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

"Screerider;c-2353605" wrote:
"Kyber League" means two different things between the old and the new systems.

Thanks? I guess...

"24_Tuesdays;c-2353588" wrote:

for every person that thinks it worked fine there were four more complaining about it

What exactly where the complaints that have now been corrected?

The Matchmaking was bunk but it is now too.

In no way does it account for # of GLs or some of the other MM issues.

"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.

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.

"Schwartzring;c-2353614" wrote:
What exactly where the complaints that have now been corrected?

The Matchmaking was bunk but it is now too.

I used to see a lot of complaints from people who had basically permanently shot their accounts by either playing for a long time without understanding mods, basically guaranteeing that they were at a permanent mod disadvantage vs their GP, or people who just went absolutely ham on Relic upgrades (think entire DR team at R7, R7 Hyoda, etc) with no regard to whether the relics were actually worth the added GP. Those people generally ended up facing permanent GL disadvantages.

The new system gives those people fair matchups sometimes. For a 5M player with trash mods, a matchup vs a normal 3.5M GP player is probably fair. But the 3.5M GP player will complain. For a 7M player with no GLs because they've just been R7ing whatever they want, a matchup vs a 5M GP player with 1 GL might be fair. But they're both probably going to complain about it.

GP, GLs, mods and game knowledge (which is basically unmeasurable) all play a huge role in whether a matchup is fair. And people tend to complain whenever they're in a disadvantage in one of those categories, without even looking at the others, hence there are always complaints unless you get matched with an exact mirror account.

"Schwartzring;c-2353614" wrote:
In no way does it account for # of GLs or some of the other MM issues.

Thank goodness!

"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.

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.

"12thParsec;c-2353658" wrote:
There are people purposely losing just to battle opponents with millions of GP less than them.

what a brilliant tactic...

"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