GAC "Matchmaking"

"iMalevolence;c-2411315" wrote:

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411306" wrote:

"MaruMaru;c-2411299" wrote:

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411297" wrote:
Ticket bots?

Many guilds use it, it is to fill up daily guild 30k when some players are travelling to other guilds temporarily or spots are left open for any reason.

Sounds fair enough. Why should they be banned though @iMalevolence ?

Why not ban them? Botting is against ToS. And some of these guilds that are almost entirely comprised of ticket bots probably use them to create a few hoard accounts to sell and selling accounts is against ToS.

If you need an extra body to hit 600 tickets because you care that much about a raid being 2% sooner, create another account and do it yourself.

Huh. Seems like a waste of time for people to do that to me, but if it's against the ToS then obviously those accounts should be removed.

Neither hoarder accounts (which often don’t hit lvl85 as they want to game pvp shards), nor ticket bots which won’t be joining GAC should be affecting matchmaking though.

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411269" wrote:
I know it was a time saver for active players, but arguably the set defences make this issue worse. It means someone with low activity only needed to set their defences once when the system was introduced and they don’t have to do anything now except sign up for brackets and maybe do a first attack.

I like not having to set my defences every round, but it contributes to the problem.

Meh, if you only set your defence initially it is going to deteriorate over time.
I think I had 3 less GLs and lots of premium teams less when the preset teams got introduced.
Also didn’t have datacrons then.

Unless they refresh every now and then, defense will get worse over time as it’s stuck in the past with old teams.

"MaruMaru;c-2411343" wrote:

"iMalevolence;c-2411315" wrote:

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411306" wrote:

"MaruMaru;c-2411299" wrote:

"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411297" wrote:
Ticket bots?

Many guilds use it, it is to fill up daily guild 30k when some players are travelling to other guilds temporarily or spots are left open for any reason.

Sounds fair enough. Why should they be banned though @iMalevolence ?

Why not ban them? Botting is against ToS. And some of these guilds that are almost entirely comprised of ticket bots probably use them to create a few hoard accounts to sell and selling accounts is against ToS.

If you need an extra body to hit 600 tickets because you care that much about a raid being 2% sooner, create another account and do it yourself.

You may be using the term bots wrong. I've never seen an actual bot account in this game. Do they really exist? When you "ticket bot", what I understand is someone's alt account that gets played for this purpose. There is nothing against having as many accounts as you want or how/how much to play them.

I'm not. Bots exist. People that use them for tickets might as well be considered cheating. :smile:

You can absolutely make a bot to ticket farm for you, just like you can make one to open bronzium or even do all your daily activities.

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).

So more crystals to people with higher GP. I like this idea, let's do it.

That’s not how the chess ratings work. They only change through play - retired players are marked inactive and ignored by the leader boards. So Kasparov still has his 2812 (iirc) rating. Also the Elo system is a little more complex than GAC skill ratings, as ratings are changed based on the strength of your opponent. Some sports use a handicap system as well - like billiards tournaments - where a lower rated player can go up based on winning a single round against a higher rated opponent, even while losing the match.

Scale crystal rewards for a match up by the difference in player deviation from average GP in that league/division. Don't ever scale down rewards, but reward players who "punch up".

For instance, the GP of my last opponent was almost 9.5M. My opponents deviation is .28
My GP is only 7.5M. My deviation from the avg in K2 is -2.24.

For winning, I should receive 2.52x the usual crystal payout.

"iMalevolence;c-2411430" wrote:
Scale crystal rewards for a match up by the difference in player deviation from average GP in that league/division. Don't ever scale down rewards, but reward players who "punch up".

For instance, the GP of my last opponent was almost 9.5M. My opponents deviation is .28
My GP is only 7.5M. My deviation from the avg in K2 is -2.24.

For winning, I should receive 2.52x the usual crystal payout.

CG's not gonna penalize folks for growing their roster. That's counter productive to selling things.

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).