GAC "Matchmaking"

Here’s a suggestion. What about a simple adjustment to how the points are deducted after a loss? Keep the same points for a win but scale the deduction by the margin of defeat: so someone who has a proper crack at it and loses by a narrower margin is penalised less than someone who just takes the 10 points and sulks. That might begin to take the sting out of losing in a clearly asymmetric match up (& also encourage participation).

"GegeGerard24;c-2411418" wrote:
My thought on SKILL RATING (SR).

There is an analogy for SR in the RL. It is ELO rating in the game of chess.
ELO rating is how strong a player is measured in a game of chess.

The analogy is like this.
ELO rating = SR.
Chess proficiency = GP.

There are some ways that some points can be deducted of some1's ELO rating. One of which is when a chess player has been absent from championships for months or years.

That is because his chess proficiency does degrade and not to mention, his brain does too as he is getting old.

BUT GP DOES NOT!

That's why, i think SR should be locked in relation of GP and his GAC winning history, thus a player will be locked in his division too.

I understand that not all GPs are the same.
For example, 1M GP with "trash roster" is weaker than 1M GP with carefully selected character, full of synergies with one another.

This is where his GAC winning history comes.
He has 1M GP AND he can massacre most opponent in the current division, he is promoted to the next division. Like he has a high winning probability for a given periode of time (to be determined later) in the current division, he will be promoted to the next division.

BUT he will be locked in his division for the rest of his swgoh life. He can't never go down to lower division.

Let's look at this...
Garry Kasparov (the chess GM) has retired from the world of chess since (maybe) 2005.
His ELO rating (if it was measured NOW) would considerably be much much lower than it should have been, when he was stilll the world's undisputed #1.
Even so, I think he would still massacre all your local village, local town, local province champions. Even your country's champion, if your country is not known for producing world class chess champions.
What does it mean? It means that Kasparov's ELO rating can't go down that low beyond your local town champion's ELO rating. It means that his ELO rating "is locked" somewhere in the rating ladder, like, his top ELO rating was 2,800-ish, i think he would not have an ELO lower than 2,600-2,700-ish, even though he has been absent since 2005.

Just like Kasparov's ELO rating, the SR should be locked too, even more so, because GP does not degrade.
A 6M GP should stay at Aurodium, no matter what and so on and so forth.

So one can only go up the division and can't go down, because his GP does not permit that.

This is just like, eventhough Kasparove has been absent from the world chess championships (like Kyber), I think he would not join a local village championship (like Carbonite), from 1 village to another, just to massacre all the local village champions to "rob" their would be prizes.

=====

The points of thought.

1) if some1 signed up but decided not to attack, he him self would lose the rewards. And since his SR is locked (thus his division is too), he has nothing to gain from such action, except receiving the loser's rewards on and on.

2) if some1 didn't sign up, he would still be in his own division the next time he sign up, because the SR is locked.

3) if some1 is losing so much in the next division, it means he has to build a better roster. It does not mean that he should be demoted to the lower division. Remember, his roster was enough to massacre the lower division, refering to his GAC history, that was why he was promoted to the next division in the 1st place.

4) how the SR should be counted is open for discussion and also other things that slip my mind atm.

=====

Long story short...

The SR should be locked in relation of some1's GP and his GAC history (his high winning probability in the current division).

With your solution, the worst player at the bottom of a division will lose forever or face inactive players round after round, completely ruining their game experience.

If Kasparov was competing in local tournaments, chances are he will only compete once, beat everyone and never come back again. So the problem will only be anecdotal. If he chose to lose some games on purpose to stay at this local tournaments, players facing him will have 50% chances of winning, because Kasparov needs to lose as much at he wins to stay at this level. So it will only be a fun issue, not a balance/reward issue.

I see this thread is doing a great job at sourcing bad ideas.

Selling hoard accounts - yes, banned. Clearly against TOS.
Having and then using a hoard account - no. Perfectly allowable. If someone has that patience and hasn’t broken the TOS they should be allowed to use such an account.

