Grand arena matchmaking

"Rath_Tarr;c-2300908" wrote:

"XKurareX;c-2300803" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2300778" wrote:

"nottenst;c-2300743" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2300716" wrote:

"nottenst;c-2300678" wrote:
The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a competitive match between the two sides. If you can tell just by running the numbers through a discord bot that one side will blow the other side away, then the matchmaking is deficient. It is as simple as that.

While it might be good for a quick laugh to be able to blow the other side away in GAC or TW it does not make a for a satisfying battle on either side. The best experiences in both of these are when the match is close. If they incorporated the number of GLs into the matchmaking algorithm it would make the matches closer.

If you are relying on discord stat bots to determine win / loss then you have already failed. I don't even bother with them because they don't tell me what I need to know and I have finished Kyber in every single GAC.

The point of roster management is to effectively use your resources so that you can have a fun and productive experience across all game modes, including GAC. You don't have to min-max your roster to be effective but you do have to pay attention to it.

Making special allowances for GLs is the start of a slippery slope. If people are matched based on number of GLs then what about other "unbeatable" squads? Shouldn't lower GP players be matched on whether they have GAS? DR+Malak? Padme? JKR? Geos? Phoenix? Where does it end and who decides what is fair?

The discord bots apply more to TW than GAC to see how many GLs each guild does have. A quick look at the roster in GAC is good enough. The point is that a simple tool is out there that could make better matches.

The nerfing of the GL counters already took things beyond any slippery slope. It is extremely easy check that even CG developers could use to make better matches.

My current opponent and I have the same number of GLs, however I have JMK+CAT while he does not and I also have Executor while he does not.

I can block him in squad, fleet or both. Is that not unfair? Should the matchmaker not also take into account the types of GL on each side? Whether both players have Executor or not?

A blocker is a blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not.

"nottenst;c-2300743" wrote:
I didn't notice, but was the GP of the nerfed characters correspondingly reduced? If not, they should at least have done that.

Was the GP of GLs and their prerequisites reduced when they were beatable by far more easily acquired characters which cost a fraction of their MM GP and resource investment?

"nottenst;c-2300743" wrote:
The point about the GLs is that they want it so that only GLs should be able to defeat GLs. That is their current design, so they should take that into account in the matchmaking. It should be an extremely simple concept to grasp without worrying about other ramifications.

No. The point is that a blocker is a.blocker, regardless of whether it is a GL or not. Ignoring that fact merely reveals the selfishness of the demand to treat GLs differently. But accepting it and attempting to factor in all potential blockers in matchmaking is an exercise in futility.

"nottenst;c-2300743" wrote:
For lower GP players there are a lot more divisions, so it could be that balancing those previously "unbeatable" squads might not as big a deal.

Which squads/fleets should be considered blockers and in which divisions is far from a trivial question. Moreover any such assessment is highly subjective and no matter the outcome, will almost certainly lead to even more complaints. Not to mention the additional algorithmic complexity required and the likelihood of introducing other problems in the process.

Or players could simply take responsibility for managing their own rosters.

You know JML can actually beat JMK?
You know even Padme CAT can to some extend of rng beat it...
Executor can be 2-shot without any problems.

I know JML can beat JMK even with CAT. I also know that this guy's JML does not have his ultimate or particularly good modding.

He doesn't have CAT either.

And his GET2 fleets would have problems with my Negotiator fleet much less Executor.

"XKurareX;c-2300803" wrote:
I am not sure which type of quality opponents you are matched with, but with exception of more GLs you cannot block a smart player. And nowadays there is no block with exception of good GL squads.

My opponent quality varies greatly but I have indeed blocked opponents using things other than a GL.

And most players in the bottom divisions will never see a GL but they can still be blocked by a strong faction squad they have no counter for. Squads which you or I might consider insignificant but to them that situation is no different than being blocked by a GL. So why should GLs get special treatment but not the squads which block them?

"XKurareX;c-2300803" wrote:
And your argument of managing rosters is just putting the whole MM in hands of the players. Thats kind of very odd in the end.

Why?

"XKurareX;c-2300803" wrote:
Maybe considering your "block strategy" i do get an idea how you manage your wins. Play against 900k-1m+ opponents and your theories wont work - pure GLs + cleanest one shots than only count.

If you are playing in the 900k-1m GP range and encountering GLs then you are managing your roster very poorly because a GL comes with over 300k MM GP baggage.

I have been winning by a variety of strategies since the original GA was introduced over 2.5 years ago, starting around 1m GP up through my current 6m GP and 1m lifetime banners in GAC.

6m GP, problems with a GET2 fleet (which are beatable by hux, mm, empire and rebels too)...okay well you know thats div 3 or below what you are talking about here. All you have is a probably a slim roster, which outclasses your opponents roster by a huge margin. That would be a simple missmatch. But feel free to post your gac matches to show the good matchmaking and prove me wrong in your particular case.

PS: I never told i do have issues, however i see very many players are being matched very poorly. A big difference.