I keep coming up against very focused rosters with a lot of meta teams like this 1I lostWhy?Because I wasted a team. zEP just isn't that good of a NS counter in 3's . Had I just taken down that team with my Padme trio 1st instead of 2nd, I would have had it.My opponent had:Relic RevansJTRNSCLSPadmeAll at powerhouse levels. I HAVE ONLY CLS and PadmeProbably teams I am not mentioning that destroy in 5's. I have made a better roster out of garbage, but I lost by a few points because of 2 stupid mistakes.If I could've beaten this guy and many others like him ( which I have been), it isn't a matchmaking problem.

It's very inconsistent. Broken clock, blind squirrel, etc. It's decent sometimes. Way off other times. That's part of the problem.I could post screenshots and matchups from the past couple weeks that would show both sides of the argument - which really just shows that it's inconsistent.

"thecarterologist958;c-2040980" wrote:"Nikoms565;c-2040967" wrote:It's very inconsistent. Broken clock, blind squirrel, etc. It's decent sometimes. Way off other times. That's part of the problem.I could post screenshots and matchups from the past couple weeks that would show both sides of the argument - which really just shows that it's inconsistent. Go on then, makes it easier to point out where things balance out so that it isn't so unfair after all. Also the fact that some matches you are the favourite others you aren't is literally an advertisement for matchmaking working, sometimes you are at an advantage, sometimes not, that doesn't make something broken, it's inevitable.He didn't say anything about favourites. He said "decent" vs. "way off". His definition of those might mean different things to you. Maybe you should clarify that before you take his sentence out of context to use it to prove your own point?100 and 200 average out to the same thing as 149 and 151, but they're a drastically different set of numbers.

"thecarterologist958;c-2041954" wrote:"cannonfodder_iv;c-2041951" wrote:He didn't say anything about favourites. He said "decent" vs. "way off". His definition of those might mean different things to you. Maybe you should clarify that before you take his sentence out of context to use it to prove your own point?100 and 200 average out to the same thing as 149 and 151, but they're a drastically different set of numbers. I've asked for screenshots, that is clarification of his ideas of those. Also he didn't need to say anything about favourites for me to bring it up, if the balance is way off, it must be in someone's favour, otherwise it isn't way off. Maybe you should consider the context of what someone says before assuming they are taking things out of it?Excuse me then, I misunderstood. You said "Go on then, makes it easier to point out where things balance out so that it isn't so unfair after all." after he made an unsolicited offer of them. I didn't interpret that to mean you were actually asking him for those screenshots to clarify his meaning of "decent" and "way off." The conclusion you had already drawn about the content of those screenshots led me to believe you had already made your assessment. Asking something generally involves an interrogative and ends in a question mark, don't you think?As for the context I should have considered, there was his initial response and your reply. I didn't see any other comments on this thread that would provide more context to your response. Please let me know what I've missed.Also the fact that some matches you are the favourite others you aren't is literally an advertisement for matchmaking working, sometimes you are at an advantage, sometimes not, that doesn't make something broken, it's inevitable.I think the statement above is an incomplete definition of matchmaking "working" although I do think it's a prerequisite for what many would consider quality matchmaking. The problem with matchmaking isn't that the pendulum swings, it's the size of the arc that people have issue with. Most people just want a chance, and some view themselves as not having one in some match ups. My own personal experience supports this, both in my favor and working against me (and across multiple accounts with different roster sizes and breakdowns).

