Getting old with the GP disparity - every level is having this problem besides Kyber 1

"pinguinbooks;c-2353110" wrote:
here is an idea to "punish" sandbaggers:
don't reward everyone with the same amount of crystals for a win. put in the gp difference as a factor (maybe only if the difference gets to high, like it exceeds 10% of the players gp). so low gp winning against a big one will give significantly more crystals.

I don't support this. People like me, who have bloated their GP for TB deployment and TW-rewards, are punished by your Idea.

"Phoenixeon;c-2353098" wrote:
Just curious how do you seperate sandbagging and reallife problems?

Maybe you can't, but if you have real life problems rewards ain't your biggest concern. However, maybe you can.

1. Sandbagging is a repeated thing.

2. Sandbagging you're signing up and doing minimal attacking for rewards. An RL more likely than not wouldn't result in this.

I don't know why we would want to incorporate GP into matchmaking and/or rewards, again. Have we already forgotten about all the threads complaining about the GP-based mismatches, and the fundamental flaw that caused the mismatches: one single numerical value does not even begin to measure a roster?

"CCyrilS;c-2352995" wrote:

"Fingolfin26;c-2352993" wrote:
I don't see why this is so challenging an issue. Start with the current matchmaking, then after you've got everyone grouped further refine the matches based on number of gls bare minimum. A gl will trump skill with a given roster when you don't have enough tools. Then you get people who are at least close on number of gls, and there's a reasonable chance of victory for both sides

Terrible idea. Takes away a hard earned advantage for those who have GLs.

Also, your premise that GLs trump skill is absolutely false. I just went 3-0 and every single opponent had more GP and more GLs (and they all showed up to play)

Terrible idea.

No, it doesn't. The idea of skill based matchmaking is to not match people with advantages. It's to match people who are close.

Your first statement contradicts your second statement. Additionally the fact you beat people with more gls doesn't disapprove anything. Just because gls will tell skill WITH A GIVEN ROSTER. Read what I actually wrote instead of just resorting to straw man arguments. Logical fallacies should be left at the door.

Cg has nerfed the vast majority of non gl counters. So your skill is moot, if you are at a disadvantage in gls. Again with some exception as there are a few counters left with high relics and great mods. Also the fact that your opponents showed up to play doesn't mean they played well, their skill might be significantly inferior to yours.

Also I said close on number of gls, not the exact same number. How many more did your opponents have?

I have complained about this as well in several other posts but my unique perspective is from the bottom of the barrel (carbonite, 1.3M f2p, a few zetas and no relics). The matching there is bonkers. But I kept hoping it would get better. That the hail storm of inactive accounts would pass. My last week I had three reasonable matchups and went 3-0 with some close games. Was this it? Was I in the clear? I was promoted to carbonite 3! And my first match is against a 4.9M acct with 100s of relic lvls. Sigh. Can we please have a sliding scale of GP differential on top of SR to force these folks to play each other? Larger allowed differential the higher you rise of course. But man it’s no fun facing these inactive “hope they don’t play” matches.

The real issue here is that the Win/Loss factor of "Skill Rating" is counting for far too much.

The Win/Loss would be fine if it moved you from Div-5 to Div-3 in the same League, but, the Leagues should still be set up by GP.

So if "Kyber" is 7+ Mil to start, then the 7.0 Kyber-5's should be able to advance to Kyber-1 if they keep winning & the 11 Mil Kyber-1 can drop to Kyber-5 with repeated losses, but, you shouldn't see people who have good Mods but only 3 Mil up in Kyber-2.

You should never loose against an opponent who doesn't attack more than 1x just because the wall they set is unbeatable by any of your teams.

"Schwartzring;c-2353391" wrote:
The real issue here is that the Win/Loss factor of "Skill Rating" is counting for far too much.

The Win/Loss would be fine if it moved you from Div-5 to Div-3 in the same League, but, the Leagues should still be set up by GP.

So if "Kyber" is 7+ Mil to start, then the 7.0 Kyber-5's should be able to advance to Kyber-1 if they keep winning & the 11 Mil Kyber-1 can drop to Kyber-5 with repeated losses, but, you shouldn't see people who have good Mods but only 3 Mil up in Kyber-2.

You should never loose against an opponent who doesn't attack more than 1x just because the wall they set is unbeatable by any of your teams.

So if I'm at 6m but a very good player, I'm still forced to play Aurodium for lower rewards? No thanks.

Also, what if I buy an account from 13jkelly but I can't play for crap... should I be guaranteed kyber rewards?

"Fingolfin26;c-2353366" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2352995" wrote:

"Fingolfin26;c-2352993" wrote:
I don't see why this is so challenging an issue. Start with the current matchmaking, then after you've got everyone grouped further refine the matches based on number of gls bare minimum. A gl will trump skill with a given roster when you don't have enough tools. Then you get people who are at least close on number of gls, and there's a reasonable chance of victory for both sides

Terrible idea. Takes away a hard earned advantage for those who have GLs.

Also, your premise that GLs trump skill is absolutely false. I just went 3-0 and every single opponent had more GP and more GLs (and they all showed up to play)

Terrible idea.

No, it doesn't. The idea of skill based matchmaking is to not match people with advantages. It's to match people who are close.

The current MM is performance based - not skill based. Don't get too hung up on the term "skill rating". It rates your actual performance - not skill. You ARE matched with opponents who are close - close in past performance.

"CCyrilS;c-2353399" wrote:

So if I'm at 6m but a very good player, I'm still forced to play Aurodium for lower rewards? No thanks.

Also, what if I buy an account from 13jkelly but I can't play for crap... should I be guaranteed kyber rewards?

That is pretty much exactly how it used to work.

You were split up by GP in your Division & then could work up to Kyber-League based on your performance.

But you still didn't change your Division w/o gaining more GP.

That system worked just fine.

Suddenly having 900K face 3Mil that may or may not play that day isn't an improvement.

"Schwartzring;c-2353554" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2353399" wrote:

So if I'm at 6m but a very good player, I'm still forced to play Aurodium for lower rewards? No thanks.

Also, what if I buy an account from 13jkelly but I can't play for crap... should I be guaranteed kyber rewards?

That is pretty much exactly how it used to work.

You were split up by GP in your Division & then could work up to Kyber-League based on your performance.

But you still didn't change your Division w/o gaining more GP.

That system worked just fine.

Suddenly having 900K face 3Mil that may or may not play that day isn't an improvement.

There was a reason it was changed.

I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be some improvement, but I disagree with this suggestion.

The best idea I can think if would be like it is now, but with a floor for how far a person can drop (relative to their highest rank). But to make things more fair, their rewards would continue to drop below that floor as they do now.

So if someone is k3 today, and they stop playing for a few rounds, they could drop as far as k5 maybe, but rewards would continue to decline as they already do, until they rejoin and "earn" k5 or better rewards. But there would be no scenario where this kyber worthy person ends up fighting a legit aurodium (or lower) player.