Worst GAC matchup ive seen yet!!!!
My 11 year old sons newer 1.4million gp account with 28 relic characters and no galactic legends, late game journey characters, no conquest characters is matched up agains an 8m+gp account with 125...
Forum Discussion
My 11 year old sons newer 1.4million gp account
Well firstly, this account is doing well. So, I don't think the age is relevant.
There is no realistic way he can even be competitive, unless the opponent does nothing.
True. You stand a very good chance of getting the win, but zero chance of being competitive.
there should be some separation in power of roster
Well, GAC power is skill points and there is no separation in the accounts. However, if you're talking about account size, i.e. GP, absolutely not. GAC rewards are so good, that if we use GP as the/a match making criteria again, we will be forced to min-max our accounts. As CG is constantly pushing us to build more, buy the new and develop for what is currently relevant; there is absolutely no way it would be fair or positive to use GP as a match making formula again.
the current matchmaking is better than what we had before and that we should not return to it
As DarjeloSalas pointed out, those of us that played under the old system and can look at it objectively, don't think it was fair. Back then, there were 12 matches per GAC season. With GP match-making, players would go 12-0 season after season. Remember, for somebody to go 12-0, there's somebody else going 0-12. Now, we all win somewhere between 35-65% of our matches, unless we have a large change in our roster.
GP simply doesn't promote 'fair' matches. It also has too much of an effect on our overall gaming management. In my opinion, it could potentially ruin the whole game.
Each match should be somewhat realistic in having a chance to win.
Each match does have a realistic chance of winning. The match-up wouldn't exist if there wasn't a realistic chance of winning. You're confusing 'realistic chance of winning' with 'a competitive and fun match up'. Your opponent played heavily last week (winning every match up). However, the period before that, your opponent only played to win 5 times in potentially 30 matches. However, it appears that some weeks, they played every match up, probably a time issue.
If you got drawn vs them before this week, your chances of winning was extremely realistic. Almost a given, in fact.
The situation you describe as before is no different than what is happening now.
It's massively different. Everybody wins now, and everybody loses. This wasn't the case with GP match making. Also, as I said before GP match-making affects everything. Everything you build, every upgrade, every modding choice. A lot of decisions that we cannot reverse.
With the game as it is now, if CG brought in GP match making again, I'd be gone. No way I'd go back to that. And I did well under GP match making. Now and then, I'd go 12-0. I'd always go 9-3 to 11-1 every season. I punch up around 83% of my GAC matches now, so it'd still be beneficial to me. However, it's not right nor fair to use GP. It's a poor formula for calculating actual GAC power.
just think of poor devils that they squishing to krakens on top of K1.
K1 & K2 are negatively squished. We're squished downwards. Those accounts that appeared in K1 have nothing to do with squish, but a quirk that appeared when there was a change in Kyber squish formula.
All that said, I don't think it's right that these accounts are matched together. It isn't fun nor is it a great promotion for GAC.
There maybe an answer - Activity score. Players are awarded an invisible activity score depending on how involved they were in their last GAC match up. Negative scores for no or little attacking, high scores for multiple attempts, successful or not. This score needn't be visible to the player (it could be confusing). We are then matched via our skill rating (as usual). However, we're then further matched by our activity score.
Match ups like the one this thread is about would simply not happen. As the 8 million GP player would have a far lower activity score. They would be matched vs players who play a similar amount.
I don't see any negatives with using a system like this. Players may try to 'game it', but I don't see a way of doing that and be rewarded for it.
"I don't see any negatives with using a system like this."
The negative is the unseen. Adopting criteria and mechanisms that are kept hidden from the players is a terrible idea.
Adopting criteria and mechanisms that are kept hidden from the players is a terrible idea.
The main reason I think it should be unseen, is that it isn't a useful number in anyway and could be confusing. If you think it would be better as a visible figure, then yeah fine.
Can you explain why you think keeping it hidden is a terrible idea? It has zero competitive impact.
If the mechanisms by which fairly important things are determined are hidden from players then players can't adapt their gameplay to try and improve their chances and/or results. That is pretty crummy. They might not succeed, but they should have the opportunity to try.
If the mechanisms by which fairly important things are determined are hidden from players then players can't adapt their gameplay to try and improve their chances and/or results.
You either haven't read or understood the mechanic, I suggested. There's no adapting necessary. You still play vs a player of the same Skill Rating, whatever. So you have exactly the same chance of winning as you did before. This mechanic would pair you with players with a similar engagement level. This wouldn't lead to more wins/losses, but matches that are more engaging due to players with a similar outlook being paired together. E.g. players with a high GP for the league that rarely play, would have a low activity score and be paired with other players with high GPs that rarely played.
If you actually cared enough to adapt in GAC, you'd have the highest activity rating anyway.
As I said though, the only reason to hide it would be to prevent confusion. E.g. players believing it is important to match making. So, if it being visible would make it more palatable.....then yeah sure. In my mind, it doesn't matter either way.
Edit: Actually, I'm going to back-track on what I have said here. I've thought about it, and I can see scenarios where your point is valid.
Say, a player is extremely defensive minded. They set up a defence where opposing players rarely clear more than 2 zones. This player is unlikely to have much for offensive and would be unlikely to battle the amount needed to get a full activity score, yet they're active and playing to win every round. It would indeed be unfair for a player like this not to have their activity score visible. So, they can adapt and attack enough times to get a full activity score if they so wish.
Featured Places
SWGOH General Discussion
Discuss and share your feedback on Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes with fellow players.Community Highlights
- CG_Meathead9 months ago
Capital Games Team
