Thank you so much for bringing this up again. I talk about this in almost every one of my GAC videos. I just had someone complain that even when I win I still complain about the matchmaking. He told me to "get over it." I told him I'd stop complaining when they fixed it, and if he didn't like it, he should just "get over it."
Yeah it’s kind of funny to think about “complaining while winning”. I think it shows you’re not just “complaining” when you lose but also recognize the problem when winning. The problem still exists lol
Thanks for the content. With my 5.7mm GP and one GL I faced 8.9mm with all 7 GLs last week. I felt like I kinda “won” by just being able to clear one territory
see that just doesnt make sense to me. sure maybe once in a BLUE MOON, throw someone in a tough bracket with numbers like that if theyre performing extremely well, but otherwise why would that matchup ever happen? Your chance of winning is if your opponent lets you by NOT taking advantage of the most obvious way to win; abusing the poor matchmaking
Grid, an outstanding video and props to UnderAverage who lets face is awesome! Your take and perspective on the game is awesome and thanks for continuing to explain the nuances of this game we all love but maybe aren't able to express them as well as you do. Legend
There is an easy solution. You go back to a system with brackets based on a combination of metrics - top 120 GP, total relic levels, number of G13s, number of GLs, number of L6 and 9 DCs, Zetas, Omis, etc. CG should have the data to determine how much each factor influences success and develop an algorithm based on that. We will call this a "roster score." Then you use the current matchmaking system within each bracket. What if someone is really good and wants to move to a higher bracket? Fine, let them. And if they get crushed then they move back down. But you don't allow someone with a higher roster score to move into a bracket for lower roster scores.
In fact, if you want to make it more complicated, you could have a B-side for each bracket with lower rewards where players who don't play or lose a lot get relegated. If they win in the B-side, they can move back into the A-side the next GAC. Example: Joe is in K4A. He is kicking butt and finishes at the top of the bracket. He is given the option to promote to K3A. He takes the option, but loses a lot. At the end of the season he is asked if he wants to stay in K3A or go back to K4A where his roster score says he should be. He elects to stay in K3A and has another terrible season. However, by the end of this season, his roster has grown so much, he is no longer allowed to move back to K4A. After one more terrible season in K3A he is relegated to K3B. He finds that most of the people in K3B are the players who don't really care about GAC, so he does well in K3B, and moves back to K3A. You could even add a C-side with even lower rewards for players who don't sign up or fail to do more than one attack per match. The benefit of such a system is that it keeps people with larger rosters from falling down the rankings until hey can crush people with smaller rosters.
I completely agree. And I'm gonna start throwing in the sandbox mode or some sort of replayable mode that costs nothing to play and doesn't even give you any rewards. We need something to play our toons in. We need to be allowed to mix up our rosters and play around with them without being punished for it. Currently, we can't play around with our rosters that we've spent a lot of time and money on without giving up something in return. Don't give us rewards so we don't have to trade something in return. I'm tired of having to go to UA-cam to try to find a video or something that shows me what happens when I put a specific team together!!! A lot of times, it's impossible!!! We need to flood CG with this, guys! We need to have something to do with the toons we actually paid for. Don't give me the free to play spill. Most people pay money here and there for things. And most people that have played this game for years have spent enough in this game to buy an Xbox one game each year they've been playing or much, much more!!! Just let us play with our roster, please!!!!
@@TheRealGridan no problem. When I removed the other content creators, I kept you because one of my good buddies know you in real life. Logan Beck. Happy to support.
Respect for you Gridan. You’re smart af. I’m 7.2 in K2 regularly facing 8.5-9.0M GP. You’d be surprised how many people don’t understand how to win against me by just placing everything on D. Your opponent must have been an insane player.
Roster size 100% when I was at the 4mill mark and in aurodium I litterally didn't have enough teams to set a full defence and have enough left for a full clear.
A 50/50 win/loss rate is not in and of itself an indicator of a fair system. In fact, I would argue that better players should win more often, and lazy or bad players should lose more often. And if it means someone wins 100 in a row, that's fine - it's the reward for being good. And if someone loses 100 in a row, that's fine, too. It incentivizes them to get good. The current system rewards players for being bad or lazy by allowing them to drop to lower brackets where they can crush smaller opponents (and yes, it is a reward because you get better rewards for winning at a lower level than losing at a higher level). Meanwhile, the smaller player is getting punished for just making a solid effort by facing impossible matchups half the time.
This is a great point I will try to mention in another video! In fact I had this dilemma and convo with my chat just a couple days ago. I almost wanted to intentionally lose so I wouldn’t get absolutely clapped by a roster I have no business going against. I don’t want a massive advantage either (like todays video) I just want something that’s relatively fair and in the realm of reality for both players.
