GAC Mismatches

"CiscoKid;c-2352109" wrote:
Appreciate the dialogue all. Still a little disheartened… just seems to be getting worse not better.

Of course it's getting harder. If you were a competitive tennis player, wouldn't you expect your opponents to get tougher as you climb the ranks?

"CiscoKid;c-2352109" wrote:
Appreciate the dialogue all. Still a little disheartened… just seems to be getting worse not better. My other compliant is fleet… it suddenly went from 2 to 3 on defense…. Again, someone at 7.3M GP vs 8.5M-9M won’t have enough to really fill out a solid defense. Just a bummer.

At 7.3m GP I can field 6 coherent fleets plus a couple of trashups and I am powering up a 7th coherent fleet to use as my offensive reserve. I also have more than enough squads for defense and offense.

As for losing you had best get used to it. Gone are the days where you could finish a season 12-0. Now if you are managing 6-6 or better then you are doing well. Win what you can and don't sweat the rest.

Again, I still stand by the fact that someone with 8.5-9M GP has an insane advantage over someone with 7.3M regardless of ranking. The matching makes no sense, isn’t fair and is a massive step backwards for keeping folks engaged in this game.

No matchmaking system will be popular with everyone, but the current one seems as “fair” (totally subjective concept) as any could get. Plus it rewards overall roster development, not engineering an “efficient” roster for a certain game mode. If you’re punching up in GP, it means that you’re good at GAC for your GP compared to the others in your bracket.

It would be nice if CG matched based on Skill Rating first, and then those with same SR were matched based on closest GP.

Either the matchmaking algorithm can’t handle two filters, or they want to try and frustrate the lower GP player into spending their way out of this situation. My guess is the latter.

"TheDude420;c-2352393" wrote:
It would be nice if CG matched based on Skill Rating first, and then those with same SR were matched based on closest GP.

Either the matchmaking algorithm can’t handle two filters, or they want to try and frustrate the lower GP player into spending their way out of this situation. My guess is the latter.

Or they didn't do it because they felt it was irrelevant. You might "feel" better that way, but your rewards won't work out any differently. You'll just lose to someone with the same GLs instead of losing to someone with more GLs.

"TheDude420;c-2352393" wrote:
It would be nice if CG matched based on Skill Rating first, and then those with same SR were matched based on closest GP.

The problem with this approach is, counterintuitively, it might actually punish more skillful players. With the same SR, I would rather get matched up with someone with like 50% GP on me, than someone with the same GP. The latter likely would be either on the same skill level or as diligently playing as I am, whereas the former must have some other reason, perhaps less active, or more casual.

OTOH, I can also see the argument that going up against someone with a lot more GP is less "fun" because it makes one feel much more limited and more powerless, despite that it might actually be an easier win. It's hard to argue against that because "fun" is a much more subjective term than "fair".

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2352482" wrote:

"TheDude420;c-2352393" wrote:
It would be nice if CG matched based on Skill Rating first, and then those with same SR were matched based on closest GP.

The problem with this approach is, counterintuitively, it might actually punish more skillful players. With the same SR, I would rather get matched up with someone with like 50% GP on me, than someone with the same GP. The latter likely would be either on the same skill level or as diligently playing as I am, whereas the former must have some other reason, perhaps less active, or more casual.

OTOH, I can also see the argument that going up against someone with a lot more GP is less "fun" because it makes one feel much more limited and more powerless, despite that it might actually be an easier win. It's hard to argue against that because "fun" is a much more subjective term than "fair".

Basically you have to accept that the system is designed to fairly distribute rewards, not give "even" matchups. It can be difficult to see the fun in it sometimes on a match by match basis.

My experience, in the 100-500 range of K1, the new system gives MUCH more even (i.e. competitive and close) matches than the old.

It sounds like this experience is not universal, which is a bummer for early- and mid-game players :(

A lot of solutions I see offered would ruin K1 for us tryhards. Surely there's a path that could work for everyone, not that CG would care to implement it.

Maybe let people join a "casual" GAC with reduced rewards and GP-bases divisions? I dunno

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2352482" wrote:

"TheDude420;c-2352393" wrote:
It would be nice if CG matched based on Skill Rating first, and then those with same SR were matched based on closest GP.

The problem with this approach is, counterintuitively, it might actually punish more skillful players. With the same SR, I would rather get matched up with someone with like 50% GP on me, than someone with the same GP. The latter likely would be either on the same skill level or as diligently playing as I am, whereas the former must have some other reason, perhaps less active, or more casual.

Agreed. I'd rather play someone with higher GP than someone with same GP as me or lower. The former would usually be easier because it's a "less skilled" player. Plus I like to test myself against super strong rosters to see how far I can push. But occasionally I like fighting similar GP players too, as it's usually a very intense battle. I also prefer fighting players with bigger rosters because there's less pressure for me. I like being the underdog since it doesn't feel as bad when I do end up losing, and at the same time it feels even better when I do end up winning.