"thecarterologist958;c-2042907" wrote:"cannonfodder_iv;c-2042041" wrote:Excuse me then, I misunderstood. You said "Go on then, makes it easier to point out where things balance out so that it isn't so unfair after all." after he made an unsolicited offer of them. I didn't interpret that to mean you were actually asking him for those screenshots to clarify his meaning of "decent" and "way off." The conclusion you had already drawn about the content of those screenshots led me to believe you had already made your assessment. Asking something generally involves an interrogative and ends in a question mark, don't you think?I have made my assessment, people can show screenshots as often as they like, but until they show an instance of matchmaking not matching people as it is said to, it is not inconsistent. Or broken, which is something you should have picked me up on while you were searching for technicalities. Also given the unsolicited offer was already made, taking him up on it has the same effect be it with a question or a statement, no? "cannonfodder_iv;c-2042041" wrote:As for the context I should have considered, there was his initial response and your reply. I didn't see any other comments on this thread that would provide more context to your response. Please let me know what I've missed.Context is not always extra physical information, I'm fairly sure it also covers implication, such as the only part of my reply that you elected to not over analyse. "cannonfodder_iv;c-2042041" wrote:I think the statement above is an incomplete definition of matchmaking "working" although I do think it's a prerequisite for what many would consider quality matchmaking. The problem with matchmaking isn't that the pendulum swings, it's the size of the arc that people have issue with. Most people just want a chance, and some view themselves as not having one in some match ups. My own personal experience supports this, both in my favor and working against me (and across multiple accounts with different roster sizes and breakdowns).Hence it wasn't a definition, but I'm glad we agree in that respect. I understand that people view themselves as not having a chance, but that is not the same as not having a chance. I have gone against worse odds than most people that post on here, but you NEVER have a reason to say you are guaranteed to lose before the offense phase, and even in the offense phase, you can only be certain of what you can do, not your opponent. On just one occasion have I seen a defensive lineup and known for certain that with my entire roster I couldn't take it out, it was because of 1 full R7 Drevan and Malak squad. Me not having either knew I would lose, does that make matchmaking broken? No. He worked on a better team, and focused his roster to improve it. What guaranteed my loss was his mods, it was just too fast for me to have a hope, but it was still his strategy that won him the fight. That team was just a component of said strategy. If you want the same fight over and over again, do Squad Arena and TB, GAC provides at least some variety at times, to call that bad seems rather boring to me. I have actually beaten more rosters that I was worried about than lost. I have also underestimated rosters that I thought would be a cakewalk. This guy for instance I just beat, but I didn't see his frontlines coming. Luckily I've been building my roster better for all of this. I also crushed him on mods according to the bots. But, the match was really even. He didn't try my walls though.

"cannonfodder_iv;c-2043237" wrote:"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:That's not proof of broken match making. 8 more g13 isn't broken neither is the relics. What's your g11 compared to his? I'm pretty sure you'll have a heap more and judging by the fact you put g12+13 together to make a point,I have 16, he has 13."Saada;c-2043117" wrote: I'd say you have more g12 also and you have more zetas, give and take..... advantages on both sides.Yes, I have 11 more G12 - subtract the 8 more G13s that he already took from G12 and, voila - I have 3 more G12 characters. I'll gladly trade."Saada;c-2043117" wrote:Your top 60 or whatever characters would have the same gp. You chose to farm differently and that's way it is.He had 15k more at the time I executed the query - close enough - don't know about actual matchmaking rosters since that's opaque to us, but sure. Top 60 is close, not arguing that. Also not arguing farming choices. Not even complaining. I'm saying that some matches don't offer a reasonably equal chance to win for both parties."Saada;c-2043117" wrote: Would you be here saying matchmaking is broken if the tables were turned?I've stated in this thread that I've been the recipient of such matchmaking mismatches in the past. I've written volumes on matchmaking over the months. I've taken breaks from the game because of it (and other changes they didn't notify us about during the transition from GA to GAC) and ultimately returned because I love the game and the subject, but am less invested because I lack trust in the developer to value what I've already built."Saada;c-2043117" wrote:I have 23 g13 with high relics which in turn gets me matched with people with 30+ g13, negotiator, malevolence, jtr, gas that I don't have. it's my fault for not getting jtr, not having droids to get gas, using GET currency on other things than ships and me focusing on relic 7ing my bh squads because I love my bh again is again my fault not match making.Again, not complaining - just pointing out that some matches don't offer a reasonably equal chance to win for both parties and that's how I'm defining "broken." "Saada;c-2043117" wrote:I live with what I chose and now am trying to rectify problems in my roster as you should instead of saying they have better squads etc.I couldn't agree with you more. Just saying that some matches don't offer a reasonably equal chance to win for both parties and that's how I'm defining "broken.""Saada;c-2043117" wrote:Nothing should be a mirror in Gac and if you are a little undermanned, try different strategies (try to hold the front sector of ships with three of your strongest squads and take ships out of the equation or do the opposite side and sacrifice your ships or set your falcon and maybe his rebel fleet might not be able to get through etc etc, plenty of things to try).That's the only reason I am (was) in spitting distance of Kyber on this account. Take away half the board, try to get the better roster to make a bad decision, try to capitalize with underpowered offensive squads and kit mismatches, etc. etc. My hunch is that I get full cleared this go round, and will not be able to reciprocate, even excluding ships. I'm running an experiment this round.The real issue is that GP isn't indicative of character effectiveness. Malak's G12 finisher is something like 600 GP, but he gets +8 speed, +5% health steal and +14k protection (converted to health in his case) for the equivalent of adding a L1 toon to your roster. Pretty good GP deal. Conversely, zetas afford close to 2k GP and vary wildly in whether or not they are worth it. (Younger accounts at similar GPs have a big advantage here). Higher Relic levels, especially on pilots come with massive GP hits. Worth it? I dunno. R1 thru R4 does seem to be a nice value between GP and effectiveness, but that's pretty arbitrary.My point is that blind GP matching is going to have some wild variation in matchup quality and result in matches that don't offer a reasonably equal chance for both parties to win which is how I'm defining "broken." I don't see this to be proof positive that it's "working" because sometimes you're the hammer and other times the nail, but it all depends on how you define "working" I suppose.Again, I'm not complaining. I've accepted matchmaking for what it is and recognize the inherent fallibility in it. GAC is generally fun. I can see how it's not fun for people that are constantly getting beaten with no chance to win. It's probably as good as it can get, which to me means "It's decent sometimes. Way off other times."Yea, the following factor into my matchmaking but do not factor into my matches (because they’re not good enough to help me): g11 zSidious and g10 zQGJ. The more people have of those poor quality characters the lower their chances to win. I just pull lesser toons into teams or use undersized squads to make up the difference. Someone I fought recently had a lot of g12 old school Jedi. I felt bad for the matchup because I knew it would be a blowout, but I didn’t feel bad collecting the points lol.