100% agreed. As some one how has played for a year and has no gls yet and has climbed up to arodium, in the last 3 months 80% of my match have been so missed match and come down to does my opponent try/play. I feel like match making is based on how long have you played the game and with no catch up mechanics I feel hopeless screwed over by it.
In the grand scheme of things, it’s like an actual war - the fight is almost always decided before the first shot is fired. The contest is not in skill of engagement alone, but on skill of building enough of the right thing at the right time. Is that fair? No, not really, but those of us that don’t spend a lot of money don’t really expect it to be fair. Know yourself and know your enemy and you will not fear the outcome of a million battles. You won’t necessarily win them, but you won’t be surprised. (FWIW, my account is a mess and I got promoted to Chromium and I’m taking it hard on the chin, exactly as expected.)
I’m 4.8 with one GL in A2 and routinely face 7+ accounts with 3 GLs. Oddly enough, last week in GAC I matched with people who were within 500k GP and this week it’s back to the 2million difference. The matchmaking is all over the place. Best advice I can give is work on those ships boys
Respect to underaverage that was a very close battle all things considered. I just want to say it feels bad when you see 2-4 Mill accs getting matched up against 6-7mill accs and have no way to win whatsoever just feels bad but in cg's eyes its working as intended
I’m about 7 million gp, only have one gl (I chose to finish GAS and Jedi Luke first) so have JML and am about to unlock SLKR very soon. I have been Kyber 3/4 since the beginning. I regularly face guys with 1 mil more gp and 3-5 GLs. I do ok in 5x5 but plummet down to arodium everytime we do 3x3. Facing 2 or 3 GLs on defense just blocks me. Now we are in 5x5 and my opponents are overmatched so I’m climbing again. Even though they have more GLs. It’s really dumb. 3x3 wrecks matchmaking equilibrium.
I was just telling a friend in the guild about it. we show what we are up against and give recommendations for counters. he literally said gac isn't fun for him anymore. I literally told him I enjoy maybe 1-4 battles. not from losing but I'll either get matched with someone I can clear easily or beat one battle. I have one gl but no matter what every time one starts I go against someone that has downplayed for a reason. they have 4-all gls and I can't never get first anymore. not the lack of trying but because of the reason your saying. I'm at 6mil gp I stopped playing for 3 years came back didn't have ships ect so I got the hyperdrive but it was actually better before I got my first gl. yeah I had a couple battles with a gl here and there but soon as I unlocked slkr it's like they lie about skill rating. I go from one or 3 even every now and then to 3 almost every battle.
LV is countered pretty reliably with a few teams, even with the L6 cooldown datacron. Shaak-troopers could have beat the comp he was running. As could SLKR-Wat-Daka-Zombie-Armorer.
Could, sure, with extremely specific modding and datacrons that still would be limited by 20-30% dodge, deflection and crit avoidance, IF I was faster and even then still would rely on a lot of RNG. I personally with my roster would lose that battle every time. It’s unreliable at best and frustrating no matter what.
@@TheRealGridan deflection and crit avoidance are irrelevant to SLKR and Trooper teams. The L3 accuracy/evasion down datacrons are hardly rare, in the event you are facing a high dodge LV. The SLKR counter does not require specific modding. Reliable counters do exist.
Deflection and crit avoidance are relevant to Fennec BH, Troopers and *especially* SLKR who’s ult is fueled by crits. I’m not saying counters don’t exist, I’m saying no matter what it’s frustrating this exists in the game to this caliber. Regardless of counters. Also, those counters are primarily accessible to larger accounts that have had the time to build out their rosters to that point. The majority of players simply have to watch themselves lose because of one GL and one datacron and I don’t think that should exist, regardless of sketchy counters.
@@TheRealGridan you explicitly said reliable counters don't exist. They do. I never mentioned Fennec BH, but if you want to acknowledge a 3rd reliable counter, that's fine with me. SLKR's ult may charge even more slowly with crit avoidance, but it's not really that relevant at the end of the match, where it matters. It's also not a stat that people prioritize on LV. Also, dark trooper doesn't crit and he only deals physical damage, so both deflection and crit avoidance are 100% irrelevant to troopers.
@@kyber1fun164 dodge chance is also still relevant in that factor against troopers. and no, none of those counters are reliable, they can sometimes, barely work if youre lucky with RNG. all measurable statistics have the best ones at about 70% on swgoh.gg and even that I don't really believe. ask any player how many times theyre winning against LV datacron and youll see loads more of "cant win" rather than "reliable counter". They are not reliable. They sometimes barely work.
