"SenorPompo;c-2446145" wrote:
"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2446140" 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?
The issue is you’re creating a false equivalence between similar GP and close/competitive matches. Ignoring for the moment that 8/18 of your most recent matches have been within 2m GP, which given your division is close enough to make no difference for the number of toons and ships you can actually utilise, you’ve had plenty of close matches against players with even larger GPs. Are you assuming that a battle is over before it’s begun just on the basis of your opponents GP? Could it have been more competitive if you’d researched your opponents and changed up the defence accordingly?
If you’re upset that your opponents don’t seem to engage with GAC, how is that the fault of the matchmaking. It sounds like your opponents have a problem with GAC.
Beating a far higher GP in a "close" match banner wise is ignoring context. Take my matchup in round 2 of the 9/26 arena, I won 74-71. Often in matchups where I'm going to need to be perfect (should they actually try to win) I'll do an attack to guarantee rewards then wait for their attacks to decide how conservative or aggressive I need to be. If they don't attack more than once, as seen in that round, I have no need to attack further as they're giving me the win anyways. Reading it on a screen it would appear as a close match, but in reality it wasn't a match at all.
I'm never assuming anything is over before it is done, especially when so many are content with getting the minimum banners regardless of result.
My opponents not engaging is a result of the matchmaking as the matchmaking is what matched us in the first place. I do acknowledge that a higher requirement for rewards as far as participation is concerned would also resolve my issue with GAC.
I again ask how the system encourages roster diversity while you're simultaneously telling me to invest more of my omnicrons (already 100%) on grand arena.
Your opponent did not make you miss out on attacking and having the fun of scoring as highly as you could in the 74-71 win, you did. You chose to not continue your attack. The opponent did nothing to stop you having your fun.
What does it matter if your opponent scored 2000+ points to "force" you to play all the battles as efficiently as you could?
What difference does it make if you attack first, just do as well as you can, then see what happens? Some opponents will see your score and only attack once. Some will have a go and fail, some will swat your defence like it is nothing and out-score you.
You can't even tell what went on for the opponent if you just do as well as you can. Maybe they gave up seeing your gargantuan score? Maybe they had a family emergency halfway through the first fight and left their phone sitting on the couch to end up with a 10 point loss. Maybe they just didn't want to play this time.
Letting your enjoyment of the game be affected by the other player is a choice you are making.
You seem to want a close match every time so you feel "forced" into playing as well as possible. Guess what? You can just play as well as possible every time.
