than not, and players who focused on other game modes should lose most of the time. Everyone else will fall somewhere in-between.

The real problems are a) the calculation for GP is arbitrary and not really a good data point for comparison, b) the PvP modes of the game are structured in a way where whatever team goes first wins 80+% of the time, and c) there are too many teams with protection regeneration or resetting buffs (Saviour, Zombie, Bastila lead) that prevent attrition from being a viable strategy.

Concerning character tierd, consider the fact that magma trooper can beat a traya squad. The whole point of this mode is to strategize how best to use your roster, and then how best to set a defense. If your GP is skewed by fluff, it's up to you to start focusing on gearing certain characters higher, and focus on mods.

There is no gp difference between a purple 5* mod with no speed and one with 15 speed, for instance. It's not matchmaking's fault if you've ignored mods, and matchmaking based on mods would be crazy, considering that's sort of the point from a business perspective.

The fact is that there are a lot of different kinds of players, focused on different areas or styles of the game. If you want to focus on GA, it may take some time to adjust your roster, but that's what you'll have to do. Otherwise, set a defense, and enjoy some free rewards.

My opinion is that it's really only gear 11/12 that matter, maybe a few gear 10, so if you want more competitive matchups only count GP from gear 11/12 in the top end. For lower overall GP count others.

But that will give a competitive matchup.

"Rmaxtpmx;c-1759314" wrote:
Concerning character tierd, consider the fact that magma trooper can beat a traya squad. The whole point of this mode is to strategize how best to use your roster, and then how best to set a defense. If your GP is skewed by fluff, it's up to you to start focusing on gearing certain characters higher, and focus on mods.

There is no gp difference between a purple 5* mod with no speed and one with 15 speed, for instance. It's not matchmaking's fault if you've ignored mods, and matchmaking based on mods would be crazy, considering that's sort of the point from a business perspective.

The fact is that there are a lot of different kinds of players, focused on different areas or styles of the game. If you want to focus on GA, it may take some time to adjust your roster, but that's what you'll have to do. Otherwise, set a defense, and enjoy some free rewards.

To a point yes, but is a gear 9 magmatrooper a threat to a g12 treya?

Matchmaking really needs to take into account gear.

"Sparrow;c-1759822" wrote:
My opinion is that it's really only gear 11/12 that matter, maybe a few gear 10, so if you want more competitive matchups only count GP from gear 11/12 in the top end. For lower overall GP count others.

But that will give a competitive matchup.

I'm not so sure, that a competitive matchup is really the goal here.

"Waqui;c-1759198" wrote:

"Javick_Starage;d-193739" wrote:
It could do with some improvement.
I’d recommend a system that looks more closely at specific rosters and teams that are massively advantageous.

E.g. thrawn, treya, palp etc etc.

Maybe putting characters into tiers and comparing gear levels and zetas would make the match-ups more balanced.

In my current event we have a guy who has 20-30 g12 powerful characters (CLS, JTR, Palp, Chewie, 3p0) and at the other end one guy who’s only g12 and zeta is Vader.

So, why should players, who developed a stronger roster (still with the same total GP as his opponents) only be matched with other strong opponents? Why shouldn't he instead benefit from having developed his roster well? Why should a player with a weaker roster (same GP) have an easier path to take first place than the player with the stronger roster and get the same rewards as him/her? How would that be even remotely fair and balanced? I suspect, that the algorithm actually makes sure to not pit all the strong players against each other. From what I've experienced each 'pod' of eight has had a good mix of strongly built and weakly built rosters.

Yes, including ship GP in the algorithm, when ships are not even used is silly. Apart from that using roster GP as the 'main' match-making parameter seems quite fair.

As of my last matchup I was matched against players with all 8 defensive slots with higher power players and he was able to have enough power to still beat all 8 of mine. Making my roster unequally matched which has a 2.3million gp while as previously said in other comments as well average 100k to 150k go over mine

"Thor9133;c-1759975" wrote:

"Waqui;c-1759198" wrote:

"Javick_Starage;d-193739" wrote:
It could do with some improvement.
I’d recommend a system that looks more closely at specific rosters and teams that are massively advantageous.

E.g. thrawn, treya, palp etc etc.

Maybe putting characters into tiers and comparing gear levels and zetas would make the match-ups more balanced.

In my current event we have a guy who has 20-30 g12 powerful characters (CLS, JTR, Palp, Chewie, 3p0) and at the other end one guy who’s only g12 and zeta is Vader.

So, why should players, who developed a stronger roster (still with the same total GP as his opponents) only be matched with other strong opponents? Why shouldn't he instead benefit from having developed his roster well? Why should a player with a weaker roster (same GP) have an easier path to take first place than the player with the stronger roster and get the same rewards as him/her? How would that be even remotely fair and balanced? I suspect, that the algorithm actually makes sure to not pit all the strong players against each other. From what I've experienced each 'pod' of eight has had a good mix of strongly built and weakly built rosters.

Yes, including ship GP in the algorithm, when ships are not even used is silly. Apart from that using roster GP as the 'main' match-making parameter seems quite fair.

As of my last matchup I was matched against players with all 8 defensive slots with higher power players and he was able to have enough power to still beat all 8 of mine. Making my roster unequally matched which has a 2.3million gp while as previously said in other comments as well average 100k to 150k go over mine

A. The game is matching full rosters - not just 2 x (6 to 11 teams). Players, who developed a stronger rosters will then have an advantage, which is great in my oppinion. Let them benefit from their effort/skill.
B. I have a hard time believing, that your opponent had 150k more GP than you. All matche-ups, I've seen, have been pretty equal GP-wise. If you're trying to say, that your oponents have more character GP than you, but less ship GP, then I'm glad you agree with me, that including ship GP, when fleets are excluded from battle, is a bit silly.

I have 2.04m toon GP and everyone I had to fight has 200-300k more in toons than I had, though i had generally speaking more ship GP and one player who i needed to fight has overall 100k in GP than everyone else.

Simple if toon vs toon use toon GP and if ship vs ship use ship GP and if you use both use GP if you want to have it simple