I've got an 8.5m 5 GL account. The one GL I don't have is LV (jabba isn't achievable right now) most players at the moment just putting down LV-cron and assume you can't beat it. I've had to invest in rey dash counter. It has about a 90% win rate. Its just gross that one datacron has become so defining on the main way to get crystals in the game. When you go for a GL that's a significant time and resource investment, even if I went and got LV now the cron would be gone by the time I'm done. Its just game breaking and unfair. No matter how much better I am than my opponent, if they happen to have the right GL and the next broken cron, there's nothing you can do.
All valid points except they completely ignore the simplicity and perfection of a pure W/L system for matchmaking in a game this big. You are matched for a reason - pure W/L, so you are either punching above your weight or your opponent is punching below theirs. Rarely, if ever, is it a "perfect matchup". If you wanted to add all those parameters in you'd be facing the same 10-20 players every few weeks and that would be boring. I still run into the same players quite often in the bounce around the top 200-500 area, and there rarely if ever any kind of parity on DCs or roster investemnt.
Here’s my two cents. First of all there really should not be teams that cannot be countered in the game. LV with a datacron being a “stop sign” is a game ruining thing. Shouldn’t be allowed. Secondly I would say there should be a capped range that a certain GP/GL sized roster can fall to in terms of who they are facing. You shouldn’t be allowed to free fall until you simply can’t lose. BUT.. I think the penalty for not winning or not trying should affect rewards and effectively be capable of a free fall. In other words, if a player with high GP/GL strength is either not trying or is just that bad at the game they should be capable of dropping to carbonite or bronzium rewards or whatever. HOWEVER the calibre of opponents should be capped at an appropriate level. Maybe that’s aurodium1 for what should by a Kyber roster. (In other words carbonite rewards but facing aurodium level teams) If this person starts trying again, or suddenly figures out how to play, they can steadily improve their rewards and eventually climb back to Kyber. But they should never be facing carbonite quality rosters and getting free wins for being lazy or bad. I am punching way above my roster now and I ONLY face way overpowered teams. Winning or losing is currently USUALLY determined by whether my opponent is paying attention or not.
Almost every GAC I am facing someone with at least 2 GLs more than me. It’s gross. I just got my 3rd GL (SLKR) thanks to a great Gridan guide 💪. But the odd time I face someone “weaker” than me I’m drooling to kick his ass b/c it’s no fun to lose all the time ya know. Matchmaking should be better, I mean how hard is it to query # of GLs and Galactic Power? And it’s still sad that datacrons even exist. It’s not enough to have Superman (GLs), they need to have Superman on crack. Datacrons would be cool if they existed only for teams that weren’t relic’d. Imagine a gear 12 that could compete with a relic’d team?
I am 4M GP 0 GLs facing 8M GP with 4 GLs.... Also majority of the player base refuses to participate in 3v3 so they sandbag their rating until 3v3 is over then climb up with 1st place rewards everytime and smurf / pub stomp. CG stole this ranking system from LOL, CSGO, starcraft, WOW etc but the difference is all those games allow players to choose what bracket they want to play in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, or 10v10. CG could at least give us the option to choose 5v5 or 3v3 at signups.
I would be willing to bet under average won his last match. It's not SBMM, it's crystal control that keeps CG up at night. Low skilled players need to be encouraged to spend money. High skilled players need to be encouraged to spend money. Gotta keep those crystals even so everyone is equally incentivized.
@@TheRealGridan well that's what happens to me. I won the last round too easily IMO. Now I got a guy with twice the relics and millions of GP more. I would prefer close matches every time.
The current system might be fair in the long run - but it is NOT the most fun one. How fun is winning, if you know all you get for it is getting matched against even more unbeatable opponents next week? You get drawn into the cycle of having to spend more and more time into scouting, planning, testing, etc just to have at least A chance of winning... Just to either get punished by the fun game freezes lately, or by facing even tougher opponents or taking the fun triple loss week and start again next week... On the other hand, it's easy to complain about Matchmaking, but hard to come up with a concept that works better... After all, An sort of roster based Matchmaking ends up with micro decision making like previously a la "is the gp of this zeta worth the Matchmaking impact"...
They already fixed GAC matchmaking. Basing it on GP was stupid. This Elo system is better. Keep winning until you find the upper limit of your roster/skill.
I am in Chrimium 1 - one match guy has 9 mil gp w 6 gl’s. W a level 8 and 6 datacron. Another person has 5 gl’s. Both have LV. Why are these people not in Kyber? Plus I have one cheater. I feel sorry for the people that are 2 and 3 mil.
Matchmaking is no longer about equality. It’s the same model as our current oligarchy and monetary systems. Those in the top echelon will continue to pay to enjoy the game they play, and the rest will play another way. There is zero “investment” outside of emotional, and supply and demand will dictate to the masses. Stop spending and the cost of goods goes down. Tulip crash always happens..it’s human nature.
