Top 2 GAC Kyber spots.... really?

"Shadow597;c-2120776" wrote:
I don't know much about the #2 guy, but I am one of the officers in Bus74's guild and in his arena shard. I don't care what anyone says - I am glad to have him in my guild. The amount of work and theory-crafting that goes into every GAC battle is off the charts - you should see the pages and pages of notes he takes to plan out every battle, plan out which units to use to complete feats, how to maximize banners by using "lesser" units on a team, where to undersize, etc. Everyone has a way they like to play, whether it's being good at raids, or maximizing TB waves, or taking first in the GAC leaderboards. You don't like the way he plays? You don't like him beating you? Get good. Because I guarantee that you don't put in the same level of effort, and definitely aren't as skilled, as he is.

Also, he's consistently one of our top TW performers (go figure - when you have a lot of unorthodox counters for meta teams, you are pretty useful in TW regardless of GP) and does well enough in TB to keep us happy. Sure he doesn't get a KAM shard because he's busy maximizing his roster for GAC, but I think having the Premiere Kyber Champion of Division 1 (and the game sense that comes with him) in our guild is worth it.

Yeah that’s all well and good and good on him. All I’m saying as that either he should be in a division with similar sized rosters where he can be number 1 or he plays other guys at similar ranks. There is no proof that he is any better than someone with a larger roster or the best in div 1, only that he has ‘worked the system’ to get the best possible matchup. There is no sense or logic in him being number 1 in div 1......

"MetaThumper;c-2119910" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2119859" wrote:

"MetaThumper;c-2119847" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2119632" wrote:


And what very, very linear way would that be? Because my way is anything but linear, yet I have managed to make Kyber every GAC so far while progressing through four divisions.

Congrats. That's awesome news and glad you're having a fun time. When I say linear, I'm referring to following CG's path of success and how you are kind of forced to stay on that path if you want to remain competitive and be a leaderboard fanatic. But I don't look at GAC achievements and rankings as a very good indicator on how good someone or their roster is. Just look at what's up there now.

And once again, what would that path be exactly?

Yep, that almost sums it up. The part in red isn't exactly true either. A couple well built and high relic'd teams can help your guild do much better in LS&DS Geo TB and territory wars.

So your argument is that roster management is a bad thing in a roster management game? Hilarious! :D

I contribute to my guild's TB and TW success just fine thanks, usually ranking in the top 10 and often top 5, though I don't have the highest GP in the guild by any means.

It simply is not necessary to max out most characters unless you are in a really high GP competitive guild. I don't have the resources to do it and I don't see the point.

The old GA matchmaking by total GP did drive roster suppression, especially if you were as fleet-heavy as I was back then. It sucked and thankfully CG changed to the top{x} system when they introduced GAC.

"Thulsadoom;c-2120619" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2120615" wrote:

"Thulsadoom;c-2120593" wrote:

"Lysandrax;c-2120531" wrote:

"Thulsadoom;c-2120480" wrote:
Pre GL’s I would be inclined to agree, now absolutely not - the system needs a tweak. And I’m a perfect case in point. My roster is pushing 4.9m and it’s very optimised, including 2 GL’s. That means I have 24 G13’s that range from useless (Rose Tico) to decent (both RH’s).

I am regularly matched in GAC with players pushing 6.5 to 7.2m GP - so I am running a GP deficit in the region of 1.6m+. All of which will each have at least 1 GL. Now the GL v GL aspect is fine and in my view is how it should be. But that’s where the issues arise.

The zeta count is lopsided, in some cases my opponents having maybe 45 more zetas. And number of mods across many more toons with speeds in excess of 20+. Rose Tico at relic 5 is worth more GP than a g12 with a zeta WaT Tambor - are they comparable in impact? No.

This is where top X of each roster as an algorithm is flawed - it needs to account for other aspects that reflect roster strength - zeta count, #mods with a speed >20, # 6 dot mods. So a weighted calculation if you will. That will go a long way to ensure GL players square off with one another and avoid then ludicrously lopsided matches I have found myself in.

You had me all the way through here until you said the bit about speed. 6e mods are accounted for somewhat in that they have a higher GP than other mods.
But no, speed of mods should never, ever, ever be factored into match making.

