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

"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-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?

"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.

"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.

"zatho;c-2352923" wrote:

"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.

Ok, I see what you are thinking now. Sure, once all the inactive rosters sink to the absolute bottom of ocean, they'll just stay there and get matched up against each other. But they still cause the disparities on the way. Also what about those who do play occasionally? They don't sink all the way.

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2352705" wrote:
Oh, it's in Kyber 1, also.

I'm 8.9 facing an 11M opponent. This after beating a 9.6 to earn this matchup.

But I'm not going to whine about it, because that's the system. If this super kraken misplays, I have a shot.

Update. I did not win, but I did have a shot. I had 2 misplays of my own. First time I've run up against multiple R9 tanks (5s and RG), and the SLKR / NS counter failed due to just too much dps from my opponent. Wampacron couldn't handle R7/8 Iden Troopers. I took it as the learning experience I needed.

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

"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.