GAC Matchup Discrepency

"Djangoskywalker1;c-1997724" wrote:


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.

It might be a reasonable rough guide, but points also depend heavily on how many zones you clear and how much losses you take. Certainly you can make Aurodium going into week 4 with a much worse than 7-2 record if you're full clearing and finishing feats. In fact, if you're clearing your opponents, you pretty much need to lose all your matches not to advance league each round.

I haven't run the numbers, but as a test case, I started week 4 in Aurodium at 6-3 Div 2. And it wasn't close, I probably would have made it at 4-5 or 3-6 with the same combat scores (I went 3-0 to finish and barely made Kyber). But I got all the feats and averaged close to 1900 points. Players using defensive strategies would need a much better record.

Won 13. Lost 1. Tied 1.

Trying to go a bit more offensive now, I just want to full clear tbh. I don't care 100% if I get the win.

"DarjeloSalas;c-1997771" wrote:
It’s not as nakedly stated as @BeralCator makes out, but it does effectively work like this, because matchups are always done within leagues.

During GA1 (these are Div 1 figures by the way) players need to average 1580 or so per match to make it to bronzium, not counting feats which will lower that figure. Pretty much anyone who is engaging with the game mode will manage that, unless they are extremely unlucky with matchmaking or just plain bad at the game.

So GA2 will see those trying matched together as they’re all in chromium, whilst those not engaging or bad or unlucky will be matched together as they’re in Carbonite.

At the end of GA2, feats not counted, players need to have averaged 1875 per match to make Chromium. That is actually doable with no victories at all - if you full clear them all but lose on efficiency. More likely though, those that have lost a match or 2 will not make it to Chromium.

So GA3 sees those who have won 3 or more matches grouped together in Chromium, those who have engaged but not done well matched together in Bronzium and... well anyone who is still in Carbonite after 6 rounds... who cares?

But it’s GA3 into GA4 that separates things out. To get into Aurodium after 9 matches you need to be averaging just over 2600 per match. Feats reduce that slightly, but we’re talking at most 2 defeats here to make it there.

And that’s the reality. Those who make Aurodium after GA3 are all matched together. And they’ll have at least a 7&2 record or better. That’s why GA4 typically sees the toughest matchups for the most successful players.

Correct. The difficulty of the first three GAs is largely a function of randomness, as the player pool doesn't diminish a whole lot - pretty much anyone who actively participates will advance to the next league. As stated you can theoretically lose every match and still be in Chromium for GA3 as long as you get full clears and do some feats. In GA4 you are pretty much only facing intelligent players who win most of their matches, so the difficulty level is noticeably greater.

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.

"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!

I noticed the last GAC matchups were definitely the hardest. I had won all my matchups to that point. This last one was when I got the loss and the tie. These last few guys were not messing around. :D

"Blackbeardpepe;c-1997760" wrote:
Won 13. Lost 1. Tied 1.

Trying to go a bit more offensive now, I just want to full clear tbh. I don't care 100% if I get the win.

How? its 4 weeks of 3 matchups... 12 total.

Sorry. I had in my head it was 15.

So, 10 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie.

This match was the tie, so I'll see if I won or lost today.

"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.

"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.