GAC matchups

If skill rating is so great why don’t they create one for TW? And if the the method of putting guilds with similar GP is correct why not do the same for GAC? Just a consistent system would be nice instead of multiple versions.

"Kathark;c-2338785" wrote:

"Starslayer;c-2338556" wrote:

"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.

Ok, but 2M vs 1M GP is way different than 8 vs 9. 100% advantage vs 10% advantage. The range should be tighter at lower levels where a relic or extra zeta makes all the difference. Also I am F2P and would love to see an f2p only league. The game knows, why not let us compete in our own events.

There are f2p players at every level of the game. If there were a f2p only league you'd still be getting matched up against higher GP opponents and you'd still be coming here to whine on the forums

"IronCross;c-2339001" wrote:
If skill rating is so great why don’t they create one for TW? And if the the method of putting guilds with similar GP is correct why not do the same for GAC? Just a consistent system would be nice instead of multiple versions.

Skill rating for guilds wouldn't make much sense, since a guild's actual strength can fluctuate with people leaving and joining the guild.

If you know how they match guilds in TW please fill me in. The old system was easy to understand but this new system.....?

"Kathark;c-2338990" wrote:

"24_Tuesdays;c-2338663" wrote:
matchmaking is based on skill rating, are you saying skill rating is broken

Yes skill rating is broken. My op and I have identical ratings and he has 2x my GP. I understand they need a way to rank players skill at this particular mode, but the rating should always be against players within some small window of your GP. Otherwise you’re not measuring my “skill” at setting squads on O and D at all. No level of skill will let me defeat a 2xGP opponent who actually plays.

You must win alot or he loses alot, simple.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2338840" wrote:
I assume the problem is that people who only participate sometimes end up rofl stomping much weaker accounts when they do show up, which means newer accounts are often facing either no-shows or getting crushed?

If that premise is accurate, seems like a legitimate new player experience concern. I haven't seen an offered solution, however, that I would like for higher leagues.

running a starter guild with newer accounts, I'm getting alot of complaints about the matches of 1.2 mil accounts vs 4-5 mil accounts. When they win it's bc their opponent didn't bother to do anything, which isn't exactly a great feeling. Especially when you spent the previous 24 hours worried and certain you were going to lose. and then you see their defense and they *actually* set defense (but still don't attack) so that's more "well I'm gonna lose. I'll try but I'll still lose." That doesn't encourage them to want to play more or invest more. When they win and climb the worry becomes "well if I was facing 5 mils in this league, I'm gonna face something way worse in this next league."

It's hard to motivate or encourage when there's nothing you can say other than "well if they attack you're screwed."

"InyakSolomon88;c-2339128" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2338840" wrote:
I assume the problem is that people who only participate sometimes end up rofl stomping much weaker accounts when they do show up, which means newer accounts are often facing either no-shows or getting crushed?

If that premise is accurate, seems like a legitimate new player experience concern. I haven't seen an offered solution, however, that I would like for higher leagues.

running a starter guild with newer accounts, I'm getting alot of complaints about the matches of 1.2 mil accounts vs 4-5 mil accounts. When they win it's bc their opponent didn't bother to do anything, which isn't exactly a great feeling. Especially when you spent the previous 24 hours worried and certain you were going to lose. and then you see their defense and they *actually* set defense (but still don't attack) so that's more "well I'm gonna lose. I'll try but I'll still lose." That doesn't encourage them to want to play more or invest more. When they win and climb the worry becomes "well if I was facing 5 mils in this league, I'm gonna face something way worse in this next league."

It's hard to motivate or encourage when there's nothing you can say other than "well if they attack you're screwed."

Easy fix for your guildmates: do the best you can and stop worrying. Losing a few battles now and then doesn’t matter anyway in a system where you’re supposed to lose half your rounds sooner or later.

"Starslayer;c-2339138" wrote:

"InyakSolomon88;c-2339128" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2338840" wrote:
I assume the problem is that people who only participate sometimes end up rofl stomping much weaker accounts when they do show up, which means newer accounts are often facing either no-shows or getting crushed?

If that premise is accurate, seems like a legitimate new player experience concern. I haven't seen an offered solution, however, that I would like for higher leagues.

running a starter guild with newer accounts, I'm getting alot of complaints about the matches of 1.2 mil accounts vs 4-5 mil accounts. When they win it's bc their opponent didn't bother to do anything, which isn't exactly a great feeling. Especially when you spent the previous 24 hours worried and certain you were going to lose. and then you see their defense and they *actually* set defense (but still don't attack) so that's more "well I'm gonna lose. I'll try but I'll still lose." That doesn't encourage them to want to play more or invest more. When they win and climb the worry becomes "well if I was facing 5 mils in this league, I'm gonna face something way worse in this next league."

It's hard to motivate or encourage when there's nothing you can say other than "well if they attack you're screwed."

Easy fix for your guildmates: do the best you can and stop worrying. Losing a few battles now and then doesn’t matter anyway in a system where you’re supposed to lose half your rounds sooner or later.

Believe me, I do. Saying that a 50% W/L record is CG's goal doesn't exactly please people. Their issue is the system itself. it's one thing to lose and another to have the game force you to lose, as they see it.

"InyakSolomon88;c-2339149" wrote:


Believe me, I do. Saying that a 50% W/L record is CG's goal doesn't exactly please people. Their issue is the system itself. it's one thing to lose and another to have the game force you to lose, as they see it.

Agreed.
I don't think that people in general have a problem with losing a match if it is fair and balanced. I think what people (and I) have a problem with is losing, because it is predetermined and coded that way. That's no fun in a pvp setting because it has nothing to do with how you play.

Imagine if, for example in football, all teams were told at the beginning of a season, that no matter how good they play it is intended for them to lose 50% of their games. And how boring would it be for all people watching a game, where they already know the outcome of. Also how motivated do you think would that team, that is supposed to lose, be?

So, presumably GAC matchups are based on where you land on the leaderboard in your skill rating. Does anyone have a good idea on how they rank players with the same skill rating?

"nottenst;c-2339173" wrote:
So, presumably GAC matchups are based on where you land on the leaderboard in your skill rating. Does anyone have a good idea on how they rank players with the same skill rating?

I was asking myself the same question.

How exactly is it decided, if there are say 300 people with the same SR, where they get placed?

How is it calculated how many Skill Points you gain or lose?