Unbalanced Matchmaking in Grand Arena

Even I’m a bit weary of these. It’s not a perfect solution, but the best you can hope for is for them not to play. It doesn’t feel rewarding, but it’s the best you’ll get, unfortunately.

Yeah, I understand what you mean, and I agree — that’s unfortunately how it works right now.

But hoping that the opponent simply doesn’t play isn’t really a solution.

CG should rework the matchmaking system so that Grand Arena is decided by actual competition, not by roster size gaps or luck. Otherwise it just feels bad for the smaller account, no matter how well you play.

It’s based on skill rating, how many you win or lose impacts it, so you are facing an opponent who is bad for their GP / roster development or who is inactive / sporadically active. They will get the same rewards for winning or losing so it does not benefit them to be so low. The system works much better once you progress up, there is a period where new players meet sporadically active players, hence the point they will likely not show up. Not every match you encounter will be like this so if you continue to develop and participate you will move up. On an alt I played this happened once or twice a season so it was rare enough not to be an issue and often they either did not show up or was my only loss in the bracket, it’s not a big deal in the long term. To put it in perspective when you plateau at the skill rating suitable to your roster you will win on average 1-2 per bracket so facing one opponent per bracket that’s more powerful is very normal, it just feels worst when you are new to GAC and excited to play every round. As you progress you will see a clear increase in competition as you rise up ranks, in terms of activity, size and quality of roster.

I’ve been playing for two and a half years. I log in every single day and I have never missed a GAC. I’m an active, consistent player — not some casual who shows up once a week.
And yet in all this time, I’ve had exactly two matchups where my opponent’s Galactic Power was slightly lower than mine. Maybe around 15 times my opponent had roughly the same GP as me. That’s it.
Every other matchup? Their GP is routinely two or even three times higher than mine.
How is this even remotely acceptable matchmaking?
This isn’t competition — it’s a joke. Most rounds don’t feel like a battle of skill, strategy, or roster management. It’s just me sitting there waiting to see if the other player even decides to attack, because in a real fight the outcome is obvious from the start.
That’s not engaging. That’s not fun. That’s not why people invest years into building their rosters.
And the worst part? This isn’t a rare complaint. Tons of players are saying the same thing. So why does it feel like the developers are just ignoring it?
GAC is supposed to be one of the core competitive modes of the game — but right now it feels more like a lottery where smaller accounts are just there to be punching bags.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

I’ve been playing for two and a half years. ......... I have never missed a GAC. I’m an active, consistent player ..............
And yet in all this time, I’ve had exactly two matchups where my opponent’s Galactic Power was slightly lower than mine. Maybe around 15 times my opponent had roughly the same GP as me. That’s it.
Every other matchup? Their GP is routinely two or even three times higher than mine.
How is this even remotely acceptable matchmaking?

Because clearly from your example, GP would be a horrible match making criteria.  You've proved it by being 'consistent player' for 'two and a half years.'

With the current system you win/lose an even-ish amount of games.  To be matched vs players with more experience I presume you've moved up the ladder at least a bit, which means you've won more than you've lost.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

This isn’t competition

It clearly is competition.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

waiting to see if the other player even decides to attack,

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

That’s not engaging. That’s not fun.

Agreed.  It's not in the spirit of a competitive environment.  A second match making criteria based on 'activity' should help with this, if CG ever feel the need to implement it.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

That’s not why people invest years into building their rosters.

This is counter your point though.  Why spend years building a roster if you're then matched by GP?  Why not build to a niche point and destroy every fool who spends time building a roster?

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

This isn’t a rare complaint. Tons of players are saying the same thing. So why does it feel like the developers are just ignoring it?

Because most of the complaints are coming from players without experience (not all).  A large part of the player-base complaining do not have the experience or experienced GP match-making.  Another section, are those that know GP match-making would be broken and would abuse it.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

GAC is supposed to be one of the core competitive modes of the game — but right now it feels more like a lottery where smaller accounts are just there to be punching bags.

I think this point is exaggerated to the point of hyper-bole.  However, it is a point.  A new player in GAC having to face a several million account in GAC in their first weeks really should not happen.