So your point is player skill is almost irrelevant and then your prime example is a player punching up super hard because of his player skill? And the tarkin counter against LV is 100% reliable. But only of you understand the mechanics and abilities a.k.a player sklill.
Off meta counters can balance the scales ⚖️ in gac when you go against someone with a bigger roster and datacron ppl may not like them but allow ppl to punch up too but imo you win you should face ppl that are better till eventually you hit your limit and in regards to your battle with your opponent it’s a lose for him but he’s getting better thru ever lose because eventually when he gets more tools the hard he is going to be to beat because he’s going to know more off meta counters and when the scales ⚖️ get closer he’ll be better off
More often than not, DCs make things more lopsided, not less. In general, the people with the bigger rosters are going to have more relic 3, 5, and 7 characters, so they will be able to equip more datacrons. I often face rosters where they can put DCs on EVERY squad, both offense and defense, while I can only put them on a handful of squads.
@@tilomad9220 But again, the person with the larger roster is more likely to have the right characters at high relics to take advantage of those stupid OP Datacrons than the person with the smaller roster. They are also likely to have done better in Conquest to get more DCs in the first place, giving them more chances to roll the stupid OP abilities, and are more likely to be in a higher powered guild where they will get more re-roll materials again giving them more opportunities to get the stupid OP abilities. And all of that goes double for spenders over free-to-play. All-in-all, DCs are far more likely to further unbalance things than to balance them.
@@bomafett yeah totally get that but that applies to anything most ppl won’t have the advantage either on sports or other things but if you want to compete you have to adapt or fall behind. Us as smaller accounts need to make that decision if we want to relic up a character to take advantage of the datacron.
@@TheRealGridan if they include other factors, like number of GLs for example, someone has to think and make a decision about how to group based on that number and what’s fair and what’s not. Every single a person may disagree on what those terms are or should be. Or which/how many datacron are comparable to how many GLs. Everyone can have a different answer, and answers would be based on individual rosters. However, currently, if you win, you move up. There’s no confusion or debate. Some people are more efficient and are better with less because of counters or datacrons. It’s an honor to match up with someone with 1M more Gp and great of you can win. Anyone who has been playing for at least a few years can get any 1 character or datacron so the impassable datacron or GL argument is invalid. It makes it satisfying for someone who might have skipped several GLs but worked on LV or focused on datacrons and is able to strategize accordingly. Many players, myself included will at some point be upset about a matchup but it is still fair.
I think gac matchmaking is the most fair system possible. If you win - you face harder opponents - if you lose, weaker opponents. How can it be more fair than that?
i mean, thats the question i answer in the video haha. Its not "harder" or "weaker" opponents, because winning or losing often comes down to one or two factors that are not determined by the player; Datacrons and a GL and you win or lose. Example, my opponent in this video is a better player than me, but, i won because of unfair matchmaking that doesn't account for incredibly powerful things in the game, such as datacrons, GLs and roster size.
@@TheRealGridan I think you are taking exceptions and applying it to the rule. It is logically sound to say “generally the higher rank you are, the better you and your roster are” I’m 8m and I face 10/11m opponents and win often - I’d hate facing people who were only my gp - wouldn’t feel as challenging
@@TheRealGridan your roster is a direct product of your level of skill, not everyone knows how to farm mods properly, or farm toons in a way that’s the most productive. So to make being a good player and roster 2 independent points, it’s giving zero value to roster creation, which one could argue is the biggest skill in this game
The issue here is skill, or rather a lack thereof. I won all three battles in the last two GACs (and I probably shouldn't have because the only reason I did was an overpowered LV datacron) This time I was matched against someone who has a roster so big that I had no hope of beating them regardless of strategy, game knowledge, or skill. Here's the thing though, I know there are other players who have a roster around the size of mine that are better at the game than me. Why am I not fighting these people where I at least have a hope of winning if they mess up, instead of someone who can completely stonewall me with their front zones and then still full clear me after dropping two battles? TL;DR Harder should be determined by skill rather than roster size and datacrons.
Great match, man. Great hair too
UnderAverage!! Great match man. Keep up the killer work. Would love to have you on sometime to talk about your counter work
My discord is in game chat
You must be an insane player man. Good work!
Thank you so much for bringing this up again. I talk about this in almost every one of my GAC videos. I just had someone complain that even when I win I still complain about the matchmaking. He told me to "get over it." I told him I'd stop complaining when they fixed it, and if he didn't like it, he should just "get over it."
Yeah it’s kind of funny to think about “complaining while winning”. I think it shows you’re not just “complaining” when you lose but also recognize the problem when winning. The problem still exists lol
Give UnderAverage some love, everyone!
