So this GAC I've gone 3-0, 1-2 (barely), 3-0, and I'm currently 0-2. This seems wrong to me? (as if the game is wildly overcompensating after each round of 3)So much so I'm now considering throwing the final match if playing for 1st in future GAC. Prefer to avoid being at a 900k GP disadvantage. Seems like I'd have a better shot at Kyber going 2-1 every single round.

Its just you. You need to change up your strat or remod your teamYou seem to be an average player with 6 wins 6 losses (50% success rate) -- don't see this as an issue

This is largely a function of the points cutoffs for each league. The first round is totally open in terms of player pool, and good players should have an easy time. The second round splits the people who went 3-0 and 2-1 into one league and people who went 1-2 and 0-3 into another league, and as such is significantly more challenging for people who moved up.The third round will see the player pool increase again, as players who went 6-0 all the way down to 2-4 will be in the same league. Hence the return of some pretty easy matchups.The fourth round will be quite challenging as it will generally only pool players who went 9-0 through 7-2.There are some edge cases due to feats and low-scoring defensive match-ups, but for the most part your described experience is pretty representative of what a typical player will experience.

Devs need to change how the matchmaking system in GAC works, because a) GP is not an accurate measure of a player's true roster strength and b) GP only represents a player's investments at best hence the big advantages/disadvantages that occur between some players.

"DarjeloSalas;c-1997881" wrote:"BeralCator;c-1997872" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-1997846" wrote:"dimi4a;c-1997839" wrote:"Fanatic;c-1997806" wrote:"dimi4a;c-1997792" wrote:"Legend91;c-1997790" wrote:The final round is where the (mostly) successful people are matched against each other so it's harder to win there.And I also thought we've passed the "oh my god my opponent has xxxk more GP" time. GP is meaningless.Well tell that to the Devs!It's meaningless in terms of whether player A can beat player B. And it's meaningless in terms of the total GP differences players always point out, because GAC isn't based on total GP, it is based on top X toons in a players roster.For the devs they need SOME number by which to calculate who is 'equivalent' to rank together. That is what GP is. Personally I'd like to see them move to a ladder ranking like most games use that is based on win/loss ratios (and which bracket you are in). But they do need to use a number. They chose GP. They could have chosen total zeta's applied, or total g12 characters, or any other arbitrary number. None of those would be meaningfully better than the current top X GP. They could try and weight different characters differently, but that is also a rather arbitrary assignment with which the player base (as a whole) would not agree with - and those character weights would need to be re-evaluated with every new character release and how they interact with existing toons.But it's meaningless as in not a balanced and fair way to pit players against each other. GP doesn't take into account character abilities and synergies.And what would you suggest as an alternative? Without entirely blowing up the current GP calculation (which is somewhat impractical as other game modes are based on it)?You could add an aging algorithm to each character that devalues their GP by an exponential amount for every quarter since their kit was last touched. The function could largely filter out launch toons like CUP, Ugnaught, Tuskens, etc. while preserving most of the value of anything after the introduction of zetas. I think we'd all agree that new characters have more utility and synergy, and that the adjusted health and protection and G13 finisher stats for older characters didn't really alter the landscape much.There are only a handful of untouched kits that still play OK: Clone Sergeant, Ewok Elder, First Order Officer, Snowtrooper, and Resistance Trooper. They are already low GP anyway because they have only 3 abilities and generally don't show up in people's top X.When was Thrawn’s kit last touched? Nest? They’re pretty good and are exactly the same as they were when released. An adaptive matchmaking algorithm would be incredible, but let’s be honest with ourselves: there is absolutely no way the devs are up to the task of implementing and maintaining such a system effectively. Thrawn was 6/13/2017, and Nest was 6/1/2018. Zetas were introduced near the end of 2016. I'm thinking of a curve where anything from 1/1/2017 forward is >75% value and approaching 100% as you move towards today, and anything before 1/1/2017 is approaching 50% or less as you get to the start date of the game.There are obviously outliers like Nest and Thrawn, but I was trying to quickly suggest something that could be a single equation and would not yield nonsense results. There's never going to be a perfect system, but it's depressing that many of us can come up with a superior solution in under 20 minutes.