If we had a second match making criteria, based on how much you engage offensively during your GAC match ups; we'd be paired more with people who turn up a similar amount.  This wouldn't hurt anyone and would avoid something that would drive me from the game (even though I'm the lower GP 83% of the time) GP match making in a gacha game  errrrgh!

This debate has been done to death. I have been playing for 7-8 years, this match making works for most players it has always worked for me. It’s normal to face larger rosters, the most competitive players can beat rosters twice their size with double the GL’s. Complaints are often from new players entering the pool, bad players when we eventually get to see SWGOH.GG they are losing to similar GP players too or good players who have exceeded their GP equivalents and will face larger rosters all the time. I got into Kyber with just 2/6 GLs and 1 meta fleet at the time. That’s what this matchmaking allows. It allows you to punch up as high as you can succeed, without limit by GP and earn higher rewards. It is only now after a few years that my opponent is not automatically 3-4M larger than me and now are similar to 2M larger than me. This allows us to earn rewards that would not be fair to receive without earning the against the larger rosters. That is why it is competitive. I like it better than the last system which was GP gated and promoted players under developing for PVE (my main focus). Without sharing your level, GP or recent battles I can not tell you what the issue you are finding but it’s likely one of the three I described.

I understand the point about skill rating and long-term performance affecting matchmaking. That part makes sense in theory.
The problem is that skill-based matchmaking only works when players have access to roughly comparable tools.
Strategy, efficiency, and smart roster building cannot fully compensate for the fact that a larger account simply has:
more teams
more counters
more redundancy
more datacron flexibility
and more room for mistakes
At a certain gap — especially when GP is double or triple — this stops being “skill vs skill” and turns into roster depth vs roster depth.
If the only way to get “fair” matches is to inflate GP with useless bloat just to look bigger on paper, then the system is effectively punishing efficient roster building. That goes directly against the idea that GAC rewards smart resource management and strategic growth.
Yes, weaker players with big rosters exist. But a match where one side has vastly more tools is not primarily a test of skill — it’s a test of whether the stronger account shows up and plays seriously.
That’s not what a competitive mode should feel like.

I understand your perspective and I don’t doubt that this system works well for experienced, long-term players like yourself.

However, my point isn’t that punching up should be impossible. Punching up can be competitive when the gap is reasonable. The issue is when the gap becomes extreme - for example, 2.5M GP vs 7.5M GP with Galactic Legends involved. At that point, roster depth becomes the deciding factor, not skill or efficiency.

Beating a roster twice your size is impressive, but it also assumes access to specific counters, relic depth, fleets, and mods - things that smaller accounts simply cannot have yet, no matter how well they play. That creates matchups where optimal play still has no realistic win condition.

I agree that GP-gated matchmaking had its own problems, and I’m not asking to go back to that system. But I do think the current system could be improved by limiting extreme mismatches, especially for lower-GP accounts, while still allowing players to punch up and be rewarded for skill.

The system may work well at higher levels, but that doesn’t mean it feels competitive or healthy at all stages of progression.

I understand how the skill rating system is supposed to work, and I get the idea that over time players should stabilize at a level that matches their performance.
But the issue I’m describing isn’t about a single stronger opponent per bracket or an occasional mismatch. It’s about a consistent and extreme roster gap over a long period of time.
When the GP difference is double or even triple, this isn’t just “one tougher match” — it fundamentally changes what is possible in the match. The larger account simply has more teams, more counters, more redundancy, and more room for error. At that point, the match is less about win/loss history and more about roster depth.
Also, I’m not new to GAC or still “climbing.” I’ve been playing actively for two and a half years without missing GAC, so this isn’t just early progression imbalance.
If a system regularly creates matchups where one player realistically cannot cover the same number of zones or answer the same threats due to roster limitations, that’s not just a perception issue — it’s a design issue.
Skill rating explains why it happens, but it doesn’t make the experience feel competitive or fair.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

I understand the point about skill rating and long-term performance affecting matchmaking. That part makes sense in theory.

Well it isn't really a 'skill rating', that's just a word that CG are using.  You could call it a 'poopoo rating' and it's just as applicable.  We know a lot of the ladder positioning comes down to outright power (tools as you say) rather than skill.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

The problem is that skill-based matchmaking only works when players have access to roughly comparable tools.

