Forum Discussion
269 Replies
"Zbindiesel;c-1898352" wrote:
I thought I have to compete against other people in my division to climb up the ranks. However, 5 out of my 7 possible opponents are one division higher than I am. This essentially means they will probably beat me (since their GP is much higher) and they even get better rewards for this (beacause they are in a higher division)? Was this the plan?
They won't get better rewards because they are limited in combat since they are fighting you. Had they matched against someone in their division they could place more defenses and compete for progression up through the leagues.
Essentially they win the GA and crush you, but get less rewards because they can't move up Leagues as fast as their division peers because they are fighting you whos 1 division down.
Your screwed, they are screwed, if you win you get less than they would have, if they win they get less than their peers.- GameMasters can you please stop eating Cheetos over your keyboards while Matchmaking it’s on??? Or at least don’t go AFK trusting your test runs were ok??
I am 2.99M supposed to have for division 4, enemies with 3.09M tops... well for my group this only applies for me and my first rival... the other 4 guys are 3.4-3.7M... this supposed to have a limit, at least is what your rules said...
Maybe you are just more interested in making people spend money in game than the real basic and important stuffs of this game works... - (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. "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".- 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. - Matchmaking should not be across divisions ever. Keep it simple CG. Lock a division and do matchmaking off of GP within your Division and League. Create fake accounts that will fill in when a Division/League combination isn't divisible by 8 (don't cross Division/League buckets to fill in the gaps). The matchups will become "more fair" as the championship progresses and people fight others with similar win/loss records (as determined by league progression). This should not have been complicated.
This recommendation coming from someone who has the highest GP (i.e. "bloated roster") and is still expecting to win the GA. "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.- Neither broad or lean has direct implication on good choices a player makes and how competetive or good players they are. I think it's a good time to let go of this rhetoric as if these 2 stereotypes apply universally.
"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.
