Top 2 GAC Kyber spots.... really?

"MetaThumper;c-2121472" wrote:

"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.

"MetaThumper;c-2121472" wrote:

"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.

"Rath_Tarr;c-2121495" wrote:

"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.

"Rath_Tarr;c-2121495" wrote:

"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.

"Kurgen;c-2121413" wrote:

"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.

"MetaThumper;c-2121756" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2121495" wrote:

"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.

That's easy buddy, low relic levels. Oh by the way(and not part of this thread topic), it's a crime in all 51 states to have 4m+ GP with a g11 Thrawn. Lol

"thedrjojo;c-2121653" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2121495" wrote:

"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.

And I'm in the same division as you and would likely beat you, and finished like 400th in kyber (granted my 1 loss was before I had Rey). So why should you get better rewards or matches?

"MetaThumper;c-2121472" wrote:

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:


So this is OP:

Is it just me or does anyone else think there is an issue with the top 2 div 1 Kyber spots being held by rosters that seem a little thin????

You tell me what the point of this thread is according to the OP. If it is the same point you are trying to make, I don't see how I'm missing it, it being "look, such a thin roster actually made it to the top."

If it is not the same as the point you are trying to make, the least you could do to keep yourself honest would be to say "you missed my point", instead self-promoting your point to "the point of this thread".

Assuming the latter, it is possible that I did miss your point. Although then I don't know what point you were trying to make by posting the "OMG look at all the reds in Bus 74's stats and all the greens in mine" comparison. It sure spoke better than a thousand words all right. I'm just not sure it spoke the words you thought it would.

"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.

"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.

"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.