We're not matched on skill, we're matched based on our position on the ladder.  The better we do and higher up the ladder and the harder (in theory) the match up.  With a ladder the different amount of tools we have is irrelevant.  You either have the tools to win and move up to a harder match up or you lose and get easier match ups.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

At a certain gap — especially when GP is double or triple — this stops being “skill vs skill” and turns into roster depth vs roster depth.

If you're both putting in the same amount of effort with your GAC, no it is not.  You have both shown the ability (or lack of) to be in that position and it's a fair match up, no matter the GP.  It might not be a straight up might vs might, in that the underdog may have to (or maybe using) a strategy to climb.  One very hard to beat team on defence and the nous to scrap for points on offence, for example.  Or a weak defence with one meta ship and enough of offence to grind a full clear.

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

If the only way to get “fair” matches is to inflate GP with useless bloat just to look bigger on paper,

I don't understand your point.  Your argument is pointed to me, but it's my belief that GP is a very poor match making tool.  You also called it 'bloat', so how is it effective?  Worse still, it would affect how you play and collect characters.  This isn't theory, this is real; we had GP match-making and back then it was awful and GA (GAC now) rewards were awful.  

un6im9eoi14g wrote:

then the system is effectively punishing efficient roster building. That goes directly against the idea that GAC rewards smart resource management and strategic growth.

The issue is this is a collection game.  What's more, CG pushes us to collect everything new for events.  CG wants us to bloat our rosters as this brings in more money.  A few points about this:

1. CG isn't going to reward players in GAC for good roster management skills when it means they're spending less.  This is just reality.  The mega-krakens in K1 keep the game running.  Domo arigato kraken-san.
2.  This isn't a roster management game-where you build a roster and play rosters of a similar size.  This is a character collectable game, but has a PvP side to it too.  There is enough here, that how you build and use your characters makes a tremendous difference.  However, at the end of the day 'might is king'.  The bigger the whale, the bigger the pectoral fin to slap you with.
3. CG has encouraged us to bloat.  As I said, each new character has an event or is needed for an unlock, raid or has a good temporary datacron.  It would be totally unfair to push us to bloat for several years and then say 'You know what, actually we are going to match-make on GP again'.  Another big issue here is that unlike roster management games, we can't cut characters.  Effectively, we cannot trim bloat from years old accounts.  This again is unfair for established rosters vs new rosters that would be able to min-max their build.

Also, I need to point out that big discrepancies in GP isn't a 'one net catches all' situation.  There are 2 key player-types that are affected by it.

Player 1:  Has done well in GAC and has moved so high that they are generally the underdog (in roster size) by some considerable way.

Player 2:  Is having a constant issue of having to face rosters that rarely play and have dropped through the leagues like a stone due to inactivity.

Of course, you'll get some players that at times will have both issues.  However, for me 'Player 1's' situation isn't a problem.  Either they swim at that lofty level or they sink.  If they sink, they'll sink to a division where the matches are manageable.  It may mean some losses in a row, which affects motivation.  However, this is the ladder working as intended.  I believe it's beautiful and simple.

Player 2 though, really does have an issue.  Like you, I think it needs fixing and needs fixing as a priority, especially for new players.  A player brand new to GAC, playing a hugely rostered opponent who probably won't turn up should not be a thing.  This is not the spirit of the game.

I've thought in the past of several tweaks that would help.  However, a YouTuber called 'Egnard', I believe has come up with a simple and effective solution:

An 'Activity Score (AS)'.  An 'AS' would give you a score on how much you participate offensively in your GAC match ups.  Those that put in max effort every GAC match would have a max score.  Those that never play would have a minimum score.  This doesn't affect your place on the ladder, but it would be used as a secondary match making criteria after your PooPoo Points.  We would first be matched on our 'PooPoo Rating'.....sorry our 'Skill Rating' (in real terms our ladder position).  Then after that we would be filtered again with our 'AS rating'.  This would then make it impossible for the free-falling high GP accounts to play vs small accounts that try their best and participate fully every round.

I think that there are few other small tweaks that could help GAC in general.  However, I believe the 'AS' is a simple and extremely effective way of combatting the 'hardly play players' without tweaking anybody's nose.