Hes in my guild, I shared the link to him
@@acerthekiiier5774 give him my love
Thanks for the content. With my 5.7mm GP and one GL I faced 8.9mm with all 7 GLs last week. I felt like I kinda “won” by just being able to clear one territory
see that just doesnt make sense to me. sure maybe once in a BLUE MOON, throw someone in a tough bracket with numbers like that if theyre performing extremely well, but otherwise why would that matchup ever happen? Your chance of winning is if your opponent lets you by NOT taking advantage of the most obvious way to win; abusing the poor matchmaking
Grid, an outstanding video and props to UnderAverage who lets face is awesome! Your take and perspective on the game is awesome and thanks for continuing to explain the nuances of this game we all love but maybe aren't able to express them as well as you do. Legend
There is an easy solution. You go back to a system with brackets based on a combination of metrics - top 120 GP, total relic levels, number of G13s, number of GLs, number of L6 and 9 DCs, Zetas, Omis, etc. CG should have the data to determine how much each factor influences success and develop an algorithm based on that. We will call this a "roster score." Then you use the current matchmaking system within each bracket. What if someone is really good and wants to move to a higher bracket? Fine, let them. And if they get crushed then they move back down. But you don't allow someone with a higher roster score to move into a bracket for lower roster scores.
In fact, if you want to make it more complicated, you could have a B-side for each bracket with lower rewards where players who don't play or lose a lot get relegated. If they win in the B-side, they can move back into the A-side the next GAC. Example: Joe is in K4A. He is kicking butt and finishes at the top of the bracket. He is given the option to promote to K3A. He takes the option, but loses a lot. At the end of the season he is asked if he wants to stay in K3A or go back to K4A where his roster score says he should be. He elects to stay in K3A and has another terrible season. However, by the end of this season, his roster has grown so much, he is no longer allowed to move back to K4A. After one more terrible season in K3A he is relegated to K3B. He finds that most of the people in K3B are the players who don't really care about GAC, so he does well in K3B, and moves back to K3A. You could even add a C-side with even lower rewards for players who don't sign up or fail to do more than one attack per match. The benefit of such a system is that it keeps people with larger rosters from falling down the rankings until hey can crush people with smaller rosters.
Remember, CG said this would be a "New skill-based rating system to match you against fair and comparable opponents." FAIR AND COMPARABLE OPPONENTS!!!
I completely agree. And I'm gonna start throwing in the sandbox mode or some sort of replayable mode that costs nothing to play and doesn't even give you any rewards. We need something to play our toons in. We need to be allowed to mix up our rosters and play around with them without being punished for it. Currently, we can't play around with our rosters that we've spent a lot of time and money on without giving up something in return. Don't give us rewards so we don't have to trade something in return. I'm tired of having to go to UA-cam to try to find a video or something that shows me what happens when I put a specific team together!!! A lot of times, it's impossible!!!
We need to flood CG with this, guys! We need to have something to do with the toons we actually paid for. Don't give me the free to play spill. Most people pay money here and there for things. And most people that have played this game for years have spent enough in this game to buy an Xbox one game each year they've been playing or much, much more!!! Just let us play with our roster, please!!!!
Its worse when you're first in round then tie with higher gp to then be relegated for second place
To me beating a better account with less is more skilful
Sure it’s more skillful if it’s in a realm of reality. Doesn’t matter how good a 4m account is against a 9m acc, they can’t win
@@TheRealGridan fully agree. The skill bace doesn't represent skill tho
GAC matchmaking was one of the big reasons I left the game 14 months ago. Sad to still see matchmaking be an issue all this time later.
i appreciate you still watching the content my friend :)
@@TheRealGridan no problem. When I removed the other content creators, I kept you because one of my good buddies know you in real life. Logan Beck. Happy to support.
Respect for you Gridan. You’re smart af. I’m 7.2 in K2 regularly facing 8.5-9.0M GP. You’d be surprised how many people don’t understand how to win against me by just placing everything on D.
Your opponent must have been an insane player.
Roster size 100% when I was at the 4mill mark and in aurodium I litterally didn't have enough teams to set a full defence and have enough left for a full clear.
And while we are at it, can we fix TW matchmaking, game freezes, paywalls, oh don’t get me started.
A 50/50 win/loss rate is not in and of itself an indicator of a fair system. In fact, I would argue that better players should win more often, and lazy or bad players should lose more often. And if it means someone wins 100 in a row, that's fine - it's the reward for being good. And if someone loses 100 in a row, that's fine, too. It incentivizes them to get good. The current system rewards players for being bad or lazy by allowing them to drop to lower brackets where they can crush smaller opponents (and yes, it is a reward because you get better rewards for winning at a lower level than losing at a higher level). Meanwhile, the smaller player is getting punished for just making a solid effort by facing impossible matchups half the time.
