GAC "Matchmaking"

"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.