"dimi4a;c-1998629" wrote:"Waqui;c-1998081" wrote:"dimi4a;c-1997924" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-1997868" wrote:"dimi4a;c-1997859" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-1997846" wrote:"dimi4a;c-1997839" wrote:"Fanatic;c-1997806" wrote:"dimi4a;c-1997792" wrote:"Legend91;c-1997790" wrote:The final round is where the (mostly) successful people are matched against each other so it's harder to win there.And I also thought we've passed the "oh my god my opponent has xxxk more GP" time. GP is meaningless.Well tell that to the Devs!It's meaningless in terms of whether player A can beat player B. And it's meaningless in terms of the total GP differences players always point out, because GAC isn't based on total GP, it is based on top X toons in a players roster.For the devs they need SOME number by which to calculate who is 'equivalent' to rank together. That is what GP is. Personally I'd like to see them move to a ladder ranking like most games use that is based on win/loss ratios (and which bracket you are in). But they do need to use a number. They chose GP. They could have chosen total zeta's applied, or total g12 characters, or any other arbitrary number. None of those would be meaningfully better than the current top X GP. They could try and weight different characters differently, but that is also a rather arbitrary assignment with which the player base (as a whole) would not agree with - and those character weights would need to be re-evaluated with every new character release and how they interact with existing toons.But it's meaningless as in not a balanced and fair way to pit players against each other. GP doesn't take into account character abilities and synergies.And what would you suggest as an alternative? Ask the "big brains" behind the game, not me!So you dismiss the current metric for matchmaking but can’t suggest something better?Can you tell me why GP is a bad way to pit players against one another, at least?Because it's one thing facing a G13 Ewok team and something else facing a G13 Darth Revan/Malak team (with both teams having a similar GP). So, one invested resources in a mediocre team, while the other invested in one of the top teams. Why shouldn't the player, who invested in the stronger team have an advantage? Why shouldn't it matter, how you build your roster? Why should the player, who invested in the weaker team, have the same chance at winning a GA? And why shouldn't the matchmaking put you up against a player who invested in the similar teams?Because the choices you make when deciding who to invest resources in should matter in a competitive game mode. One should not be exempt from beating the new meta team just because they don't have it, that would defeat the point of getting a new team.

GAC Matchup Discrepency | EA Forums

NotRealUltra
Seasoned Newcomer
5 years ago
Its just you. You need to change up your strat or remod your team

You seem to be an average player with 6 wins 6 losses (50% success rate) -- don't see this as an issue
MasterSki34
5 years ago
This is largely a function of the points cutoffs for each league.

The first round is totally open in terms of player pool, and good players should have an easy time.

The second round splits the people who went 3-0 and 2-1 into one league and people who went 1-2 and 0-3 into another league, and as such is significantly more challenging for people who moved up.

The third round will see the player pool increase again, as players who went 6-0 all the way down to 2-4 will be in the same league. Hence the return of some pretty easy matchups.

The fourth round will be quite challenging as it will generally only pool players who went 9-0 through 7-2.

There are some edge cases due to feats and low-scoring defensive match-ups, but for the most part your described experience is pretty representative of what a typical player will experience.
Player_3k700krq
5 years ago
Devs need to change how the matchmaking system in GAC works, because a) GP is not an accurate measure of a player's true roster strength and b) GP only represents a player's investments at best hence the big advantages/disadvantages that occur between some players.
MasterSki34
5 years ago
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997881" wrote:
"BeralCator;c-1997872" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997846" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997839" wrote:
"Fanatic;c-1997806" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997792" wrote:
"Legend91;c-1997790" wrote:
The final round is where the (mostly) successful people are matched against each other so it's harder to win there.
And I also thought we've passed the "oh my god my opponent has xxxk more GP" time. GP is meaningless.