I think GA matchmaking is fine | EA Forums

Nikoms565
5 years ago
It's very inconsistent. Broken clock, blind squirrel, etc. It's decent sometimes. Way off other times. That's part of the problem.

I could post screenshots and matchups from the past couple weeks that would show both sides of the argument - which really just shows that it's inconsistent.
cannonfodder_iv
New Spectator
5 years ago
"thecarterologist958;c-2040980" wrote:
"Nikoms565;c-2040967" wrote:
It's very inconsistent. Broken clock, blind squirrel, etc. It's decent sometimes. Way off other times. That's part of the problem.

I could post screenshots and matchups from the past couple weeks that would show both sides of the argument - which really just shows that it's inconsistent.

Go on then, makes it easier to point out where things balance out so that it isn't so unfair after all. Also the fact that some matches you are the favourite others you aren't is literally an advertisement for matchmaking working, sometimes you are at an advantage, sometimes not, that doesn't make something broken, it's inevitable.

He didn't say anything about favourites. He said "decent" vs. "way off". His definition of those might mean different things to you. Maybe you should clarify that before you take his sentence out of context to use it to prove your own point?

100 and 200 average out to the same thing as 149 and 151, but they're a drastically different set of numbers.
cannonfodder_iv
New Spectator
5 years ago
"thecarterologist958;c-2041954" wrote:
"cannonfodder_iv;c-2041951" wrote:

He didn't say anything about favourites. He said "decent" vs. "way off". His definition of those might mean different things to you. Maybe you should clarify that before you take his sentence out of context to use it to prove your own point?

100 and 200 average out to the same thing as 149 and 151, but they're a drastically different set of numbers.

I've asked for screenshots, that is clarification of his ideas of those. Also he didn't need to say anything about favourites for me to bring it up, if the balance is way off, it must be in someone's favour, otherwise it isn't way off. Maybe you should consider the context of what someone says before assuming they are taking things out of it?

Excuse me then, I misunderstood. You said "Go on then, makes it easier to point out where things balance out so that it isn't so unfair after all." after he made an unsolicited offer of them. I didn't interpret that to mean you were actually asking him for those screenshots to clarify his meaning of "decent" and "way off." The conclusion you had already drawn about the content of those screenshots led me to believe you had already made your assessment. Asking something generally involves an interrogative and ends in a question mark, don't you think?

As for the context I should have considered, there was his initial response and your reply. I didn't see any other comments on this thread that would provide more context to your response. Please let me know what I've missed.