This is a great point I will try to mention in another video! In fact I had this dilemma and convo with my chat just a couple days ago. I almost wanted to intentionally lose so I wouldn’t get absolutely clapped by a roster I have no business going against. I don’t want a massive advantage either (like todays video) I just want something that’s relatively fair and in the realm of reality for both players.
100% agreed. As some one how has played for a year and has no gls yet and has climbed up to arodium, in the last 3 months 80% of my match have been so missed match and come down to does my opponent try/play. I feel like match making is based on how long have you played the game and with no catch up mechanics I feel hopeless screwed over by it.
In the grand scheme of things, it’s like an actual war - the fight is almost always decided before the first shot is fired.
The contest is not in skill of engagement alone, but on skill of building enough of the right thing at the right time.
Is that fair? No, not really, but those of us that don’t spend a lot of money don’t really expect it to be fair.
Know yourself and know your enemy and you will not fear the outcome of a million battles. You won’t necessarily win them, but you won’t be surprised.
(FWIW, my account is a mess and I got promoted to Chromium and I’m taking it hard on the chin, exactly as expected.)
Even after moving down a rank, I'm still facing people with 4-5 GL's to my 1.5. Pretty tempting to just get my 10 banners and leave.
I’m 4.8 with one GL in A2 and routinely face 7+ accounts with 3 GLs. Oddly enough, last week in GAC I matched with people who were within 500k GP and this week it’s back to the 2million difference. The matchmaking is all over the place. Best advice I can give is work on those ships boys
Respect to underaverage that was a very close battle all things considered. I just want to say it feels bad when you see 2-4 Mill accs getting matched up against 6-7mill accs and have no way to win whatsoever just feels bad but in cg's eyes its working as intended
100% agree.
I’m in carbonite and I have a 1mil GP and I was up against someone with 5 GLs and I have not won a single GAC yet :(
I’m about 7 million gp, only have one gl (I chose to finish GAS and Jedi Luke first) so have JML and am about to unlock SLKR very soon. I have been Kyber 3/4 since the beginning. I regularly face guys with 1 mil more gp and 3-5 GLs. I do ok in 5x5 but plummet down to arodium everytime we do 3x3. Facing 2 or 3 GLs on defense just blocks me. Now we are in 5x5 and my opponents are overmatched so I’m climbing again. Even though they have more GLs. It’s really dumb. 3x3 wrecks matchmaking equilibrium.
I was just telling a friend in the guild about it. we show what we are up against and give recommendations for counters. he literally said gac isn't fun for him anymore. I literally told him I enjoy maybe 1-4 battles. not from losing but I'll either get matched with someone I can clear easily or beat one battle. I have one gl but no matter what every time one starts I go against someone that has downplayed for a reason. they have 4-all gls and I can't never get first anymore. not the lack of trying but because of the reason your saying. I'm at 6mil gp I stopped playing for 3 years came back didn't have ships ect so I got the hyperdrive but it was actually better before I got my first gl. yeah I had a couple battles with a gl here and there but soon as I unlocked slkr it's like they lie about skill rating. I go from one or 3 even every now and then to 3 almost every battle.
LV is countered pretty reliably with a few teams, even with the L6 cooldown datacron. Shaak-troopers could have beat the comp he was running. As could SLKR-Wat-Daka-Zombie-Armorer.
Could, sure, with extremely specific modding and datacrons that still would be limited by 20-30% dodge, deflection and crit avoidance, IF I was faster and even then still would rely on a lot of RNG. I personally with my roster would lose that battle every time. It’s unreliable at best and frustrating no matter what.
@@TheRealGridan deflection and crit avoidance are irrelevant to SLKR and Trooper teams. The L3 accuracy/evasion down datacrons are hardly rare, in the event you are facing a high dodge LV. The SLKR counter does not require specific modding. Reliable counters do exist.
Deflection and crit avoidance are relevant to Fennec BH, Troopers and *especially* SLKR who’s ult is fueled by crits. I’m not saying counters don’t exist, I’m saying no matter what it’s frustrating this exists in the game to this caliber. Regardless of counters. Also, those counters are primarily accessible to larger accounts that have had the time to build out their rosters to that point. The majority of players simply have to watch themselves lose because of one GL and one datacron and I don’t think that should exist, regardless of sketchy counters.
@@TheRealGridan you explicitly said reliable counters don't exist. They do. I never mentioned Fennec BH, but if you want to acknowledge a 3rd reliable counter, that's fine with me. SLKR's ult may charge even more slowly with crit avoidance, but it's not really that relevant at the end of the match, where it matters. It's also not a stat that people prioritize on LV.
Also, dark trooper doesn't crit and he only deals physical damage, so both deflection and crit avoidance are 100% irrelevant to troopers.
