GAC matchups

"Valeran;c-2338477" wrote:
Don't worry. I've been dealing for weeks with opponents who have 4-5 GLs and 5-7* Executors and I just have 2 GLs and a 4* Executor. I just love fighting against the impossible! Thanks CG (not).

That can only mean 2 things. You are very good at GAC and you are now facing a wall, or you have a terrible roster and slowly falling to your place.

I can’t fall much farther since I am carbonite 4. But I am 900k GP. HOW am I matched against a 2M GP opponent with 20 relic toons when I have 3 zetas. No fun.

"Kathark;c-2338493" wrote:
I can’t fall much farther since I am carbonite 4. But I am 900k GP. HOW am I matched against a 2M GP opponent with 20 relic toons when I have 3 zetas. No fun.

To fall this far, it means your opponent probably lost on the way against rosters close to yours.

"Titanslain;c-2338523" wrote:
@marxuke Try being 2.5 mil down before you complain.

Oh man that is sad. Way bigger gp means often also that they have more counters to use.

I guess it’s this persons time to lose.

"DarjeloSalas;c-2338481" wrote:

"Wolfcast1e;c-2338479" wrote:

"Valeran;c-2338477" wrote:
Don't worry. I've been dealing for weeks with opponents who have 4-5 GLs and 5-7* Executors and I just have 2 GLs and a 4* Executor. I just love fighting against the impossible! Thanks CG (not).

That can only mean 2 things. You are very good at GAC and you are now facing a wall, or you have a terrible roster and slowly falling to your place.

There is a third possibility - he’s exaggerating.

If someone with 2 GLs and a 4* Exec has been facing rosters with 4-5 GLs and 5-7* Execs “for weeks”, they must have beaten some of them. But he said they’re “impossible”?

Sharing an ally code would clear this up.

weird some even dont think about fourth possibility, where the matchup system still is sometimes broken or not working as intended.

"marxuke;c-2338645" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2338481" wrote:

"Wolfcast1e;c-2338479" wrote:

"Valeran;c-2338477" wrote:
Don't worry. I've been dealing for weeks with opponents who have 4-5 GLs and 5-7* Executors and I just have 2 GLs and a 4* Executor. I just love fighting against the impossible! Thanks CG (not).

That can only mean 2 things. You are very good at GAC and you are now facing a wall, or you have a terrible roster and slowly falling to your place.

There is a third possibility - he’s exaggerating.

If someone with 2 GLs and a 4* Exec has been facing rosters with 4-5 GLs and 5-7* Execs “for weeks”, they must have beaten some of them. But he said they’re “impossible”?

Sharing an ally code would clear this up.

weird some even dont think about fourth possibility, where the matchup system still is sometimes broken or not working as intended.

Proof?

There will always be mismatches if you look at GLs and GP. But that’s not what the matchup system uses - it uses your actual performance against players who have been doing similarly well against similar opponents. If you’re punching up in a given round, it means you performed better with the tools you have than your opponents. That’s a good thing. Ultimately, everyone will average about a .500 finish each month.

I think blocking players for a season that signup but dont attack would massively help MM. I've had this a few times but I can't make sense of why a player is doing it unless its for some sandbagging purpose I dont understand. They had to select "join" so they're at least active but they dont get awards unless they attack, correct? Why would a player do that?

I've "beaten" accounts with nearly double my GP because of it and I think that kills me in future matchmaking because I won a match I would had certainly lost if they played.

"marxuke;c-2338645" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2338481" wrote:

"Wolfcast1e;c-2338479" wrote:

"Valeran;c-2338477" wrote:
Don't worry. I've been dealing for weeks with opponents who have 4-5 GLs and 5-7* Executors and I just have 2 GLs and a 4* Executor. I just love fighting against the impossible! Thanks CG (not).

That can only mean 2 things. You are very good at GAC and you are now facing a wall, or you have a terrible roster and slowly falling to your place.

There is a third possibility - he’s exaggerating.

If someone with 2 GLs and a 4* Exec has been facing rosters with 4-5 GLs and 5-7* Execs “for weeks”, they must have beaten some of them. But he said they’re “impossible”?

Sharing an ally code would clear this up.

weird some even dont think about fourth possibility, where the matchup system still is sometimes broken or not working as intended.

The system is so simple I don't see how it's possible for it to be broken. However, it doesn't mean weird match ups can't happen.

1) It needs time for everyone to find its appropriate spot in the ladder. As time goes, those match ups will be less frequent

2) Some players fall because they don't play. When they do play, the opponent will most likely have a much weaker roster and get smashed

3) Some players may spend a lot at once and up their roster like crazy. Players with similar SR that didn't spend and just use time to develop their roster will get smashed on the spender's way up the ladder

4) Some players think losing on purpose to face weaker opponents in a lower division is a smart strategy. I think they're wrong and still didn't see the math that proved them right, but as long as they think it's the case, they'll do it. Facing them is a coin toss then. Head, they lose on purpose, Tail, they play and win.

Time will take care of 1), so as long as 2, 3 and 4 stay anecdotal, the system will work just fine. If 4) turns out to be a valid strategy (please prove it people), then it will be a major problem and not WAI.