Also the fact that some matches you are the favourite others you aren't is literally an advertisement for matchmaking working, sometimes you are at an advantage, sometimes not, that doesn't make something broken, it's inevitable.

I think the statement above is an incomplete definition of matchmaking "working" although I do think it's a prerequisite for what many would consider quality matchmaking. The problem with matchmaking isn't that the pendulum swings, it's the size of the arc that people have issue with. Most people just want a chance, and some view themselves as not having one in some match ups. My own personal experience supports this, both in my favor and working against me (and across multiple accounts with different roster sizes and breakdowns).
Mephisto_style
5 years ago
"thecarterologist958;c-2042907" wrote:
"cannonfodder_iv;c-2042041" wrote:

Excuse me then, I misunderstood. You said "Go on then, makes it easier to point out where things balance out so that it isn't so unfair after all." after he made an unsolicited offer of them. I didn't interpret that to mean you were actually asking him for those screenshots to clarify his meaning of "decent" and "way off." The conclusion you had already drawn about the content of those screenshots led me to believe you had already made your assessment. Asking something generally involves an interrogative and ends in a question mark, don't you think?

I have made my assessment, people can show screenshots as often as they like, but until they show an instance of matchmaking not matching people as it is said to, it is not inconsistent. Or broken, which is something you should have picked me up on while you were searching for technicalities. Also given the unsolicited offer was already made, taking him up on it has the same effect be it with a question or a statement, no?

"cannonfodder_iv;c-2042041" wrote:

As for the context I should have considered, there was his initial response and your reply. I didn't see any other comments on this thread that would provide more context to your response. Please let me know what I've missed.

Context is not always extra physical information, I'm fairly sure it also covers implication, such as the only part of my reply that you elected to not over analyse.

"cannonfodder_iv;c-2042041" wrote:

I think the statement above is an incomplete definition of matchmaking "working" although I do think it's a prerequisite for what many would consider quality matchmaking. The problem with matchmaking isn't that the pendulum swings, it's the size of the arc that people have issue with. Most people just want a chance, and some view themselves as not having one in some match ups. My own personal experience supports this, both in my favor and working against me (and across multiple accounts with different roster sizes and breakdowns).

Hence it wasn't a definition, but I'm glad we agree in that respect. I understand that people view themselves as not having a chance, but that is not the same as not having a chance. I have gone against worse odds than most people that post on here, but you NEVER have a reason to say you are guaranteed to lose before the offense phase, and even in the offense phase, you can only be certain of what you can do, not your opponent. On just one occasion have I seen a defensive lineup and known for certain that with my entire roster I couldn't take it out, it was because of 1 full R7 Drevan and Malak squad. Me not having either knew I would lose, does that make matchmaking broken? No. He worked on a better team, and focused his roster to improve it. What guaranteed my loss was his mods, it was just too fast for me to have a hope, but it was still his strategy that won him the fight. That team was just a component of said strategy. If you want the same fight over and over again, do Squad Arena and TB, GAC provides at least some variety at times, to call that bad seems rather boring to me.

I have actually beaten more rosters that I was worried about than lost. I have also underestimated rosters that I thought would be a cakewalk. This guy for instance I just beat, but I didn't see his frontlines coming. Luckily I've been building my roster better for all of this.
I also crushed him on mods according to the bots. But, the match was really even. He didn't try my walls though.
Pengin83
5 years ago
"cannonfodder_iv;c-2043237" wrote:
"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:
That's not proof of broken match making. 8 more g13 isn't broken neither is the relics. What's your g11 compared to his? I'm pretty sure you'll have a heap more and judging by the fact you put g12+13 together to make a point,

I have 16, he has 13.
"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:
I'd say you have more g12 also and you have more zetas, give and take..... advantages on both sides.

Yes, I have 11 more G12 - subtract the 8 more G13s that he already took from G12 and, voila - I have 3 more G12 characters. I'll gladly trade.

"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:
Your top 60 or whatever characters would have the same gp. You chose to farm differently and that's way it is.

He had 15k more at the time I executed the query - close enough - don't know about actual matchmaking rosters since that's opaque to us, but sure. Top 60 is close, not arguing that. Also not arguing farming choices. Not even complaining. I'm saying that some matches don't offer a reasonably equal chance to win for both parties.

