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 relic characters, 4 galactic legends, multiple conquest characters and journey characters. There is no realistic way he can even be competitive, unless the opponent does nothing. How is this even fair?
I don’t mean to be rude russdpipes , but I mentioned earlier that lots of us forumers have seen this thread a thousand times before. You seem fixated on us looking at the roster differences as if this thread is in any way different from those that have preceded it.
Your opinion is clear - as is the opinions of many others. They are different and that’s fine.
If you look up, you can see the point fly by over head. Its not a matter of "I dont think I can win", Its a matter of "I CANT WIN", unless the opponent puts up 0 banners by not playing. Every match should have atleast some bit of being able to be competitive. This one and others he gets matched to have no ability to be competitive. I doubt you looked at the roster differences
It's basically a ladder system. That's how ladders work, you play the players around you and you don't get to cry because you don't think you can win. (well, you do, but nobody is going to lose sleep over 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.
Dude you couldnt be more wrong about almost every single thing you said. Im not gonna waste alot of time addressing everything but first and formost if you think my son "You stand a very good chance of getting the win, but zero chance of being competitive." Then you obvious have not looked at the roster differences in that specific match up, which is comparable to his next 2 match ups. He has ZERO chance of winning or being "competitive". His only hope to win is if the other guy does nothing.
His account is only "doing well" for being newer because of the free LSTs and my guild being super helpful.
And if GP was used SOLELY as a match making criteria, you may be right we would have to min/max again, but nobody is argueing for that. GP has always been a weak indication of true power, but it still gives a basis to start the match making process, and then even things up more based on further metrics. So it can be fair to start with arbitrarily limiting how wide of a gap gp difference could be matched. Nobody should be matched with someone 4x + their roster as a basis. In fact all match ups should be a max of 1/2 to 2x anyones size, and then base it off what they do currently.
This match up is so egregious, its ridiculous anyone is sitting her defending it. Its like a pro football team playing a middle school football team.
And its not just a 1 off match up either.
You shouldnt only be able to win based off opponent inactivity.
Are you expecting someone at CG to specifically monitor your son's account and individually cater each of his matchups to him? No two rosters are exactly alike and there are way too many variables for what you're asking.
just take your L and get crap 8th place rewards and know this is where CG wants you.
It isn't as simple as a margin of difference within each metric. First you have to define what is an acceptable difference for each metric, and which metrics do you consider? Also, what weight do you give to each metric?
For example, when I pull up my GAC bracket on swgoh.gg it lists a LOT of metrics. GP, zetas, omicrons, GLs, Relic Units, G12 units and that is just the summary. You also have to factor in relics, mods and datacrons. and there are a WHOLE lot of details in there. You and I could have the same number of 6 Pip mods, but I may have a lot more mods with higher speed stats.
Then there is that matter of which legendary characters do you have vs your opponent. Is it a fair fight if your characters are better, but you have trash ships and I have really good ships?
You will never have a "fair" match up every time.
The way it is is not perfect, but it is actually pretty good and far better than it used to be.
With CG and their match making it hasn't ever been good. There are elements of both old and new system that could be taken and used in a newer match making. Yet CG doesn't feel it is necessary. Cause they want you to be encouraged to spend to get better. Its still a Pay to win game sadly. However a hand full of Youtube Content Creators have added their 2 cents to the fact of allowing accounts like your son's account to not fight those unless he was in the Kyber ranks. Yet CG probably won't do anything with Match making for either GAC or TW cause they don't see it making them any money. (In my opinion they are wrong, cause if they make it so players actually play and have fun they will still make their money in other areas of the game. Plus providing improvements to match making in both GAC and TW will keep the game around longer which means more money coming in.) It sucks. i am a 13 mill account and I still every now and then in Kyber will fight opponents with 8 or 9 mill and still is to easy unless I screw up bad or im to busy with Real life and attack a ton. It sucks but until CG actually does something with this, sadly this post will land on deaf ears with CG. Well except for the community, we will listen and wish and want for better at least.
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.
Capital Games Team
