Grand Arena Matchmaking?

No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

"Liath;c-1912389" wrote:
No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

"Nikoms565;c-1912445" wrote:

"Liath;c-1912389" wrote:
No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

"ZagaAga;d-208964" wrote:
Hi!

My best team is NS in gear12 and I got an opponent with Dart Revan sith team.


Please change this.

ZagaAga

Agreed. Change this. Go get a Darth Revan or a counter of your own.

Oh!? You meant developers should change their design? Nah!

"Liath;c-1912517" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-1912445" wrote:

"Liath;c-1912389" wrote:
No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

"Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

"Nikoms565;c-1912552" wrote:

"Liath;c-1912517" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-1912445" wrote:

"Liath;c-1912389" wrote:
No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

"Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.

Okay, that's my fault. I defeated the Dart Revan team with NS. I thought it wouldn't work, but I did it. Sorry for the post.

"Liath;c-1912577" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-1912552" wrote:

"Liath;c-1912517" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-1912445" wrote:

"Liath;c-1912389" wrote:
No. If your best team was Lobot and CUP would you complain that you can't beat the guy with NS? You choose what teams to invest in. If you want to beat people who have better teams, invest in the teams that can beat them.

I agree with this 100%...as it would pertain to arena, TW, TB, raids or fleet arena.

But in response to GAC, it simply doesn't line up with CG's stated intentions. Honestly, the constant posts of what boil down to "Uneven GAC matchups to encourage investment" doesn't actually match what CG has stated (several times now) about what the goal of GAC matchmaking is - "close matches" against "rosters that look more like themselves".

And you repeating that over and over and over doesn't make it so that CG's definition of close matches OR rosters that look more like you lines up with your definition. Don't we have enough evidence from prior threads that CG uses words differently than you interpret them?

CG uses words differently than I interpret them? No. CG uses words differently than the way most people who speak English interpret them? Sure.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In no GAC (or GA for that matter) have teams with maxed Malak teams lost consistently to teams that don't have him - and the vast majority of those matches have not been "close" - by any normal use of the word. Is there the extremely rare (read "very lucky RNG") exception? Absolutely. But the extreme outlier doesn't prove the point. To the contrary, the fact that it's an extreme outlier proves the opposite, by virtue of the fact that it's an extreme outlier to the norm.

Honestly, all I would like to know from CG (communication being their strong point and all...oh...wait), is this:

"Are matchups where maxed (and multiple g13) Malak teams are facing rosters that don't have Malak - or any gear 13 characters for that matter - the intention of the GAC matchmaking algorithm or not?"

Then I'll stop harping on this point. If it is the intention, I can leave in peace. If it's not than they need to fix a bad matchup algorithm.

And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is. To this point, I take them at their word (which, as you point out, may not be the way most people would interpret "close matches" or rosters that look like yours".)

But I think anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

CG says X. You want X to mean Y. X doesn't mean Y to me, and based on the empirical evidence available to us (the current matchups), X doesn't mean Y to CG either. You repeating over and over ad nauseum "but they said X!" doesn't change that. I am not "deciding for CG what CG's intent is." I am interpreting their words differently than you, in a manner that is consistent with their actions. That doesn't make me a shill, nor does it make me dishonest or stupid, and I honestly thought you were better than that nonsense.

I just want X to mean X - and CG to clarify if X means X or if it really means Y. It seems like the only people that want X to mean Y are Malak owners. As I said, I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

I never said anyone was stupid so don't put words in my mouth. And the only thing I said regarding honesty was that anyone suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match" (by anyone's interpretation of the words), isn't being completely honest.

So, are you suggesting that rosters with multiple g13 characters and maxed Malak teams facing rosters without Malak or any g13 toons is going to be a "close match"?

Oh, and are you a Malak owner?


I'm asking because I don't want to accuse you of saying something that you didn't say. ;)

CG's stated intentions are meaningless. They also stated that Kyro was intended to ease the crunch on gear like carbs guns and eyeballs, when everyone knows the actual intention was money.

"TVF;c-1912594" wrote:
CG's stated intentions are meaningless. They also stated that Kyro was intended to ease the crunch on gear like carbs guns and eyeballs, when everyone knows the actual intention was money.

Exactly. I just want them to come clean. Now you're getting it. ;)