Grand Arena Matchmaking?
Hi! My best team is NS in gear12 and I got an opponent with Dart Revan sith team. The Dart Revan team cannot be beaten by the NS team. The NS team can be defeated with Dart Revan. If my opponent p...
Forum Discussion
"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.
The disconnect may lie in another quote from the matchmaking post:
the number of blowouts was still far higher than our targets
They don't say, or indicate, that they are trying to get rid of all blowouts. The Malak vs. No Malak blowouts may, and seems to (based on their actions), fall within their targets. It's very possible that they generally ignore these matchups when reviewing the data because they see it as transient (does anyone care about CLS vs. No CLS matchups anymore?). Trying to ascertain the intentions of CG is going to be an uphill battle due to the communication expertise CG has shown.