T. Someone who's mods arent all that fast.

I beg to differ. A recent opponent of mine, had maybe 19 characters all with a speed in excess of 300 - not including GL’s. I think I have maybe 6, possibly 7. That is a massive disadvantage- with secondary speed rolls being less frequent now versus vanilla mods, this where the gulf of 1.6m+ GP starts to bite.

I am not concerned in the slightest about gaps of 300k - 600k - but when it’s pushing 1.6m+ it really starts to bite.

So, your problem would be solved if division 1 was simply split in 2 divisions?

A simple divide is pointless because it needs to be based on something tangible.

You pointed out that big differences in total GP is a problem. That problem would be solved by splitting the current div. 1 into 2 divisions, right?

"Thulsadoom;c-2120619" wrote:

My point is an algorithm that reflects the strength of a roster. A blanket one size fits all approach of top X players in a roster is a very flawed approach as it isn’t accounting for other aspects that makes a roster potent.

I highly doubt that CG aim to make completely even matches. I doubt that removing the incentive to build your roster stronger (and hence also the incentive to spend money) fits their business model.

"Thulsadoom;c-2120619" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2120615" wrote:

"Thulsadoom;c-2120593" wrote:

"Lysandrax;c-2120531" wrote:

"Thulsadoom;c-2120480" wrote:
Pre GL’s I would be inclined to agree, now absolutely not - the system needs a tweak. And I’m a perfect case in point. My roster is pushing 4.9m and it’s very optimised, including 2 GL’s. That means I have 24 G13’s that range from useless (Rose Tico) to decent (both RH’s).

I am regularly matched in GAC with players pushing 6.5 to 7.2m GP - so I am running a GP deficit in the region of 1.6m+. All of which will each have at least 1 GL. Now the GL v GL aspect is fine and in my view is how it should be. But that’s where the issues arise.

The zeta count is lopsided, in some cases my opponents having maybe 45 more zetas. And number of mods across many more toons with speeds in excess of 20+.

This is where top X of each roster as an algorithm is flawed - it needs to account for other aspects that reflect roster strength - zeta count, #mods with a speed >20, # 6 dot mods. So a weighted calculation if you will. That will go a long way to ensure GL players square off with one another and avoid then ludicrously lopsided matches I have found myself in.

You had me all the way through here until you said the bit about speed. 6e mods are accounted for somewhat in that they have a higher GP than other mods.
But no, speed of mods should never, ever, ever be factored into match making.

T. Someone who's mods arent all that fast.

I beg to differ. A recent opponent of mine, had maybe 19 characters all with a speed in excess of 300 - not including GL’s. I think I have maybe 6, possibly 7. That is a massive disadvantage- with secondary speed rolls being less frequent now versus vanilla mods, this where the gulf of 1.6m+ GP starts to bite.

I am not concerned in the slightest about gaps of 300k - 600k - but when it’s pushing 1.6m+ it really starts to bite.

So, your problem would be solved if division 1 was simply split in 2 divisions?

A simple divide is pointless because it needs to be based on something tangible.

You pointed out that big differences in total GP is a problem. That problem would be solved by splitting the current div. 1 into 2 divisions, right?

"Thulsadoom;c-2120619" wrote:

My point is an algorithm that reflects the strength of a roster. A blanket one size fits all approach of top X players in a roster is a very flawed approach as it isn’t accounting for other aspects that makes a roster potent.

I highly doubt that CG aim to make completely even matches. I doubt that removing the incentive to build your roster stronger (and hence also the incentive to spend money) fits their business model.

"MetaThumper;c-2120630" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2120603" wrote:

"MetaThumper;c-2119847" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2119632" wrote:


And what very, very linear way would that be? Because my way is anything but linear, yet I have managed to make Kyber every GAC so far while progressing through four divisions.

Congrats. That's awesome news and glad you're having a fun time. When I say linear, I'm referring to following CG's path of success and how you are kind of forced to stay on that path if you want to remain competitive and be a leaderboard fanatic. But I don't look at GAC achievements and rankings as a very good indicator on how good someone or their roster is. Just look at what's up there now.

So, you claim that CG created a path of success which competitive players and "leaderboard fanatics" are forced into? Yet, here you are discussing that apparently there are more ways to be competitive and reach the top of the GAC leaderboards. Do you always contradict yourself like this? Or do you simply have a hard time deciding what you actually mean?