Well tell that to the Devs!

It's meaningless in terms of whether player A can beat player B. And it's meaningless in terms of the total GP differences players always point out, because GAC isn't based on total GP, it is based on top X toons in a players roster.

For the devs they need SOME number by which to calculate who is 'equivalent' to rank together. That is what GP is. Personally I'd like to see them move to a ladder ranking like most games use that is based on win/loss ratios (and which bracket you are in). But they do need to use a number. They chose GP. They could have chosen total zeta's applied, or total g12 characters, or any other arbitrary number. None of those would be meaningfully better than the current top X GP. They could try and weight different characters differently, but that is also a rather arbitrary assignment with which the player base (as a whole) would not agree with - and those character weights would need to be re-evaluated with every new character release and how they interact with existing toons.

But it's meaningless as in not a balanced and fair way to pit players against each other. GP doesn't take into account character abilities and synergies.

And what would you suggest as an alternative?

Without entirely blowing up the current GP calculation (which is somewhat impractical as other game modes are based on it)?

You could add an aging algorithm to each character that devalues their GP by an exponential amount for every quarter since their kit was last touched. The function could largely filter out launch toons like CUP, Ugnaught, Tuskens, etc. while preserving most of the value of anything after the introduction of zetas. I think we'd all agree that new characters have more utility and synergy, and that the adjusted health and protection and G13 finisher stats for older characters didn't really alter the landscape much.

There are only a handful of untouched kits that still play OK: Clone Sergeant, Ewok Elder, First Order Officer, Snowtrooper, and Resistance Trooper. They are already low GP anyway because they have only 3 abilities and generally don't show up in people's top X.

When was Thrawn’s kit last touched? Nest? They’re pretty good and are exactly the same as they were when released.

An adaptive matchmaking algorithm would be incredible, but let’s be honest with ourselves: there is absolutely no way the devs are up to the task of implementing and maintaining such a system effectively.

Thrawn was 6/13/2017, and Nest was 6/1/2018. Zetas were introduced near the end of 2016. I'm thinking of a curve where anything from 1/1/2017 forward is >75% value and approaching 100% as you move towards today, and anything before 1/1/2017 is approaching 50% or less as you get to the start date of the game.

There are obviously outliers like Nest and Thrawn, but I was trying to quickly suggest something that could be a single equation and would not yield nonsense results. There's never going to be a perfect system, but it's depressing that many of us can come up with a superior solution in under 20 minutes.
littlemac2014
5 years ago
"dimi4a;c-1998629" wrote:
"Waqui;c-1998081" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997924" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997868" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997859" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997846" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997839" wrote:
"Fanatic;c-1997806" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997792" wrote:
"Legend91;c-1997790" wrote:
The final round is where the (mostly) successful people are matched against each other so it's harder to win there.
And I also thought we've passed the "oh my god my opponent has xxxk more GP" time. GP is meaningless.

Well tell that to the Devs!

It's meaningless in terms of whether player A can beat player B. And it's meaningless in terms of the total GP differences players always point out, because GAC isn't based on total GP, it is based on top X toons in a players roster.

For the devs they need SOME number by which to calculate who is 'equivalent' to rank together. That is what GP is. Personally I'd like to see them move to a ladder ranking like most games use that is based on win/loss ratios (and which bracket you are in). But they do need to use a number. They chose GP. They could have chosen total zeta's applied, or total g12 characters, or any other arbitrary number. None of those would be meaningfully better than the current top X GP. They could try and weight different characters differently, but that is also a rather arbitrary assignment with which the player base (as a whole) would not agree with - and those character weights would need to be re-evaluated with every new character release and how they interact with existing toons.

But it's meaningless as in not a balanced and fair way to pit players against each other. GP doesn't take into account character abilities and synergies.