"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:
Would you be here saying matchmaking is broken if the tables were turned?

I've stated in this thread that I've been the recipient of such matchmaking mismatches in the past. I've written volumes on matchmaking over the months. I've taken breaks from the game because of it (and other changes they didn't notify us about during the transition from GA to GAC) and ultimately returned because I love the game and the subject, but am less invested because I lack trust in the developer to value what I've already built.

"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:
I have 23 g13 with high relics which in turn gets me matched with people with 30+ g13, negotiator, malevolence, jtr, gas that I don't have. it's my fault for not getting jtr, not having droids to get gas, using GET currency on other things than ships and me focusing on relic 7ing my bh squads because I love my bh again is again my fault not match making.

Again, not complaining - just pointing out that some matches don't offer a reasonably equal chance to win for both parties and that's how I'm defining "broken."

"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:
I live with what I chose and now am trying to rectify problems in my roster as you should instead of saying they have better squads etc.

I couldn't agree with you more. Just saying that some matches don't offer a reasonably equal chance to win for both parties and that's how I'm defining "broken."

"Saada;c-2043117" wrote:
Nothing should be a mirror in Gac and if you are a little undermanned, try different strategies (try to hold the front sector of ships with three of your strongest squads and take ships out of the equation or do the opposite side and sacrifice your ships or set your falcon and maybe his rebel fleet might not be able to get through etc etc, plenty of things to try).

That's the only reason I am (was) in spitting distance of Kyber on this account. Take away half the board, try to get the better roster to make a bad decision, try to capitalize with underpowered offensive squads and kit mismatches, etc. etc. My hunch is that I get full cleared this go round, and will not be able to reciprocate, even excluding ships. I'm running an experiment this round.

The real issue is that GP isn't indicative of character effectiveness. Malak's G12 finisher is something like 600 GP, but he gets +8 speed, +5% health steal and +14k protection (converted to health in his case) for the equivalent of adding a L1 toon to your roster. Pretty good GP deal. Conversely, zetas afford close to 2k GP and vary wildly in whether or not they are worth it. (Younger accounts at similar GPs have a big advantage here). Higher Relic levels, especially on pilots come with massive GP hits. Worth it? I dunno. R1 thru R4 does seem to be a nice value between GP and effectiveness, but that's pretty arbitrary.

My point is that blind GP matching is going to have some wild variation in matchup quality and result in matches that don't offer a reasonably equal chance for both parties to win which is how I'm defining "broken." I don't see this to be proof positive that it's "working" because sometimes you're the hammer and other times the nail, but it all depends on how you define "working" I suppose.

Again, I'm not complaining. I've accepted matchmaking for what it is and recognize the inherent fallibility in it. GAC is generally fun. I can see how it's not fun for people that are constantly getting beaten with no chance to win. It's probably as good as it can get, which to me means "It's decent sometimes. Way off other times."

Yea, the following factor into my matchmaking but do not factor into my matches (because they’re not good enough to help me): g11 zSidious and g10 zQGJ.

The more people have of those poor quality characters the lower their chances to win. I just pull lesser toons into teams or use undersized squads to make up the difference. Someone I fought recently had a lot of g12 old school Jedi. I felt bad for the matchup because I knew it would be a blowout, but I didn’t feel bad collecting the points lol.
Rydia131
5 years ago
Cool
WisBadgers13
5 years ago
I agree. On my alt I am about to be matched with a guy with 1.4 GP and I'm at 950k. I should beat him. If I don't, it was not matchmaking's fault.
cannonfodder_iv
New Spectator
5 years ago
Individual results may vary.
WisBadgers13
5 years ago
"Baby_Yoda;c-2040248" wrote:

This fits better with the other thread lol. This one is the opposite
thecarterologis
5 years ago
"Nikoms565;c-2040967" wrote:
It's very inconsistent. Broken clock, blind squirrel, etc. It's decent sometimes. Way off other times. That's part of the problem.

I could post screenshots and matchups from the past couple weeks that would show both sides of the argument - which really just shows that it's inconsistent.

Go on then, makes it easier to point out where things balance out so that it isn't so unfair after all. Also the fact that some matches you are the favourite others you aren't is literally an advertisement for matchmaking working, sometimes you are at an advantage, sometimes not, that doesn't make something broken, it's inevitable.