What are talking about? Where did I say there are more ways to be competitive and reach top spots in GAC leaderboards? To maintain that position you have play a linear way, one way. This is common knowledge and has been brought up several times in this thread by others already.

You said it right here:

"MetaThumper;c-2119847" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2119632" wrote:


And what very, very linear way would that be? Because my way is anything but linear, yet I have managed to make Kyber every GAC so far while progressing through four divisions.

Congrats. That's awesome news and glad you're having a fun time. When I say linear, I'm referring to following CG's path of success and how you are kind of forced to stay on that path if you want to remain competitive and be a leaderboard fanatic. But I don't look at GAC achievements and rankings as a very good indicator on how good someone or their roster is. Just look at what's up there now.

You're saying weak rosters can get to the top of GAC leaderboard. It's right there.

You're contradicting yourself.

I don't know about div 1-2 but that division 3 champion guy has a pretty nice roster.....

"Waqui;c-2121306" wrote:

I highly doubt that CG aim to make completely even matches. I doubt that removing the incentive to build your roster stronger (and hence also the incentive to spend money) fits their business model.

Even if they wanted to, it's a completely unrealistic goal. Between the complexity of individual kits, the potential interactions between characters, the variance in mods and the differences in player skill the only possible way to achieve a "completely even match" is to have each player play themselves! And even then RNG would make the match uneven. :D

"CalvinAwesome;c-2121322" wrote:
I don't know about div 1-2 but that division 3 champion guy has a pretty nice roster.....

Pretty telling when you seem to have a better roster in div 3 than the guy at the top of div 1.... Looks like his roster is what should be matched with you.

Lol. Nice work though.

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2120976" wrote:

"MetaThumper;c-2120812" wrote:

Not at all. I'm saying that the people that are at the top should be the best players in that division, but as it is now, that isn't possible. I think enough has been shared to leave this case behind. You all take care and keep kicking rear.

I'm sorry, but from the picture you posted and Bus 74's guild mate's comment, they managed to achieve better results with an inferior roster but hardworking. That sounds like the definition of a better player to me.

I'm also sorry that you entirely missed the point of this thread and it flew completely over your head like a 747.

"Waqui;c-2121312" wrote:

"MetaThumper;c-2120630" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2120603" wrote:

"MetaThumper;c-2119847" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2119632" wrote:


And what very, very linear way would that be? Because my way is anything but linear, yet I have managed to make Kyber every GAC so far while progressing through four divisions.

Congrats. That's awesome news and glad you're having a fun time. When I say linear, I'm referring to following CG's path of success and how you are kind of forced to stay on that path if you want to remain competitive and be a leaderboard fanatic. But I don't look at GAC achievements and rankings as a very good indicator on how good someone or their roster is. Just look at what's up there now.

So, you claim that CG created a path of success which competitive players and "leaderboard fanatics" are forced into? Yet, here you are discussing that apparently there are more ways to be competitive and reach the top of the GAC leaderboards. Do you always contradict yourself like this? Or do you simply have a hard time deciding what you actually mean?

What are talking about? Where did I say there are more ways to be competitive and reach top spots in GAC leaderboards? To maintain that position you have play a linear way, one way. This is common knowledge and has been brought up several times in this thread by others already.

You said it right here:

"MetaThumper;c-2119847" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2119632" wrote:


And what very, very linear way would that be? Because my way is anything but linear, yet I have managed to make Kyber every GAC so far while progressing through four divisions.

Congrats. That's awesome news and glad you're having a fun time. When I say linear, I'm referring to following CG's path of success and how you are kind of forced to stay on that path if you want to remain competitive and be a leaderboard fanatic. But I don't look at GAC achievements and rankings as a very good indicator on how good someone or their roster is. Just look at what's up there now.

You're saying weak rosters can get to the top of GAC leaderboard. It's right there.

You're contradicting yourself.

Um, no. I said you have to play a very linear way to do it and that has been already proven in here. Don't embarrass yourself even more now k. It's apparent you want to go in circles over this for whatever reason but there is no need. It was brought up, it was proven and yet here you are still trying to make something if it.

"MetaThumper;c-2121472" wrote:

Um, no. I said you have to play a very linear way to do it and that has been already proven in here.

Here ya go. Top 6 rows of my roster. Now you tell me what the pattern is...



I finished in the 150s this GAC but if I had not made some mistakes and lost an entirely winnable early match, that would have put me in the top 30.