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

bbangerter
6 years ago
"dimi4a;c-1999222" wrote:

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!

Sounds like how when malak first came out DR/Malak was unbeatable. Right up until the point where people started actually experimenting and things like GG suicide droids, JKR/Thrawn, etc were shown to work.

Given that so few people have a 7* GAS, there just aren't many people who are even attempting to beat 7* GAS, so yes right now it may look unbeatable. I recommend we wait and see what comes to light in a few months before we make any judgement calls on that.
emvedebe
6 years ago
"dimi4a;c-1999880" wrote:
"littleMAC77;c-1999403" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1999199" wrote:
"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?

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.

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.

Rewarding players who make better roster decisions will make the game dull, yet your suggestion will lead to mirror matches (by taking into account which specific toons a person has). Mirror matches are the most dull and boring possible.

Yeah, this leads to most players investing in the "meta" characters, however I would argue that matches are more often decided by who has the best counter-meta teams and B squads. Finding and developing those squads that can get around your opponents high end teams or steal a few banners on def are what differentiate rosters.

Still, the game is about choices, most importantly who to invest in. If you didn't invest in the meta, or its counter, you don't deserve to beat your peers who did.

Yes it's about the choices, but that's not always the case and even if you invested in the top tier teams/characters you may still end up facing a big spender who invested a lot more in those teams than you, because of how the current matchmaking system works!

that actually isn't how the system works, but i guess we all need something to blame our 35 loss streak on...
matthewsaada
New Novice
6 years ago
"littleMAC77;c-1999910" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1999880" wrote:
"littleMAC77;c-1999403" wrote:
"dimi4a;c-1999199" wrote:
"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?

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.

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.

Rewarding players who make better roster decisions will make the game dull, yet your suggestion will lead to mirror matches (by taking into account which specific toons a person has). Mirror matches are the most dull and boring possible.

Yeah, this leads to most players investing in the "meta" characters, however I would argue that matches are more often decided by who has the best counter-meta teams and B squads. Finding and developing those squads that can get around your opponents high end teams or steal a few banners on def are what differentiate rosters.

Still, the game is about choices, most importantly who to invest in. If you didn't invest in the meta, or its counter, you don't deserve to beat your peers who did.

Yes it's about the choices, but that's not always the case and even if you invested in the top tier teams/characters you may still end up facing a big spender who invested a lot more in those teams than you, because of how the current matchmaking system works!

If they invested a lot more in those meta teams than you, than that means you have the advantage elsewhere in your top x characters, because that is how the matchmaking system works. It matches based on top x character GP, used to measure investment into your top x, so an "advantage" by one player in one team is made up for by an "advantage" elsewhere by the other player.

See this is a misconception. My g12 let's say less useful bh (i have all bh g12 or g13) aurra 2 zetas, cad, greedo 1 zeta, ig, zam 1zeta have 100k + gp and are in my top 60 characters so are my g12 second rebel squad achbar, biggs, wedge, sth, leia. Now these two squads make up a huge gp and since alot of people wouldn't have these squads to those levels, they'll have something like droids, padme, traya etc which I don't have. Now let's say they have a padme and gg squad which I don't but I have a second bh squad and a second rebel squad which they don't.... Now please show me my advantage that I have in my roster???? It doesn't work like that especially if you've zetad less than useful characters.

Look, I'm farming those squads and I'm not fussed about anything really but I just wanted to point out the fact that if your opponent has great squads that you don't have, it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to have an advantage elsewhere. (You could but not always).
ARC-CaptainRex
6 years ago
"Ultra;c-1996366" wrote:
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

What's weird is I'm going 3-0, then 1-2 using the exact same strategy throughout. I've never had the GP advantage since GAC started, which I've accepted, but a 900k disadvantage is new.
RevanReborn88
6 years ago
Just you it seems. I've only lost 1 round so far. Most I've gone 3-0
Pengin83
6 years ago
"CaptainRex;c-1997350" wrote:
"Ultra;c-1996366" wrote:
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

What's weird is I'm going 3-0, then 1-2 using the exact same strategy throughout. I've never had the GP advantage since GAC started, which I've accepted, but a 900k disadvantage is new.

It’s not that weird. They’re still using GP to matchup people. GP represents your investments in the game and not your roster’s strength. You probably, randomly got 3 easier matches and then 3 harder. The last round is typically the hardest because most people that don’t try have stayed in lower leagues.
austin09370
6 years ago
Perhaps you're not as good as you think you are.
daddyngo007
6 years ago
It’s you. Need to rethink mate
Keydash1
6 years ago
Tanking your early matches will only help if you don't advance in league. If you keep a record where you're bronzium week 2, chromium week 3, and aurodium week 4, you will still be exposed to the hardest matchups. And if you tank enough to be a league behind, you'll have zero chance at kyber.

Other than matching div/league/top teams GP, it's random. Sometimes random helps you, other times not. This GAC, my week 2 and 3 matches were much harder than week 4, but that was just luck. My week 4 opponents were drawn from an overall tougher pool.
Djangoskywalker
6 years ago

"BeralCator;c-1997673" wrote:
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.

This is interesting, has this actually been confirmed? This is my first time hearing of this but would definitely explain the level of competition in my final round.