Forum Discussion
- Also have stupid pairings. My opponent has 700k gp more than I do. He could put just the excess go teams on defense and still have my entire gp worth of characters for offense. Even the old ga had some unbeatable opponents with very close gp matchups but this is just laughable.
- Im the only div 2 player from this match up . My enemies have 800k gp more than me and 50 g12 . This is a joke i hope . I dont have any chance
- All my opponents have far greater character gp and overall gp and from div 4 while I'm in div5 but guess what they're all gunna get smashed cause I built strong squads while they're all over the place so get over it guys. You could get matched with me since we would have the same character gp and get smashed anyway.
"333freeman;c-1898342" wrote:
"Saada;c-1898278" wrote:
All my opponents have far greater character gp and overall gp and from div 4 while I'm in div5 but guess what they're all gunna get smashed cause I built strong squads while they're all over the place so get over it guys. You could get matched with me since we would have the same character gp and get smashed anyway.
I would be happy to be placed against you and it would be a good battle. At least I would be fighting in my division so we could figure out who is the best in our division. Isn't the point is to move up thru the ranks within your division to become the best. Why should we be punished for farming the right squads.
Meh the best person in YOUR division is probably better than 75% of the the next highest division.
Also they could run 104 week event and prob would still not have enough matches to find out who the best in division is- I found this from dev post.
If the GP difference across players is great enough, the matchmaking will also default to the lowest-number of defenses required by division between the two players (Note: only the very best-performing low-GP players are likely to encounter this, however). Players who are good enough to end up getting matched with higher-GP players will be able to do so on a more level playing field. "abc127;c-1898704" wrote:
(edited typos)
... Not complaining, just sharing my feedback...
I'm 2.755M. Opponent is 3.4. I have better mods and my legendaries are better equipped, but I have only 44 g11/12 to his 51. I am focused farming he is broad. I seem to have a strategic advantage, but he has a brute force advantage.
GA is my favorite module because it measures the quality of my roster work as a whole. I have pretty good mods, am careful with my zetas, and make my squad choices strong pvp modes... I read a lot, pay attention to smarter players, and work hard to get my roster where it is. I expect to have an advantage in any kind of pvp environment, unless other person is better at it than me, because I try to build a strong roster.
Someone who goes broad "gets" lots of things. It's their decision to push green pluses, choose random/favorite squads, not make synergy, etc. That's fine, but that isn't conducive for pvp environment with rankings.
I get the concern about taking mods off, and avoiding upgrades, but It seems to me that I lost my advantage, fighting people my own size and winning on my roster that I built and farmed...
If I lose or get fewer ranking points because my opponent has many more toons/options, that will make GA less appealing to me, and I love GA. Will wait and see what happens.
Aside from going back to straight gp, another suggestion might be capping the difference in relevant (ships/toons) gp, or give bonus points for beating someone in a higher division. I don't think it mKes any sense for me to be looking at someone with 20% more GP, regardless of how they got there.
I would also say he careful with that. Taken to a more extreme, limiting the squad view at similar GP simply pits identical rosters. Rankings will take care of that.
Going broad doesn't mean that at all. For old players they can easily be both broad and have the same focused top end that you do without doing anything else different than yours including their best team priorities. When you get past 4M gp, almost all the competetive players fit the definition of broad, yet their rosters are super focused as well while carrying lots of gp making stuff with it.
When a roster is broad and also lacks focus, randomly worked toons lacking synergies, half built teams etc...you should search for the reason on that player, not on the fact that the roster is broad."Torr;c-1898746" wrote:
I found this from dev post.
If the GP difference across players is great enough, the matchmaking will also default to the lowest-number of defenses required by division between the two players (Note: only the very best-performing low-GP players are likely to encounter this, however). Players who are good enough to end up getting matched with higher-GP players will be able to do so on a more level playing field.
Except this didn't happen. Sub 4M player required to place 8 defensive squads. Sub 2.7M player required to place 6. In some instances it looks like it's using the lower end, but in two of mine it's using the defensive placement requirement from the higher GP."No_Try;c-1898801" wrote:
Going broad doesn't mean that at all. For old players they can easily be both broad and have the same focused top end that you do without doing anything else different than yours including their best team priorities. When you get past 4M gp, almost all the competetive players fit the definition of broad, yet their rosters are super focused as well while carrying lots of gp making stuff with it.
When a roster is broad and also lacks focus, randomly worked toons lacking synergies, half built teams etc...you should search for the reason on that player, not on the fact that the roster is broad.
Fair enough. I was speaking to my specific and surrounding GP. But it definitely means something different at various ages of account.
I wouldn't want to face a 4M player with my same top end, though. The rest of the roster seems like something I would have no way to combat."abc127;c-1898839" wrote:
"No_Try;c-1898801" wrote:
Going broad doesn't mean that at all. For old players they can easily be both broad and have the same focused top end that you do without doing anything else different than yours including their best team priorities. When you get past 4M gp, almost all the competetive players fit the definition of broad, yet their rosters are super focused as well while carrying lots of gp making stuff with it.
When a roster is broad and also lacks focus, randomly worked toons lacking synergies, half built teams etc...you should search for the reason on that player, not on the fact that the roster is broad.
Fair enough. I was speaking to my specific and surrounding GP. But it definitely means something different at various ages of account.
I wouldn't want to face a 4M player with my same top end, though. The rest of the roster seems like something I would have no way to combat.
I agree and you shouldn't be facing them either if...CG backs out of this 2nd try and proceeds with their announced new MM."evoluza;c-1898859" wrote:
"Nikoms565;c-1898745" wrote:
"evoluza;c-1898734" wrote:
That just shows that almost nobody wants a real challenge in GA.
This is a sad day for competitive gameplay.
I disagree. I do think people want a challenge - I just think they also want a fair fight. There are situations where 2 guys with both Revans are in the same bracket with 2 guys who have neither. That's not a "challenge" for either side (unless they only faced each other, which to win, isn't possible).
A matchup algorithim that can't seem to account for the two most meta dominant characters in the game's history seems to need "retweaking".
Or you call it what it is,an advantage.
A deserved one, if you farmed/speng accordingly.
People without revan don't win or win with an good counter and other good teams.
Except CG has stated in several places that the intent of the GAC matchmaking rework was, at least in theory, that "players will still be rewarded for their strategy in Grand Arena, but they’ll be matched up against someone who looks more like them. The change won’t be drastic – in most cases, players should still have GP that is pretty close to that of their opponent."
In other words, that advantage is supposed to help in arena, TW, TB and raids - but GAC is supposed to have matchups of rosters that are more evenly matched. Either CG's statements about the matchmaking rework for GAC is off base, or the matchup algorithm seems to be. And since CG has remained silent on the point for the past 24 hours, we don't know which is the case.