@@kyber1fun164 dodge chance is also still relevant in that factor against troopers. and no, none of those counters are reliable, they can sometimes, barely work if youre lucky with RNG. all measurable statistics have the best ones at about 70% on swgoh.gg and even that I don't really believe. ask any player how many times theyre winning against LV datacron and youll see loads more of "cant win" rather than "reliable counter". They are not reliable. They sometimes barely work.
I've got an 8.5m 5 GL account. The one GL I don't have is LV (jabba isn't achievable right now) most players at the moment just putting down LV-cron and assume you can't beat it. I've had to invest in rey dash counter. It has about a 90% win rate. Its just gross that one datacron has become so defining on the main way to get crystals in the game.
When you go for a GL that's a significant time and resource investment, even if I went and got LV now the cron would be gone by the time I'm done. Its just game breaking and unfair. No matter how much better I am than my opponent, if they happen to have the right GL and the next broken cron, there's nothing you can do.
They need to bring back gp brackets, the lower your gp is the worse your matchmaking is
All valid points except they completely ignore the simplicity and perfection of a pure W/L system for matchmaking in a game this big. You are matched for a reason - pure W/L, so you are either punching above your weight or your opponent is punching below theirs. Rarely, if ever, is it a "perfect matchup". If you wanted to add all those parameters in you'd be facing the same 10-20 players every few weeks and that would be boring. I still run into the same players quite often in the bounce around the top 200-500 area, and there rarely if ever any kind of parity on DCs or roster investemnt.
Here’s my two cents. First of all there really should not be teams that cannot be countered in the game. LV with a datacron being a “stop sign” is a game ruining thing. Shouldn’t be allowed.
Secondly I would say there should be a capped range that a certain GP/GL sized roster can fall to in terms of who they are facing. You shouldn’t be allowed to free fall until you simply can’t lose.
BUT.. I think the penalty for not winning or not trying should affect rewards and effectively be capable of a free fall.
In other words, if a player with high GP/GL strength is either not trying or is just that bad at the game they should be capable of dropping to carbonite or bronzium rewards or whatever. HOWEVER the calibre of opponents should be capped at an appropriate level. Maybe that’s aurodium1 for what should by a Kyber roster. (In other words carbonite rewards but facing aurodium level teams) If this person starts trying again, or suddenly figures out how to play, they can steadily improve their rewards and eventually climb back to Kyber. But they should never be facing carbonite quality rosters and getting free wins for being lazy or bad.
I am punching way above my roster now and I ONLY face way overpowered teams. Winning or losing is currently USUALLY determined by whether my opponent is paying attention or not.
Almost every GAC I am facing someone with at least 2 GLs more than me. It’s gross. I just got my 3rd GL (SLKR) thanks to a great Gridan guide 💪. But the odd time I face someone “weaker” than me I’m drooling to kick his ass b/c it’s no fun to lose all the time ya know. Matchmaking should be better, I mean how hard is it to query # of GLs and Galactic Power? And it’s still sad that datacrons even exist. It’s not enough to have Superman (GLs), they need to have Superman on crack. Datacrons would be cool if they existed only for teams that weren’t relic’d. Imagine a gear 12 that could compete with a relic’d team?
I am 4M GP 0 GLs facing 8M GP with 4 GLs.... Also majority of the player base refuses to participate in 3v3 so they sandbag their rating until 3v3 is over then climb up with 1st place rewards everytime and smurf / pub stomp. CG stole this ranking system from LOL, CSGO, starcraft, WOW etc but the difference is all those games allow players to choose what bracket they want to play in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, or 10v10. CG could at least give us the option to choose 5v5 or 3v3 at signups.
I would be willing to bet under average won his last match. It's not SBMM, it's crystal control that keeps CG up at night. Low skilled players need to be encouraged to spend money. High skilled players need to be encouraged to spend money. Gotta keep those crystals even so everyone is equally incentivized.
He didn’t actually. He lost the last 2 in a row and won the first round of his bracket.
@@TheRealGridan well that's what happens to me. I won the last round too easily IMO. Now I got a guy with twice the relics and millions of GP more. I would prefer close matches every time.
The current system might be fair in the long run - but it is NOT the most fun one.
How fun is winning, if you know all you get for it is getting matched against even more unbeatable opponents next week?
You get drawn into the cycle of having to spend more and more time into scouting, planning, testing, etc just to have at least A chance of winning... Just to either get punished by the fun game freezes lately, or by facing even tougher opponents or taking the fun triple loss week and start again next week...
On the other hand, it's easy to complain about Matchmaking, but hard to come up with a concept that works better... After all, An sort of roster based Matchmaking ends up with micro decision making like previously a la "is the gp of this zeta worth the Matchmaking impact"...
