Grand Arena Matchmaking?

"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!

"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.

They won't though.

"TVF;c-1912599" wrote:
They won't though.

Which says as much as saying anything.

Their answer will be in their actions - whether they actually post anything (here or on Reddit).

"Nikoms565;c-1912593" wrote:

"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. ;)

Yes, I am #the882. But the fact is that the old matchmaking system was MUCH easier for me. I got, in large part, exceptionally easy matches pre-GAC against people whose rosters were frankly terrible. GAC matching has been much closer in actual roster strength. Do I like that? No, I'd much rather have the blowouts. But then I despise GA and all forms of PvP anyway.

Refusing to acknowledge that a different interpretation of a statement is also reasonable, logical, and acceptable is its own form of intellectual dishonesty. And calling me a shill is beyond obnoxious.

"Nikoms565;c-1912664" wrote:

"Liath;c-1912629" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-1912593" wrote:

"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. ;)

Yes, I am #the882. But the fact is that the old matchmaking system was MUCH easier for me. I got, in large part, exceptionally easy matches pre-GAC against people whose rosters were frankly terrible. GAC matching has been much closer in actual roster strength. Do I like that? No, I'd much rather have the blowouts. But then I despise GA and all forms of PvP anyway.

Refusing to acknowledge that a different interpretation of a statement is also reasonable, logical, and acceptable is its own form of intellectual dishonesty. And calling me a shill is beyond obnoxious.

I don't refuse to acknowledge a different interpretation is possible - that's why want CG to say....anything really. That's actually precisely what I am asking.

Once again, please show me where I called you a shill. I'll wait....

If you don't consider this statement, in direct response to me pointing out that I have a different interpretation of CG's statement than you, to be calling me a shill then that would explain why we so frequently have such extreme disagreements on the meaning of sentences.

"Nikoms565;c-1912664" wrote:
And no, I don't need the Malak owners or the CG shills to decide for CG was CG's intent is.

"Nikoms565;c-1912748" wrote:


It certainly would, as the sentence clearly has an "or" in it - separating the Malak owners (who are not unbiased either) and the shills (who also often have their own agenda). That's a pretty clear separation - so I'm not quite sure why you are taking this entire thing so personally.

You didn't even know whether I was a Malak owner when you posted that as evidenced by your subsequent question on that subject. Yeah, I'm sure you were talking about a completely different group of posters here, who just happen to not have posted on this thread, and to hold the same opinion as me, as being shills, and that wasn't directed at me in any way. Sounds super plausible. Gee, I can't even begin to imagine why I might have thought you were calling me a shill. But please, enlighten me as to exactly which posters you consider shills, so that I don't misinterpret your comments.

"Nikoms565;c-1912748" wrote:
it's all pointless noise and wasted time.

At least there's one thing we can agree on.

"Liath;c-1912776" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-1912748" wrote:


It certainly would, as the sentence clearly has an "or" in it - separating the Malak owners (who are not unbiased either) and the shills (who also often have their own agenda). That's a pretty clear separation - so I'm not quite sure why you are taking this entire thing so personally.

You didn't even know whether I was a Malak owner when you posted that as evidenced by your subsequent question on that subject. Yeah, I'm sure you were talking about a completely different group of posters here, who just happen to not have posted on this thread, and to hold the same opinion as me, as being shills, and that wasn't directed at me in any way. Sounds super plausible. Gee, I can't even begin to imagine why I might have thought you were calling me a shill. But please, enlighten me as to exactly which posters you consider shills, so that I don't misinterpret your comments.

"Nikoms565;c-1912748" wrote:
it's all pointless noise and wasted time.

At least there's one thing we can agree on.

I never even said shills "who posted in the thread" - again, stop taking everything so personally and being so defensive. Besides, I don't like to name names. And we both know that's against forum guidelines.

Although, the fact that you are a Malak owner does tell me why you would prefer X meant Y....