Grand Arena Matchmaking
I really think matchmaking should go back to GP based. The current system results in a generally boring experience. Rarely do I ever have close and engaging matchups. It boils down to I either win bec...
Forum Discussion
"SenorPompo;c-2446142" wrote:"StarSon;c-2446141" wrote:"SenorPompo;c-2446138" wrote:"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2446134" wrote:"SenorPompo;c-2446130" wrote:"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2446126" wrote:"SenorPompo;c-2446123" wrote:"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2446117" wrote:"SenorPompo;c-2446116" wrote:"StarSon;c-2446114" wrote:"SenorPompo;c-2446113" wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree. I also dispute the “occasionally” statement. Those matchups are the regular, and balanced and close matchups (within 500k GP) are few and far between.
As we learned when GP was how they did MM, GP is a terrible gauge of a close matchup.
Like I said above, it’s certainly far from perfect. But a system that comes down to “did your opponent with a massive GP advantage attack? If so, you lose” is an inferior system imo.
Did you experience the prior system to know how bad that was?
Yes, I’ve played with intermittent breaks since late 2017
Well then if you were to provide your allycode we could see the extent of the issue you currently face, and compare with your experiences in the old system.
Someone already posted it above
So in your current bracket you have the 7th highest GP (although the one above you is within 200k), and are only outmatched on GLs by two of those. The largest isn’t quite 3m more than you however. You also have one of the smallest number of GAC omicrons and in comparison have far fewer 6 dot mods and no datacrons. I can’t see more than that, but if you’ve struggled to compete it could be because you haven’t invested in GAC tools like omis and datacrons rather than being a purely GP issue.
In the last bracket you beat the highest GP of your three opponents, as someone with a 3m+ advantage on you, and seemed to give up pretty quickly with what was quite frankly pretty poor choice of counters in the battles you attempted against players 1.5m and 2.3m more than you.
The round before that you played opponents 2, 2.1 and 3m more than you, and won both the first two against the lower gp opponents.
Before that you had three battles against opponents within 1m of you and won one, although in neither case did the losses include a full clear.
The round before that you lost convincingly to a player within 500k of yourself, and then beat a player at your GP and another 5m+ bigger than you.
The round before that you lost to players 1.3 and 2.5m gp more than you while beating someone 3m larger.
In 18 matches you have faced one opponent who is at an advantage of more than 4m GP, so don’t throw out numbers that aren’t backed up by experience, and almost half were within 2m GP, which for a 6m+ account is about the standard range.
On top of that, a lot of your losses seem to be coming from similar size accounts, often with you not winning more than one battle on offence. Are you sure you want to go back to a more GP matchmaking based approach? Perhaps you should consider whether your balance of offence vs defences set is right for your league, and whether you have invested enough in GAC specific resources like omicrons and datacrons.
Finally, for context, in my latest bracket I’m also the second smallest GP, have the smallest number of GLs fewest relic tiers, 6 dot mods, zetas and omicrons. I’ve won one and after today will have lost two very close matches by handfuls of points. I’m not blaming the losses on matchmaking though, I just needed to git gud. Were all your matches really unwinnable from the moment you were matched?
You’ve missed the reason behind what I’m saying. You stated earlier that you didn’t care if they don’t attack (meaning go for minimum banners) because you still get the crystals. Winning and losing is not the issue I brought up. Having close matchups is. If I beat somebody 3mil more than me, that doesn’t bring me enjoyment as I know if they actually cared to attack, I’d have lost. I don’t find enjoyment in winning something I know my opponent essentially let me win.
I don’t have any issues losing to players similarly matched GP wise. That, like you said, is just an instance of needing to get good.
As for the omnicrons, I’ve invested every single one I have into grand arena ones to my knowledge. I physically cannot invest anymore than I have. And doesn’t that go against one of your earlier points that this system allows people to build balanced rosters for territory battles for instance? How can I do that when every bit I’m investing into grand arena teams is still not enough?
Sorry, but close matchups are overrated. Also, a close matchup is not determined by GP. The comment you responded to did a good break down of how the roster makeup is much more important than just GP.
Why are close matchups overrated? I agree GP is not some be all end all of proximity of rosters, but there is a connection between higher GP disparity and the disparity between rosters
Because no one actually wants things to be competitive. That's why the AI is so bad. It's done that way on purpose so people don't quit because they can't win. Same for matchups. Almost no one actually wants a close matchup.
And there is no connection between higher GP disparity and roster disparity. In the old method you would routinely get 2M GP differences and the lower GP was always the winner because they had a specifically focused GA roster.
