grvot1ylcdzn wrote:I must admit I have never looked into the matchmaking and how it works.
It's not really rocket science. We're all on a ladder. We play the nearest 7 players to us on that ladder. Due to the rating of the players, they all stand an equal-ish chance of 'winning'.
grvot1ylcdzn wrote:I don't have to look into it's mechanics to see how stupid it is. How on earth can accounts with 10M GP be in the same events as accounts around 2M GP?
We're all in the same event. Do you mean League?
grvot1ylcdzn wrote:I understand that you encourage us to put money in the game.
The system hasn't really got anything to do with P2P. Other than preventing players from min-maxing a GP and staying in a lower league. Which would happen if the rewards were good enough, with your system you're suggesting.
grvot1ylcdzn wrote:no matter how much money you spend in the game you will get crushed in battles.
We all get crushed in battles, it's the nature of life. However, under the current system, you'll always win your fair share of match ups.
grvot1ylcdzn wrote:it be completely relevant as some of my wins have been a 10 to zero because the other player did not attack?
It would be relevant as a win is a win and you haven't been crushed.
grvot1ylcdzn wrote:sort out the players by their GP to let them have a fair chance to defend themselves.
If you match by GP, then it's no longer a collection game. Players would min-max a GP. This is the last thing we want. We had it before, and players would go 12-0 per season.....season after season. At least players win roughly 50% of their games now.
grvot1ylcdzn wrote:I am sick of not being able to score one victory in Grand Arena
This seems to contradict what you wrote about your wins.
All this said, you do have a point (if you're in Carbonite and facing players that have fallen to Carbonite), it isn't fair or fun.
There is an answer (if CG can be bothered or get to the point where the game is relatively problem free to deal with it).
An activity score: Players are given an invisible activity score based on how much they interact with their GAC. A max of 10 points for players that always give there all each GAC round. A min of -10 points for players that '1 and done' each round. The activity score is then used as a 'secondary' match making criteria after their Skill Points.
It doesn't hurt or hinder anyone, and then you face players that play as much as you, and legitimately similar strengths to you. You won't win/lose anymore, but at least the match ups would be competitive.
