Currently: GAC Matchmaking functions on your ranking. E.G., Kyber 3s are supposed to match other Kyber 3s. This means someone that is bad at the game with 15 mil GP regularly matches into people who are good at the game with 11 mil GP. Because of the GP gap, the 15 mil players get a free win and premium rewards for that win. On top of that, the 11 mil player gets demoted for poor performance.This is a horrible system. It does not reward skill or game knowledge. It actively punishes good players and rewards bad ones.Correction: Fix GAC matchmaking to make it based on GP, but keep ranking based on points. Add a deviation range based on rankings. I.E., Kyber players are supposed to be the highest skill, so they match with anyone up to 1.5 mil GP above them. Bronziums are not particularly good so that range should be closer to 250k. If you have to deviate further than the rank range, the lower GP player gets a degree of protection in their rank. I.E., losing to a 1.5 mil higher account by 10 counts against you less than losing to a 500k higher account by 100.This way, a player's roster actually matters. Their ability to matchup to their opponents is actually relevant. You do not punish players that claw their way through your ranking system only to lose impossible battles. AND, new players don't end up facing 12 mil accounts that only hit the join button for rewards. Everyone wins.No one likes clicking join GAC with the intention of playing it, only to get stomped by the awful matchmaking.

There’s a pretty simple solution. Upper GP limits on divisions.example: Carbonite upper limit of say 2.5 million GP. Once you reach Bronzium, if your GP is above 2.5 million, you can’t drop back down to carbonite.This would prevent the lower divisions being flooded with big fish.

Matchmaking is truly infuriating. I'm 5 mil, and I regularly get matched against players with 10 mil. There's no "skill" involved in that match: If they decide to play, I lose. If they don't play, I win. That's not fun. I don't want GP to be the only criteria—that would heavily penalize players who invested outside of core teams or just like to build broadly. But put some kind of bound so that, for example, people won't be matched against someone with more than 1.25 times their GP.

GAC design is about minimizing overall player crystal income, so you are the closest to around 50% win rate as possible.

The problem with the overall GP is that it is a measure of your roster completeness, not the actual power of it. E.g. with all those LSB being rampant nowadays, it is easy to find players with over 7 millions GP without even a single GL, and that can be easily beaten by players with less than half that GP.To match players with related GP, one option could be to compare also the mean GP of the X strongest toon of each roster. Where X scales up at each division level. But, even so, with all those new shiny toys being far more stronger than older teams, it can become unbalanced pretty quickly. To really fix things, CG should add a new counter that takes into account the actual power of toons.

The actual power of toons is quite hard to calculate because it depends on synergies, team zetas and datacrons etc. Therefore, it would be much simpler to only consider GL number instead if you want absolute balance. But then, 3mil accounts with 1 GL may have to face a 7mil account also with only 1 GL. That isn’t balanced too, but at least it’s better than the current state. I mean, non-GL teams rarely beat GLs at all so if a player with at least 2 GLs put two of them on defense, the player with only one GL on offense has almost no chance of winning. Therefore, GL number is actually the major factor, and combing that with an upper limit on GP, the GAC system is going to be more balanced.

GAC Design is Backwards | EA Forums

18 Replies

DUNCAN1919
Rising Veteran
13 days ago
Nonsense, its skill based in that you are where you are based on your own performance compared to others.
Also utter rubbish that you need to be paying- Im free to play (11.9m) and comfortably bounce between K2 and K3 winning 50-60% of my matches.
BombZR1154
Rising Newcomer
14 days ago
The old gac system was great, if they went back to something like that (with adjusted gp leagues) it would be amazing.
Rius_975518199
New Veteran
14 days ago
Instead of GP limits which prevent inactive players from falling, “active” GP caps should be in place where if you fall to where the average GP is 6M that is all you can use even if your roster is 12M. This will still not be perfect as they could still out number meta fleets and GL’s but it would require them to choose. So if they fell due to poor skill and say take 4-5 attempts to get through your GL’s that would consume their allowed GP and they may run out of squads. Even better if the GP cap only allows for a few two shots.
Whatelse73
Seasoned Ace
14 days ago
Just play like some low GP players in Kyber 1 play. Go wuss on defense, put a couple "RNG" teams on defense and rely on your full offense roster and RNG to win the match for you! CG rewards players for only playing offense, so give it a go. I'm sure it'll work the same in K3.
It would be great if they did updates to GAC and TW, but those appear to be low priority since CG's priority is releases they can monetize.
nottenst
Seasoned Ace
15 days ago
Sounds like a good idea (upper GP limits on divisions). Though there could be some way of people trying to game the system which does not immediately come to mind.
lleksam
Rising Rookie
16 days ago
I still think GAC should have a reward track like the episode track per round based on successful attack banners scored, so at least if you lose or are totally outmatch you can still try and score some banners to unlock rewards on the track, rather than just getting credits per squad defeated or feeling like there is zero point.
Anuk201o
Rising Newcomer
16 days ago
I Had to face a guy with 7 GL and more than 10 GM today in Carbonite. There is absolutely no way to win this match.
And actually this topic is not new, but I am wondering, why they wouldn't do anything. You won't get it a 100% fair, but taking into consideration the number of GL in the rooster and amount of GM with a certain factor would make it at least more fair and would be more fun. And there should be some rule that you can not drop back in a lower category, so that noone who was in broncium for example can't drop to Carbonite.
OfTheVeilGaming
Seasoned Veteran
16 days ago
Well the forced 0% win rate I've had in the last 6 matchups has me about to leave the game.
I doubt CG intended to lose me over 20/40 crystals a day.
My day one R9 Baylan and day one R9 Ahsoka are worth far more than that to them.
Derdhal
Rising Traveler
17 days ago
It had that "compare the GP of the X stronger toons" a long time ago. And then you upgraded your whole roster at he same time, character after character. Some players had that X stronger toons and others had all of them with the same strength and crushed the first ones.
Current system can be considered unfair, but has its logic. It's not about "I'm the best of my GP-equals" because game itself is not designed to use GP as a real power of the roster measure. Not even your stronger toons. This is not Warhammer. And datacrons, the current nukes of the game, add 0 GP. If you lose, you go down and will face weaker enemies. If you win, you go up and will face stronger ones. That's the point. That's the balance. It's used in a lot of games. You are not going to win everytime. In a balanced game you will win about 50%. It's not about the same GP, is about the performance in combat.
Archonurm2
Rising Rookie
17 days ago
GP alone was,is and will never be a good criteria. It also depends highly on the roaster. Sure, having more GP increases the probablity to win, but having two R8/R9 teams for defense with omicron and datacron is more worth than having some hands full of R5 toon.