And what would you suggest as an alternative?

Ask the "big brains" behind the game, not me!

So you dismiss the current metric for matchmaking but can’t suggest something better?

Can you tell me why GP is a bad way to pit players against one another, at least?

Because it's one thing facing a G13 Ewok team and something else facing a G13 Darth Revan/Malak team (with both teams having a similar GP).

So, one invested resources in a mediocre team, while the other invested in one of the top teams. Why shouldn't the player, who invested in the stronger team have an advantage? Why shouldn't it matter, how you build your roster? Why should the player, who invested in the weaker team, have the same chance at winning a GA?

And why shouldn't the matchmaking put you up against a player who invested in the similar teams?

Because the choices you make when deciding who to invest resources in should matter in a competitive game mode. One should not be exempt from beating the new meta team just because they don't have it, that would defeat the point of getting a new team.
Crazygone1
5 years ago
"littleMAC77;c-1999130" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1998629" wrote:
"Waqui;c-1998081" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997924" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997868" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997859" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997846" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997839" wrote:
"Fanatic;c-1997806" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997792" wrote:
"Legend91;c-1997790" wrote:
The final round is where the (mostly) successful people are matched against each other so it's harder to win there.
And I also thought we've passed the "oh my god my opponent has xxxk more GP" time. GP is meaningless.

Well tell that to the Devs!

It's meaningless in terms of whether player A can beat player B. And it's meaningless in terms of the total GP differences players always point out, because GAC isn't based on total GP, it is based on top X toons in a players roster.

For the devs they need SOME number by which to calculate who is 'equivalent' to rank together. That is what GP is. Personally I'd like to see them move to a ladder ranking like most games use that is based on win/loss ratios (and which bracket you are in). But they do need to use a number. They chose GP. They could have chosen total zeta's applied, or total g12 characters, or any other arbitrary number. None of those would be meaningfully better than the current top X GP. They could try and weight different characters differently, but that is also a rather arbitrary assignment with which the player base (as a whole) would not agree with - and those character weights would need to be re-evaluated with every new character release and how they interact with existing toons.

But it's meaningless as in not a balanced and fair way to pit players against each other. GP doesn't take into account character abilities and synergies.

And what would you suggest as an alternative?

Ask the "big brains" behind the game, not me!

So you dismiss the current metric for matchmaking but can’t suggest something better?

Can you tell me why GP is a bad way to pit players against one another, at least?

Because it's one thing facing a G13 Ewok team and something else facing a G13 Darth Revan/Malak team (with both teams having a similar GP).

So, one invested resources in a mediocre team, while the other invested in one of the top teams. Why shouldn't the player, who invested in the stronger team have an advantage? Why shouldn't it matter, how you build your roster? Why should the player, who invested in the weaker team, have the same chance at winning a GA?

And why shouldn't the matchmaking put you up against a player who invested in the similar teams?

One should not be exempt from beating the new meta team just because they don't have it, that would defeat the point of getting a new team.

That would defeat the fun from the game as well. It is possible to play the way you want and still be successful though, it's just stressful and difficult but very much possible.
bbangerter
5 years ago
"dimi4a;c-1999178" wrote:

Boring? It would be as close to balanced and fair as it can be. Going up against a player with 900k advantage because of flawed matchmaking isn't exactly fair.

The 900k GP advantage is a farce. If you are using 900k more of GP than your opponent in the actual fighting it is because you lost to a GG team 50 times and were hoping by some miracle your G8 squads in your roster would get lucky and finish him off.

And if you look at the GP difference between the top X teams (X being dependent on your bracket), there is no 900k difference.
Legend91x
5 years ago
"dimi4a;c-1999188" wrote:
"RandomSithLord;c-1999059" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1998629" wrote:
"Waqui;c-1998081" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997924" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997868" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997859" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-1997846" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997839" wrote:
"Fanatic;c-1997806" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997792" wrote:
"Legend91;c-1997790" wrote:
The final round is where the (mostly) successful people are matched against each other so it's harder to win there.
And I also thought we've passed the "oh my god my opponent has xxxk more GP" time. GP is meaningless.

