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

Being is a lower tier for easier matchs and better rewards is a mistake. You'll lose on rewards (except very specific circunstances which involve not going to a lower division, so it's not the problem you're talking about).
So even if players do this "for the rewards", CG can't adjust rewards to prevent that, because those players are wrong.

However, some players with big rosters are perfectly fine with a 50/50 win ratio at a lower tier, because it's less time consuming: it's an easy and swift victory when they decide to play 6 rounds out of 12 and they just don't engage the 6 other rounds. I agree that's it's a "fun" issue (not a reward issue though) because the opponent doesn't have a say in this situation. Whatever they do, the big guy decides who's gonna win.

Unfortunately, MM seems to work pretty well in the higher divisions, so it will be difficult to solve this problem without creating another one.

GP is closer to skill than win Percentage? Personally, it seems to me you don't have the experience with the game yet to know all the variables. I've said all I want to say on the matters.

I think at this point we'll have to agree to disagree.

"Pan2218;c-2352691" wrote:
People like to troll on here & make you feel like you don't have a valid point or that you are alone. Don't listen to those people. Things like this need to be posted. That is basically twice you're GP & no matter how good your roster is at that level. 2x your size is too much.
Sorry you got that matchup

You are right, this community has a part of very toxic and addicted people who think they know the meaning of life: trol in a dying game.
For CG try to manage with hybrid MM this kind of absurd situation. Regards

"zatho;c-2352860" wrote:
I could imagine that recalculation of skill ratings would take into account GP difference and GL-mismatch. If you lose vs. more GLs and/or more GP, then you don't loose much skill value. But if you lose against an enemy with less GLs and/or less GP, you drop further in skill rating.
And of course if you can win against more GLs and/or more GP, you gain more skill Value than against a weaker enemy.

@CG_SBCrumb_MINI @CG_Tusken_Meathead Can you please forward this suggestion to devs? Probably they thought about that already but it sounds like an improvement to the current system.

It will only get worse as people fall from the higher ranks. Will take a long time to stabilize.

"zatho;c-2352860" wrote:
I could imagine that recalculation of skill ratings would take into account GP difference and GL-mismatch. If you lose vs. more GLs and/or more GP, then you don't loose much skill value. But if you lose against an enemy with less GLs and/or less GP, you drop further in skill rating.
And of course if you can win against more GLs and/or more GP, you gain more skill Value than against a weaker enemy.

This doesn't solve the sinking roster problem though? In fact it would actually make the inactive rosters sink even faster, and stay down there for longer.

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2352922" wrote:

"zatho;c-2352920" wrote:

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2352917" wrote:

"zatho;c-2352860" wrote:
I could imagine that recalculation of skill ratings would take into account GP difference and GL-mismatch. If you lose vs. more GLs and/or more GP, then you don't loose much skill value. But if you lose against an enemy with less GLs and/or less GP, you drop further in skill rating.
And of course if you can win against more GLs and/or more GP, you gain more skill Value than against a weaker enemy.

This doesn't solve the sinking roster problem though? In fact it would actually make the inactive rosters sink even faster, and stay down there for longer.

Why is this a problem if inactive roster sink to the ground?

Well, I just thought the main complaint on this thread had been the "GP disparity" - that younger rosters were getting matched up with heavy rosters.

With my solution they are still matched up but don't lose points in there skill rating. So it reduces the damage.

Meh, I just take those days off. I look for a squad to auto with Wampa and relax until the next round. Some people envy Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill for eternity. Don't be those people. Put the rock down.

"harvestmouse;c-2353118" wrote:

"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.

Does anyone here even know what sandbagging means? It's performing low to increase your handicap for championship matches. This game doesn't handicap. Stop using that rediculous term here.

"CCyrilS;c-2353367" wrote:

"harvestmouse;c-2353118" wrote:

"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.

Does anyone here even know what sandbagging means? It's performing low to increase your handicap for championship matches. This game doesn't handicap. Stop using that rediculous term here.

I think it's pretty accurate. Performing low to decrease skill rating and therefore increasing the handicap.