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.
If those were my only relic toons then my roster would be horribly unbalanced and vulnerable in other ways.
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.
(once again), it's my position that it's a fault of the algorithm and the game designers not allowing for proper balancing and is a poor game experience. But yet, you and everyone else seem to think its the fault of the player and therefore they should be punished with a poor game experience.
They are probably going to be at a disadvantage no matter who they play, but in the end, a 2 GL disadvantage shouldn't ever happen.
Giving more GP weight to GL is understanble and seems fair. However, what about the useless toons you relic'd to unlock the GL ? Should they GP weight be reduced because they value far less than a good toon relic'd ? It would be only fair too. And if you do, you might as well leave things as they are.
Usually I have a GL advantage in my games because I built my roster to be efficient in GAC, being very stingy with my Relics and Zetas. I made strategic decisions, it's a strategy game, so I'm rewarded with easy battles, which is the whole point of strategy: starting the battle flanking your opponent 10 to 1 and by surprised. When you're matched against a general with as good strategic skills as you, that's where tactical choices come into play.
GAC is not only about tactics, it's mainly about strategy, and resource management is a big part of strategy. It's completely understandable that some players don't want that and would prefer a more tactical game mode, where it's how you use equivalent forces. In GAC it's about how you use equivalent resources. Current matchmaking does a good job putting people with equivalent resources against one another.
The frustration of not being able to gear characters as you want in order to stay competitive in GAC is understandable and totally legit imo, however I don't see any other way in order to play a competitive mode that rewards strategic decisions and smart roster building.
A different game mode, more focus on tactics (like a sealed/draft mode), would be the solution imo, but not changing the core of GAC. Again, current matchmaking does a good job putting people with equivalent resources against one another.
Sidenote: I got matched this GAC versus a player who had 0 GL when I have 2 and lost. He had a very good roster built on strong characters and counters. We both clean house but he was more efficient than me. He earned that victory big time.
Capital Games Team