Well tell that to the Devs!

It's meaningless in terms of whether player A can beat player B. And it's meaningless in terms of the total GP differences players always point out, because GAC isn't based on total GP, it is based on top X toons in a players roster.

For the devs they need SOME number by which to calculate who is 'equivalent' to rank together. That is what GP is. Personally I'd like to see them move to a ladder ranking like most games use that is based on win/loss ratios (and which bracket you are in). But they do need to use a number. They chose GP. They could have chosen total zeta's applied, or total g12 characters, or any other arbitrary number. None of those would be meaningfully better than the current top X GP. They could try and weight different characters differently, but that is also a rather arbitrary assignment with which the player base (as a whole) would not agree with - and those character weights would need to be re-evaluated with every new character release and how they interact with existing toons.

But it's meaningless as in not a balanced and fair way to pit players against each other. GP doesn't take into account character abilities and synergies.

And what would you suggest as an alternative?

Ask the "big brains" behind the game, not me!

So you dismiss the current metric for matchmaking but can’t suggest something better?

Can you tell me why GP is a bad way to pit players against one another, at least?

Because it's one thing facing a G13 Ewok team and something else facing a G13 Darth Revan/Malak team (with both teams having a similar GP).

So, one invested resources in a mediocre team, while the other invested in one of the top teams. Why shouldn't the player, who invested in the stronger team have an advantage? Why shouldn't it matter, how you build your roster? Why should the player, who invested in the weaker team, have the same chance at winning a GA?

And why shouldn't the matchmaking put you up against a player who invested in the similar teams?

Why should it put you up against someone that invested in the same teams?

You are supposed to fight players with similar level of investment but who might have made different choices, not a mirror of your roster.

Because that's what balanced matchmaking is! Or you mean to tell me that facing a player that has 400-500K+ and above GP advantage is fair?

Can you maybe just stop it with the "my opponent has xxxk more GP! this is unfair!" nonsense?. GP is meaningless.
bbangerter
5 years ago
"dimi4a;c-1999199" wrote:

That just makes the game dull, boring and doesn't leave players with much choice! Out of so many characters to choose from, players will invest mostly in the top tier ones (about a third of all) as they are the most effective at defense/offense because of how the model of this game is set.

Wait, I thought you said you wanted to face opponents with rosters similar to yours?
"dimi4a;c-1999199" wrote:

It would be as close to balanced and fair as it can be

Wouldn't players all picking the same (top 1/3) of toons result in players with similar rosters, thus creating your ideal 'balanced and fair' effect?
RSithLord
5 years ago
"dimi4a;c-1999222" wrote:
"Fanatic;c-1999174" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1997924" wrote:

Because it's one thing facing a G13 Ewok team and something else facing a G13 Darth Revan/Malak team (with both teams having a similar GP). As i mentioned GP doesn't take into account character abilities and synergies therefore it isn't an accurate measure of a player's true roster strength. How is that so hard to understand?

So you think a maxed out DR/malak team should be worth more than a maxed out ewok team?

I have good news for you, a maxed out DR/Malak team comes in at 150062 GP.
A maxed out ewok team comes in at 119848 GP.

In other words, they do not have similar GP if they are G13 (or in my example G13/r7). If the GP is similar, that DR/Malak team is G11 or G10. No the DR/Malak might still beat the ewok team if those teams go head to head, but that is part of the strategy - figuring out what team comps to use against the posted defenses. (Eg, you don't send CLS/Han/Chewie - a very strong team) against JKR.

Well with the current power creep try to figure out how to beat a G13 7* GAS team for example! Because from what i've seen so far on YouTube strategy won't help you much against that team!

Have you come up against one?