Look, CG, I get it. You're apart of EA and only care about money, but you're going to slowly kill your game if you don't fix GAC matchmaking. A lot of people i know, and I read this sentiment on reddi...
"Rath_Tarr;c-2207629" wrote: Again, I invested 349k matchmaking GP (not to mention a ton of gear, relic materials and zetas) in toons I would not otherwise have bothered with in order to own a GL.
Either way, you would have to relic up at least that many characters in order to get matched with me in GAC.
If you made good choices then you would have the tools to beat me. If you did not make good choices then you would be in trouble. But that was also true before I had a GL.
Not if you had 2 GL's vs a player with none (which has been the argument the entire time).
That makes it even more clear the non GL owner has made some questionable roster development decisions.
2 GLs and the requirements is at least 600k GP.
If you’ve got no GLs and are matched with someone who has 2, that’s a whole load of roster bloat.
Again, what about 1 GL vs 3?
Still the same.
Why would it be any different?
see above... high counter cost, not enough quality toons for defense, have you actually played against an opponent with 2 additional GLS?
No, because I’ve applied GP in such a way as to avoid that happening.
See above... GLs come with around 300k GP baggage. Anyone whose matchmaking GP pits them against someone with 2 more GLs than they have has made their own bed.
wow, if you truly believe that you can manipulate the algorithm to never get matched with a 2 GL disadvantage, then this discussion is going nowhere.
You’re probably right.
Here’s something for you to chew on...
In my current GA match, my opponent has been matched against someone with 2 more GLs (I have 3, he has 1).
There’s an overview of his roster.
And there’s mine.
He has 35 toons at r7+. I have 16. He has 69 toons at r5+. I have 49. The zeta and mod differential speaks for itself.
Now, from closer scrutiny of his roster he has all the JML requirements ready except JKL, so presumably within 6-8 days time he’ll have 2 GLs. But he’s nowhere near SEE or Rey requirements.
The point I’m trying to make is that GLs come with a sizeable GP baggage. For a player to have a roster that sees them matched with someone with 2 more GLs than them is possible, but only if they invest heavily in relics.
I have 49 toons at r5+: 30 of them are GL requirements and 3 of them are GLs themselves. Of the other 16, most of them are either arena teams past / present or important fleet units.
He has 69 toons at r5+. More than half of them are not GL requirements. It appears that this player just slaps relics on characters as and when he acquires the materials to do so.
I understand how the algorithm currently works, and I understand your example. My entire point is that GL's should be weighted differently in the calculation and when there is a >1 GL difference the match is no longer competitive.
The cost to counter GL's (especially Rey and GML) will either reduce the offense banner points putting them at a disadvantage or leaving them too vulnerable on defense.
GLs are weighted differently. As pointed out over and over, a GL's total investment with prerequirements included is ~300k GP. If you are missing a GL or two, the relic GP of the prerequirements is there, just used up on other teams.
Matchmaking should absolutely not account for number of GLs. What's the point of getting more than one GL if you could never possibly face anyone that has more?
Would you think the algorithm is working where there is a 3GL or 4GL difference? Do you really think that provides a good gaming experience for either side?
I gave you an example above of just what sort of relic focus is required to generate a 2 GL difference.
As in all other responses, any user who has gone to the lengths required to amass a similar matchmaking GP as someone who has 3+ GLs more than them, really deserves whatever the algorithm throws at them.
I’ll turn it round though, and ask for your views on this. Do you think it would be fair if the guy I’ve drawn (pics above) faced a non-GL owner?
You keep talking about the total investment in terms of GP and that is, in my opinion, the problem. The total investment of a GL INCLUDES 2 quality teams in addition of a single toon that can take out an entire squad, or needs a meta squad to beat. 90% of the toons out there can't even beat a single GL. Which makes that inventory useless and unbalanced in a matchup when you have a 2 GL difference.
2 quality teams is a stretch, if not just downright false.
- Yes, GLs “can” beat an entire squad, but at the top end of GAC it is extremely rare that people are using them for that purpose. - There is one quality team out of the SLKR requirements. Any additional team - at the top end of GAC - is just handing your opponent a cheap win - With Rey it’s even less than this. You can form a quality squad out of Finn, the RH bros +2 more, but doing so leaves you needing to butcher some other teams for Rey herself - same with JML. Mon Mothma is good, but the rest of the toons that make her team tick are NOT part of the JML requirements so you don’t get that team.
False, I see many vids where the top end players use SLKR to 1 shot teams like GG, PADME, SEE etc. Not to mentioned your argument is conditional to the top end of the sphere, which we agree there will most likely not be a 2 GL difference.
