It isn't all about GP. Your opponent has the same skill level. He/she could have a bad strategy, bad mods or participation isn't great.With the right strategy, there is still a chance you can win.

That isn't even much of a disparity tbh. But like the reply above you can have better mods more GL and omicron starkiller etc or better skilled overall

There's a guy in my collective's starter guild who has 972k GP. His opponent in round 1 was 3.6 mil GP.If I have to explain to you how lopsided that is then something is wrong.

The old division systems didn't work either. A hybrid of them both would.That way you get fair matchups across a similar GP range

"Azhriaz;c-2352682" wrote:Still, there is a point where the difference is too big. I have 3.6M GP and am currently in Chrome 2.My opponents usually have more than 5M GP. I know I can beat opponents with 5.1M GP - I already have.But against opponents with 6M GP I simply have absolutely no chance. Then why am I in Chrome 2? Because the opponents don't attack! My last two opponents (7.1M and 6.4M) didn't attack.And that's just frustrating. I can only win if the opponent doesn't attack.Sorry, but this is no fun.I don't mind losing, but I want real competition. I'm happy when I can beat someone who has more GP. I'm not sad when someone who supposedly is weaker beats me.But winning because the other doesn't attack is pointless.Therefore the GP should play a role, at least as a factor.That's a huge difference & if folks are saying its not, they're delusional. 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

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

Dallamarr
3 years ago
"JoryG87;c-2352513" wrote:
It isn't all about GP.

Your opponent has the same skill level. He/she could have a bad strategy, bad mods or participation isn't great.

With the right strategy, there is still a chance you can win.

Since I am the one that posted this ongoing issue:

That opponent had all 6 Gls VS my 3 - He placed 2 of Defense and went ham on me. I used two on O to punch into his D. If I placed all 3 on D, would of lost because "off meta" at this level is a 30% or less chance win rate.

The Omni issue: Yup, got all the good ones so far. Qui? cant use VS GLs, StarKiller? nope Zam? sure for a 2 shot most times. Wampa? if the right GL is on D

I can punch out of my GP level, few hundred thousand 1-2 GLs more, however, 1.6 million in Kyber 2 is brutal difference and 3 extra GLs.. welp... its ugly
Screerider
Seasoned Scout
3 years ago
"Kyber League" means two different things between the old and the new systems.
CCyrilS
3 years ago
"Screerider;c-2353605" wrote:
"Kyber League" means two different things between the old and the new systems.

Thanks? I guess...
Schwartzring
Rising Traveler
3 years ago
"CCyrilS;c-2353592" wrote:

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.

The linking of "Daily" rewards from Squad did create a bit of an odd mismatch in the way Kyber now earns more than everyone.

I'd say the biggest change could be that there is an overlap in the "Daily" rewards.

So instead of it naturally going from K1 to K2 to K3, etc etc.

It should probably pay out as K1, to A1, to C1, etc etc, then come back to K2 to A2, to C2.

That way your Kyber makes more than Chromium, but your Division 1-5 which is set by your "performance" and not your "GP" is where the daily comes from.

It would create a bigger drive to participate.

I'm not sure if that is the perfect solution but it does handle non-performers getting lower rewards but NOT dropping down to face people 50% of their GP.
harvestmouse1
Seasoned Novice
3 years ago
So if Kyber 2 plays less than Aurodium 1...........where are players going to try to be?

I'm perfectly fine with the payouts as your piers are on the same payout (well before this latest update anyway).

The old way it was a lot about getting lucky with your arena pool.
Waquira
3 years ago
"24_Tuesdays;c-2353494" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2353491" wrote:
"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.

not true

i start in k5 and keep winning

someone starts in k1 and keeps losing

our past performance could not be more different but we will potentially match eventually

Yes, the initial seeding was by roster GP. From there on rating changes are based on performance - not skill. As time goes by the initial seeding becomes less and less significant and the performance part becomes more and more significant for your rating. Fingolfin's assumption that MM is skill based is wrong.
Nemesis296
3 years ago
They should just limit the toons you can use in both offense and defense. Pick 100 or 120 toons, and no one else can be used. The problem is that roster bloat becomes the difference maker when someone can whittle down your defense because they have more teams when they have 1.5M - 2M more GP. Level the playing field by limiting how much of our rosters can actually be used. Then GP doesn’t matter, and it really would be about how you skillfully play the slots you’re given.
LastNeuronNick
Seasoned Newcomer
3 years ago
"12thParsec;c-2353658" wrote:
There are people purposely losing just to battle opponents with millions of GP less than them.

what a brilliant tactic...
CCyrilS
3 years ago
"Waqui;c-2353972" wrote:
"Fingolfin26;c-2353933" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2353491" wrote:
"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.

Splitting hairs here. The performance you reference is rooted in skill, just not merely skill. For you perform can be directly tied to how skilled you are as a player, so your statement carries little to no significance

You're completely wrong, mate. The most skilled player in the game could be putting only little effort into their GACs or only participating in half of the GAs, so:
No, your performance is in no way directly tied to your skill.

Again:
The rating is based on your performance (round wins/losses) - not skill, like you claim.

What, you didn't like my version ?
Waquira
3 years ago
"CCyrilS;c-2353973" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2353972" wrote:
"Fingolfin26;c-2353933" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2353491" wrote:
"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.

Splitting hairs here. The performance you reference is rooted in skill, just not merely skill. For you perform can be directly tied to how skilled you are as a player, so your statement carries little to no significance

You're completely wrong, mate. The most skilled player in the game could be putting only little effort into their GACs or only participating in half of the GAs, so:
No, your performance is in no way directly tied to your skill.

Again:
The rating is based on your performance (round wins/losses) - not skill, like you claim.

What, you didn't like my version ?

Actually, I did — even before I gave my own version :-)