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 reddit and here, feel the same way: if you don't have GL's you shouldn't be going up again people that have 2 GL's. What fun is it to not even be able to play the game because your opponent just sets them on D and checkmates you instantly? I know you guys won't fix it because business practices states that if you put things obtainable by paying, your customer is more likely to. But here's the problem, when it's a free game, most people just end up leaving after a time. Fix your matchmaking and stop being greedy. Prove you're not EA and just a subsidiary of them.
well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.
https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.
tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo
If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.
The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.
that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it
well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.
https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.
tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo
If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.
The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.
that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it
actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.
Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).
Actually the point is that you chose how to develop your roster and you have had two years to adapt to matchmaking by GP and plenty of opportunities to rebalance your roster. If you failed to do so, that is your fault.
They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a competitive balance and make the game enjoyable.
They have a matchmaking system for a reason, to establish a semblance of balance across a wide variety of roster compositions. How competitive you are is dependent on the choices you make with your roster.
SWGoH is as much about resource and roster management as it is about battle strategy and tactics. You need to pay attention to all of these aspects if you wish to be competitive.
well you have a lot of high relic chars but looks like not the reqs for slkr/rey, 11 r7, 5 r6 and a numch of r5 and below.
https://swgoh.gg/p/798333642/ opponent has jml and rey, and jkl, 11 r7, some r6, and multiple lower relics too.
tbh it looks like you just ran into an insanely focused roster. normally it's clear to see why one is bad choices, but here, while you took too many to r7 and have some questionable choices for other high relics, you should normally probably be matched with one gl, and just got real unlucky. imo
If my collegiate basketball team was pitted against some third grade team all because we were in the same gym and it was unlucky, neither side would have fun and would obviously not be a good match.
The point is it shouldn't come down to luck. It should be more thought out to provide the best player experience for both sides. IMO, this shouldn't happen and the GL's need to be weighted differently in their matchmaking algorithm.
that's not a correct analogy. The point is you relic'd up a bunch of toons but not enough to get a GL, that matches you with people who relic'd up chars and did get a GL. Matchmaking doesn't happen to you, you happen to it
actually the point is competitive balance and game play. Why design an algorithm that pins such a strong team against an opponent who has no shot of winning. Where is the fun in that? It's a game, it should be fun for both sides.
Someone makes an individual choice for their own enjoyment and you basically tell them they can't play one of the game modes because of a bad algorithm or is unlucky (which luck should never be involved in matchmaking).
Why even bother having GP tiers? Why stop at 0 GL's vs 2, we should pin 0 GL's vs 4, because who doesn't have a GL clearly has no idea what they are doing.
It doesn't make sense and is bad game design.
Part of the strategy is building your roster. And they typically release new toons that are better (see being an exception). People chase these toons and pay an exorbitant amount of money to get them early.
Now let's assume for a second you got your way and people who paid for the next new meta character that was amazing, only faced others that did the same in gac. Well it wouldn't be long before many of them realized that they paid for nothing when they could have just not bough the new amazing character and been just as well off.
So you may not like it, but your suggestion would remove a reason for many people to spend on new characters. So CG is never going to change it to be that way.
I don't even know where to begin on how many things are off with this statement.
But it sounds like your point is they should match a kraken with 4 GL's against a player with none to give them a variety in opponents. And you actually think that kraken is going to see value in what they spent because they could beat a crap roster.
wow..
But that's the catch. You are not being matched with a kraken (unless you are one yourself), rather with someone that spent roughly the same amount of resources but allocated them in a more efficient way.
This is my matchmaking GP cost for SLKR. If I had not gone for him, I would just have one FO squad around g11 - g12 with maybe KRU g13 and Palp probably g12.
If you have bloated the top end of your roster like this without acquiring a GL then that is on you.
"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).
"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.
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?
"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.
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?
Once again, I find myself arguing against people who aren't reading.
I am fairly certain everyone that has made a counter-argument to your point feels the same.
"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.
All I am saying is that a 2+ GL advantage in GAC is a mismatch that shouldn't happen. It's not a good experience for either side of the match. That is it. It's really that simple.
Counterpoint: matching someone who has developed a roster that can be matched with a 2+ GL difference against a roster that is comparable AND has similar GL count might not be possible.
We obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a “fair” matchup. I think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should face people who have invested a similar GP figure - period. You think someone who has taken a huge amount of toons to relic level without unlocking a GL should be protected from facing people who invested that GP differently.
Personally, I would rather it worked the way it does now than see this ever diminishing pool of players with large matchmaking GP but no GLs get continually drawn against each other. Or - even worse - the high GP / no GL crowd get matched with obviously weaker players because there’s nobody left at their GP level without an excess of GLs.
well said.... I understand where everyone is coming from. (except for the part about anyone being protected). I think they should see a 1 GL difference and more than likely will have a similar experience with very difficult opponents. I just don't think they should automatically lose just because they chose a different path.
The protection thing is me implying that people could deliberately relic loads of their roster but avoid GLs just so they could be “protected” from fighting GL owners.
For what it’s worth, I do agree that the majority of matches between people with a 2 GL discrepancy would not be competitive. But, I disagree that matchmaking should be adapted to prevent a 2 GL discrepancy ever happening.
Even the most ridiculously min-maxed 2 GL roster has added around 3/4 of a million GP in matchmaking GP, most of which is bloat they would not otherwise have powered up.
So anyone who actually manages to end up at a 2 GL disadvantage has made a right mess of their roster and that is their fault. Period. End of story.
Lol, so cg should just stick it to them and have them face 4 GLs? Hey player, you have to play by our your rules or we will not just make it hard but pretty much screw you over. Too bad for you, but keep playing our game! This makes no sense at all.
What about the balance of other players that don`t get a 2 GL lead and easy victories? Is that fair to them?
I dont know who in their right mind would try and game the system and not get GLs, only to get easy wins in GAC. Mind you they made their life infinitely harder in arena. The rewards arent even that great to try and avoid building your roster. Sorry, but this just isnt happening.
As i said so many times, variability is good and having a 1 gl disparity is good for the game. 2+ doesnt make sense to me, its overkill.
If a player bloated their roster to the extent of having similar matchmaking gp as someone with 4 GLs and had no GLs (or counters for all 4 GLs), then they deserve to lose at GAC.
GAC isn't just tactical, it's strategic. Part of that strategy is building a competitive roster.
If you want a completely tactical game mode, that's fine. A solution for that would be to give everyone completely equal rosters and see who can win. But that isn't what GAC is or what it should be.
Most of the matches are decided before either team sets defense. I can usually tell if I'm going to win or lose when I view my opponent. Short of forgetting to attack, my opponent forgetting to attack, or some really bad rng, it's usually pretty easy to predict.
That's because 75% of the battle is building a proper roster. I have one GL (See) and some other meta teams. If I look at my opponents roster and see they can't beat or will struggle with see or my Darth revan team I will put one on each front wall. Very rarely am I surprised and they get through.
Also if I see they have a hard team to beat, I make sure to save a counter.
I made sure to farm counters for any teams I'm likely to face so as not to put me in an unwinnable situation. That is called strategy.
Your suggestion takes all the strategy of roster building out of the equation. I personally would think that would be less fun.