Please follow the discussion, let me bring you back to the topic.
A 2 GL disparity in a match is not the fault of a player. It's a bad matchmaking algorithm (based on GP only) that does not promote good balance or game play. It's the equivalent of putting a HS team against an NBA team. That experience is not fun for either side and shouldn't happen.
Hmmm..butchering other teams for a rey comp like G8 jawas and L3?
Using SLKR to one shot teams is something that people can do when they have the beating of the other teams set on defence. If somebody sets a proper Rey team against me you can be sure I wouldn’t be using SLKR to solo anything.
And Rey with Jawas and L3 is not a team I’ve set nor met. I imagine it’s designed to prevent the Vader counter from working.
I’ll gladly get back to the topic. Any player who is subject to a 2 GL disparity has made some poor choices when building their roster.
And the analogy you gave is a poor one.
A better analogy would be 2 NBA teams with the same salary cap going against each other. 1 team has invested that salary in the best point guard, centre and small forward in the league, but the other has hired several journeyman pros for every position and can’t compete with the first team.
Happy holidays....
@DarjeloSalas this is as close as you will get to an admission that they are wrong. Enjoy it.
It's an admission that it's a holiday and this discussion is boring me. Mostly because it will accomplish nothing.
The basketball analogy is also incorrect, because 1 player could have been playing for 2 years and what was relevant 2 years ago is now considered bloat in today's standard. So a new player starts an account today, whales out and has 3GLs with 5.4m gp and will get easy wins because a 3 year old account has 6.4M gp and 1 GL.
Here is where you guys will now respond on how the 3 year player should have 3 GL's by now and it's his fault, blah blah blah. Except that the 3 year player may not have the income that a whale would have (in game or IRL).
In the end. it shouldn't matter what a player has done. It doesn't make sense to match payers with a 2 GL disparity. Period. It's not a good game experience for either side. You aren't going to convince me otherwise..
and this is why no matter what happens or what you guys say, I was wishing you a happy holiday, because there are more important things in life then a game. But i guess this is your life TVF, which is why you just had to keep poking.
Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't matter how players manage their resources - in a resource management game??? It's not a good gaming experience to build a strong roster and not benefit from it.
Your whale vs. F2P argument doesn't make any sense. Whales buy resources to build their roster faster. However, when F2P players are matched with whales they have put the same amount of resources into the top of their rosters. The whale may have reached this point faster, but have had the same amount of resources at their disposal. Hence, it's a matter of how well you build your roster - not how fast. Everyone - whales and F2P players alike - have had more than two years to adapt to the GA matchmaking (a year and a half to the top-X matchmaking). Relics weren't added to the game until long after GA was introduced. Everyone knew by then that bloating up your roster would hurt your matchmaking in GA. Whoever bloated up their rosters with relics on weak characters that didn't unlock a GL knew that it would hurt their matchmaking.
Quick question...would you find it fun to play a player at level 85 with no relic toons who started around the same time as you? You played the game more often, you built a better roster and there is the variability of not playing a roster similar as yours. Do you really think that is going to be fun for you or for the player?
The reason why you don't and shouldn't is because its an obvious disadvantage and the outcome would be a predictable win.
The only way I could possibly be matched with a player without any relics at all would be if I myself had none or only few myself. We're all matched by relevant GP, remember?
If I had taken my Sith Empire and 501st team to g13 (or low relic level) while my opponent instead had taken tusken, jawa and phoenix to g12/g13 then yes, it would be fun for me. I would enjoy the easy match knowing that I wouldn't see such easy matches in the next 3 GAs when the effect of leagues would increase. I would enjoy the benefits of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
Now apply the same logic only instead of that matchup to a 2+ GL advantage. Its not exactly the same (as I am trying to make my point), but the outcome is still the same....a predictable win.
Yes, the outcome would most likely predictable but the logic would be the same:
I would enjoy the benefit of having built a stronger roster than my opponent.
It doesn't matter how players build their rosters or how long/fast it took them to get there. The matchup should be competitive to give a fun/competitive/balanced gaming experience.
What you suggest would not be a competitive gaming experience. It would be the exact opposite. What you suggest would remove the competitive element from the roster building.
I doubt it would be fun to build a strong roster if there's no benefit.
With the current matchmaking system there's a good balance between having fairly even matches and the effect of how you build your roster.
What exactly is the benefit?
Have you ever played sports in your life, collegiate or professional? I mean this seriously. I would rather play a game where myself/team lost by 1 point because it was a great even match, then play in a blowout. There is no benefit when there is no balance in competition.
This is really interesting that your perspective is a benefit.
Capital Games Team