Means youre too good at this game, theres no way the underdog of the game is going to keep facing scrubs and keep winning once you start reaching the higher tables, if you wanna play with the big boy accounts up your GP. This system works. Imagine youre in a tournament. Specifically a card game tournament. Your deck consists of rogue cards or cards that used to be meta. Now the playerpool consists of a wide variety of decks, from old school players to meta sheep. Once you keep beating these “old meta decks” and move up in tables, youre going to face the meta sheep and this is where this scenario comes in handy. You have been winning and climbing the ladder that you have now come accross the big boys. Unless that big boy was inactive for months and dropped to carbonite, you didnt bother mentioning what league youre in

"Ghost666;c-2412035" 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

In case you missed the obvious...the alternative would be for you to completly smash opponents at the same GP as yours, as most of them would NOT know how to play as well as you and would not have the rosters so optimized.
SO...you are "naturally" matched with opponents with much higher GP (sometimes), but lower skill/knowledge. To compensate you, you get "theoretically" better rewards. The "proof" the system "works" is your win ratio...and a game with 50% ratios is overall more balanced than one with many 90% win ratios...as it would require also 10% win ratios...

i dont fully agree with that. there are alot more low gp (4-6M) accounts around my rating. and matching me agains such will probably again result in 50% winrate but it will be alot more enjoyable, because when im vs 7-8M the deciding factor is if they will attack or not. So thats why i have 50-60% just because they dont attack half the time, or doing just 1 battle...
IMO this is not a good game experiance.
as in TW they can put a system to try to prevent too long win or lose streaks with limiting the min max gp u can be matched against.
the only ppl that are with 10% winrate are these that just join and dont participate the whole season, but thats on them.

"BubbaFett;c-2412278" wrote:
SWGOH matchmaking complaints have been around as long as SWGOH has been around... Honestly, GAC has the most fair, unbiased matchmaking of any mode in the game... It's literally nothing more than a bracket system....

People need to stop whining about how the match ups should be teed up so that they can get an easy win and just build their squads and knowledge and get better so that they get better rewards...

still dont understand how this will get and easier win ?
I keep pointing that the winrate wont be changed, only the user experience.

Make GAC more enjoyable and the big rosters might actually participate and not fall to the scrub ranks ;) . Problem solved.

"BubbaFett;c-2412282" wrote:

"scuba;c-2412281" wrote:
Make GAC more enjoyable and the big rosters might actually participate and not fall to the scrub ranks ;) . Problem solved.

What about GAC isn't enjoyable?.... I typically respect your opinion, but it's literally a straightforward roster VS. roster battle... If your roster and skills are better you should win... What could be simpler?

I hate platoons, defense is just platoons, units you dump resources into and don't use.
I am also not a PvP person, never really liked it.
I just really don't enjoy TW or GAC.
I don't really have an idea to make it more enjoyable, but I just don't like the format.

There are reasons I am sure these big accounts are not doing GAC and just dropping, my guess would be probably be something to do with the enjoyment factor.

I get others really like these game modes. They are also a necessary evil (for me) so I do TW and some what do GAC.

"BubbaFett;c-2412286" wrote:

"scuba;c-2412284" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2412282" wrote:

"scuba;c-2412281" wrote:
Make GAC more enjoyable and the big rosters might actually participate and not fall to the scrub ranks ;) . Problem solved.

What about GAC isn't enjoyable?.... I typically respect your opinion, but it's literally a straightforward roster VS. roster battle... If your roster and skills are better you should win... What could be simpler?

I hate platoons, defense is just platoons, units you dump resources into and don't use.
I am also not a PvP person, never really liked it.
I just really don't enjoy TW or GAC.
I don't really have an idea to make it more enjoyable, but I just don't like the format.

There are reasons I am sure these big accounts are not doing GAC and just dropping, my guess would be probably be something to do with the enjoyment factor.

I get others really like these game modes. They are also a necessary evil (for me) so I do TW and some what do GAC.

Platoons in GAC? Wrong game mode man....

Some big rosters drop in GAC because they can whale for the rewards so they dont care.Some drop because they don't enjoy the game mode (will give you that, not a huge TW fan myselfso I don't enjoy all modes either)....

That being said, the lower roster dudes should be happy they get as high as they do because the big roster guys drop...

If it weren't for that, and if everyone was using their rosters to the full potential and being super competitive then these low roster guys would be nowehere near where they are...

They should be happy and stop looking a gift horse in the mouth rather than whining about the few super high roster guys that actually beat them in a round...

Defense is essentially platoons in GAC and TW.

IMO the skill based system isn't perfect, however it is way better than the old GP based, which encouraged not boosting rosters. This one allows people to hit and get rewards above thier "GP weight."

Should there be more factors in it, sure but the more you complicate things the more stuff breaks.