Weighting...

I disagree,
1. Some zetas might be weighted a value the community would disagree with
2. Its punishing the people that worked hard to get those toons / invest in those zetas
3. The value of a specific toon or zeta diminishes over time as power creep settles in
4. People will complain about matchmaking even if they were matched against themselves

I agree that weight needs to change but disagree on implementation. I think pilots should be weighed by typical gp rather than their heavier weight. Secondly, I they should expand the relevant gp characters counted by 25%. This would allow for pilots and raid characters and be a good compromise between old v new matchmaking.

"Nothingface;c-1914475" wrote:
I agree that weight needs to change but disagree on implementation. I think pilots should be weighed by typical gp rather than their heavier weight. Secondly, I they should expand the relevant gp characters counted by 25%. This would allow for pilots and raid characters and be a good compromise between old v new matchmaking.

Broad statements like that also lead to issues. You think thrawn should not carry any special weight because hes a pilot? What about JKA? Han and chewie?

The system would need to be based in player usage in some way to allow for weighting to adjust as teams enter and fall out of meta, or malak type releases of powerful toons.

There are some correlations to toons unlocked and how many of those und up in the top 60-80 characters in a roster. Even the meta report could be useful. It needs to evolve with the player base.

GP has no intrinsic value, so why not make it describe a particular toons actual mathematical advantage over another toon. There is still plenty of randomness with mods.

Weighting couldn’t work if it were static to Ultra’s point. Weighting would need to be reviewed periodically for adjustments to reworks and game progression.

Second point, I would be interested to get an example where one toon or zeta does not have a clear statistical advantage over another. Sure, it’s all about point in time performance the meta constantly changes. But I would doubt at any given time there is not a clear favorite so why not just numerically state it as such.

I would wager already in GAC, if one team had a full G13 DR team playing against an opponent which didn’t have either Revan but had a higher GP the team with the G13 would still win a majority of the time. I would even go so far as to say the G13 team could set their DR team on defense by itself and win the match, because the other team could not achieve a full clear.

"Whitefly425;c-1914482" wrote:
GP has no intrinsic value, so why not make it describe a particular toons actual mathematical advantage over another toon. There is still plenty of randomness with mods.

Weighting couldn’t work if it were static to Ultra’s point. Weighting would need to be reviewed periodically for adjustments to reworks and game progression.

Second point, I would be interested to get an example where one toon or zeta does not have a clear statistical advantage over another. Sure, it’s all about point in time performance the meta constantly changes. But I would doubt at any given time there is not a clear favorite so why not just numerically state it as such.

I would wager already in GAC, if one team had a full G13 DR team playing against an opponent which didn’t have either Revan but had a higher GP the team with the G13 would still win a majority of the time. I would even go so far as to say the G13 team could set their DR team on defense by itself and win the match, because the other team could not achieve a full clear.

But reviewing at any level, means the dev team is telling us what is useful or valuable. Any system should not be based on any "one persons" thoughts on it.

I dont think each element of the game could be examined and weighted in this way, it's an endless debate at most levels and is way too much "work" to expect that level of examination on every toon and team.

"Ultra;c-1914464" wrote:
I disagree,
1. Some zetas might be weighted a value the community would disagree with
2. Its punishing the people that worked hard to get those toons / invest in those zetas
3. The value of a specific toon or zeta diminishes over time as power creep settles in
4. People will complain about matchmaking even if they were matched against themselves

I worked hard to get JKR and DR and place as many zetas on them and their teams as possible. I’ve also suggested weighting on numerous occasions including in the feedback section of these forums. I don’t agree with this level of detail in weighting, but more granularity is needed to distinguish DR from Darth Sidious.

It’s not punishing people that worked hard on certain toons. It’s making it a level playing field. When I play chess, I don’t tell my opponent that I spent more time and money studying strategies so they need to remove 5 pieces from the board before we begin.

"Scuttlebutt;c-1914714" wrote:

"Ultra;c-1914464" wrote:
I disagree,
1. Some zetas might be weighted a value the community would disagree with
2. Its punishing the people that worked hard to get those toons / invest in those zetas
3. The value of a specific toon or zeta diminishes over time as power creep settles in
4. People will complain about matchmaking even if they were matched against themselves

I worked hard to get JKR and DR and place as many zetas on them and their teams as possible. I’ve also suggested weighting on numerous occasions including in the feedback section of these forums. I don’t agree with this level of detail in weighting, but more granularity is needed to distinguish DR from Darth Sidious.

It’s not punishing people that worked hard on certain toons. It’s making it a level playing field. When I play chess, I don’t tell my opponent that I spent more time and money studying strategies so they need to remove 5 pieces from the board before we begin.

But in chess, you both start with the same pieces.

There are 2 things that annoy me. First is that, when going against guys in higher divisions, their depth is so much greater, and the matching hasn’t accounted for that, matching only on (for me) top 60. So while I’m skint on teams and struggling to have a complete defence and still have toons to attack (certainly no chance of running a second team if the first fails), while my opponent has depth to set strong defence, and have toons to pick from for attacks. We might match on top 60 gp, it isn’t a fair representation of comparative strength. Second, if I tie, I lose, even though it’s actually more impressive for lower gp to even match with the higher gp. But since it’s all been said and ignored, I just smile and talk to Mr Ben Dover.

"Kyno;c-1914704" wrote:


But reviewing at any level, means the dev team is telling us what is useful or valuable. Any system should not be based on any "one persons" thoughts on it.

I dont think each element of the game could be examined and weighted in this way, it's an endless debate at most levels and is way too much "work" to expect that level of examination on every toon and team.

I'm not sure it would be all that difficult to do fairly. For example, you could do something based on the current PVP Meta for "All Characters" as captured at the moment of Player Lock and just add a small "equalizer" quantity of GP such as:

Top 1-5 Meta toons = +20% GP for each of those toons you have unlocked
Top 6-10 Meta toons = +10% GP for each of those toons you have unlocked
Top 11-20 Meta toons = +5% GP for each of those toons you have unlocked

I don't know what the best actual percentages would be but, whatever those numbers are, it shouldn't eliminate the advantage of getting the new metas first but it should equalize things enough that you have to use a least a tiny bit of strategy to win even if you have a G13 Malak and your opponent hasn't unlocked him yet. It would lead to some interesting GAC strategy by giving savvy players at least a shot at winning even if they don't have the current meta yet.

It's not a perfect system but it's any easy one, it accurately represents the current strongest PVP toons, it's objective instead of subjective, and it automatically shifts as new metas emerge.