GAC "Matchmaking"

Lower your skill rating

Has anyone else noticed that this is just humble bragging. Like, “Woe is me! Im so good at GAC that I get matched up with people with nearly double my GP. What fortunes have befallen me to have climbed to such a high division. If only I wasn’t so good at GAC I would still be in a lower division being matched against similar sized accounts!”

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411221" wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that this is just humble bragging. Like, “Woe is me! Im so good at GAC that I get matched up with people with nearly double my GP. What fortunes have befallen me to have climbed to such a high division. If only I wasn’t so good at GAC I would still be in a lower division being matched against similar sized accounts!”

i dont think thats the case.. im just asking for a similar GP opponents lol and not 2x my gp
this now exactly show that GAC is not skill based if we ignore Kyber i guess

"DarjeloSalas;c-2411229" wrote:
Yet you are winning 60% of your matches…

just because i have 2 solid teams to hold...
its not about the winning or loosing.. its about that when i use my 3-4 good teams on attack im stuck vs the 8M accounts cus their deff is full Reliced while mine is g10 beside 2 good teams

"DarjeloSalas;c-2411232" wrote:

"tohn;c-2411230" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2411229" wrote:
Yet you are winning 60% of your matches…

just because i have 2 solid teams to hold...
its not about the winning or loosing.. its about that when i use my 3-4 good teams on attack im stuck vs the 8M accounts cus their deff is full Reliced while mine is g10 beside 2 good teams

Except… for the devs it absolutely is about winning or losing. The whole stated intention is for players to settle at a 50% win rate.

I completely accept that matchups might not be fun, but for pretty much every forumer complaining about matchups, they are experiencing exactly what the devs have intended.

only asking for equal opponents or atlest kind of. Cus now if this guy attack.. he simply win and i dont think that fair
is it so hard for CG to limit the GAC bracket to some flat range or % ..
50/50 winrate is perfectly fine
the few times i was vs slightly lower GP than me i actually lost most of them :smiley:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2411234" wrote:

"tohn;c-2411233" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2411232" wrote:

"tohn;c-2411230" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2411229" wrote:
Yet you are winning 60% of your matches…

just because i have 2 solid teams to hold...
its not about the winning or loosing.. its about that when i use my 3-4 good teams on attack im stuck vs the 8M accounts cus their deff is full Reliced while mine is g10 beside 2 good teams

Except… for the devs it absolutely is about winning or losing. The whole stated intention is for players to settle at a 50% win rate.

I completely accept that matchups might not be fun, but for pretty much every forumer complaining about matchups, they are experiencing exactly what the devs have intended.

only asking for equal opponents or atlest kind of. Cus now if this guy attack.. he simply win and i dont think that fair
is it so hard for CG to limit the GAC bracket to some flat range or % ..
50/50 winrate is perfectly fine
the few times i was vs slightly lower GP than me i actually lost most of them :smiley:

The problems are that:
- CG screwed up when they called it “skill rating”. It’s more a rating of your engagement, than anything else.
- CG also screwed up when they designed the Skill Rating system. They made it far too easy for someone with a massive GP to fall quickly and face a good player with much smaller GP.

I think they should completely reset GAC at the end of this season, and redesign (and rename) the whole skill rating system. It should be designed so that non-engaging accounts who start life in Kyber 3 take literally MONTHS to drop enough skill rating to reach the levels where they are facing 1.5M GP accounts.

They should give everyone back the GP-influenced initial skill rating, then multiply it by 2.5 or 3, then reduce the skill rating change by half, then go again and see where we end up.

sound like a plan!
lets go

Don't worry...

I (1.8M) was against 6M <<< 3 times higher, yours is only 2 times higher, and a PhD Astrophysicist said that i should have had 90% chance of winning against him, given that he had dropped so far from Aurodium to Carbonite.

=====

The chance of winning to such higher GP is above 50%.

===Screenshot===

===============

Later, he confirmed that this "above 50%" was actually 90%. Given that the higher GP had dropped that far, from Aurodium to Carbinite (this is the important part)...that is to say, the lower a higher GP drops, the higher chance of you to win against him...

===Screenshot===

===============

So, the next time i met 10M opponent who had dropped from Kyber to Carbonite, i should have close to 100% of winning against him.

=====

So, don't you worry, you've got this battle!

I also prefaced those comments with ‘if’. I don’t know what the probability is that a high GP account in a low division plays. It was part of a wider discussion about how having two outcomes to a ‘random’ event doesn’t necessarily mean the probability for each outcome is 50%

On the topic of accounts falling through the divisions it seems pretty clear this is the system we have at the moment and it isn’t likely to change soon. To those wanting GP brackets please remember how broken the old system was. Players would intentionally keep GP low until roster lock and then do massive unlocks during the first week which would give huge advantages during the remaining three weeks. It was way more open to abuse than the current system which has different flaws.

Could GP be considered when drawing up brackets? Probably. Is it? No. Would it actually make things better if it was? ?‍♂️

"MaruMaru;c-2411242" wrote:

"GegeGerard24;c-2411241" wrote:
Don't worry...

I (1.8M) was against 6M <<< 3 times higher, yours is only 2 times higher, and a PhD Astrophysicist said that i should have had 90% chance of winning against him, given that he had dropped so far from Aurodium to Carbonite.

=====

The chance of winning to such higher GP is above 50%.

===Screenshot===

===============

Later, he confirmed that this "above 50%" was actually 90%. Given that the higher GP had dropped that far, from Aurodium to Carbinite (this is the important part)...that is to say, the lower a higher GP drops, the higher chance of you to win against him...

===Screenshot===

===============

So, the next time i met 10M opponent who had dropped from Kyber to Carbonite, i should have close to 100% of winning against him.

=====

So, don't you worry, you've got this battle!

If they play you will lose, if they don't (or do the single hit to qualify for rewards) you will win. So the probability would depend on what they are doing rather than you (assuming you clear a few teams).

I think you nailed the legitimacy of this post. Beating the 50/50 ratio and climbing higher than you "should" and face opponent with higher GP than you is normal and totally a player's decision. But facing someone with higher GP because of him/her dropping is something you can't control at all. I don't think you can call this per design. I assume when CG designed the skill-point based system, they did not fully anticipate sucha extreme behaviour (someone joining GAC but most of time not playing). They should restraint those players from getting any rewards. Then probably the motivation to join GAC will also be gone.

There have been tons of good (and bad) ideas floated to help address the issue of inactive/low effort accounts ruining the experience for smaller but active accounts. CG hasn't said a word about GAC in quite some time. I think their silence should tell us all we need to know.