GAC matchups

"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.