Omg you hit it 100% lv with that stupid data cron in front =loss pretty much giving up. I still do the best I can to keep my banners up
They already fixed GAC matchmaking. Basing it on GP was stupid. This Elo system is better. Keep winning until you find the upper limit of your roster/skill.
I am in Chrimium 1 - one match guy has 9 mil gp w 6 gl’s. W a level 8 and 6 datacron. Another person has 5 gl’s. Both have LV. Why are these people not in Kyber? Plus I have one cheater. I feel sorry for the people that are 2 and 3 mil.
Matchmaking is no longer about equality. It’s the same model as our current oligarchy and monetary systems. Those in the top echelon will continue to pay to enjoy the game they play, and the rest will play another way. There is zero “investment” outside of emotional, and supply and demand will dictate to the masses. Stop spending and the cost of goods goes down. Tulip crash always happens..it’s human nature.
Underaverage 🤘 H8
UnderAverage is a boss. I've heard his guild is as amazing as current GAC matchmaking is disappointing.
i just got 85 on my new account, 2nd ever GAC i have 750k GP my oppnent had 7 million!!! he obviously didnt attack and i won :) but silly
So your point is player skill is almost irrelevant and then your prime example is a player punching up super hard because of his player skill?
And the tarkin counter against LV is 100% reliable. But only of you understand the mechanics and abilities a.k.a player sklill.
Off meta counters can balance the scales ⚖️ in gac when you go against someone with a bigger roster and datacron ppl may not like them but allow ppl to punch up too but imo you win you should face ppl that are better till eventually you hit your limit and in regards to your battle with your opponent it’s a lose for him but he’s getting better thru ever lose because eventually when he gets more tools the hard he is going to be to beat because he’s going to know more off meta counters and when the scales ⚖️ get closer he’ll be better off
More often than not, DCs make things more lopsided, not less. In general, the people with the bigger rosters are going to have more relic 3, 5, and 7 characters, so they will be able to equip more datacrons. I often face rosters where they can put DCs on EVERY squad, both offense and defense, while I can only put them on a handful of squads.
@@bomafett agree they can put them on more but honestly you only need like two or three team form each set that really make a difference
@@tilomad9220 But again, the person with the larger roster is more likely to have the right characters at high relics to take advantage of those stupid OP Datacrons than the person with the smaller roster. They are also likely to have done better in Conquest to get more DCs in the first place, giving them more chances to roll the stupid OP abilities, and are more likely to be in a higher powered guild where they will get more re-roll materials again giving them more opportunities to get the stupid OP abilities. And all of that goes double for spenders over free-to-play. All-in-all, DCs are far more likely to further unbalance things than to balance them.
@@bomafett yeah totally get that but that applies to anything most ppl won’t have the advantage either on sports or other things but if you want to compete you have to adapt or fall behind. Us as smaller accounts need to make that decision if we want to relic up a character to take advantage of the datacron.
Jesus Christ loves you
Disagree. Simple is better and less controversial overall. When you put in factors other than win/loss, it becomes subjective.
it will always be subjective. it currently is. it will just be more fair
@@TheRealGridan if they include other factors, like number of GLs for example, someone has to think and make a decision about how to group based on that number and what’s fair and what’s not. Every single a person may disagree on what those terms are or should be. Or which/how many datacron are comparable to how many GLs. Everyone can have a different answer, and answers would be based on individual rosters. However, currently, if you win, you move up. There’s no confusion or debate. Some people are more efficient and are better with less because of counters or datacrons. It’s an honor to match up with someone with 1M more Gp and great of you can win. Anyone who has been playing for at least a few years can get any 1 character or datacron so the impassable datacron or GL argument is invalid. It makes it satisfying for someone who might have skipped several GLs but worked on LV or focused on datacrons and is able to strategize accordingly. Many players, myself included will at some point be upset about a matchup but it is still fair.
I think gac matchmaking is the most fair system possible. If you win - you face harder opponents - if you lose, weaker opponents. How can it be more fair than that?
I imagine you can have the same system while still making brackets for different gp levels. basically a combination of the old system and the new one
i mean, thats the question i answer in the video haha. Its not "harder" or "weaker" opponents, because winning or losing often comes down to one or two factors that are not determined by the player; Datacrons and a GL and you win or lose. Example, my opponent in this video is a better player than me, but, i won because of unfair matchmaking that doesn't account for incredibly powerful things in the game, such as datacrons, GLs and roster size.
@@TheRealGridan I think you are taking exceptions and applying it to the rule. It is logically sound to say “generally the higher rank you are, the better you and your roster are”
I’m 8m and I face 10/11m opponents and win often - I’d hate facing people who were only my gp - wouldn’t feel as challenging
@@TheRealGridan your roster is a direct product of your level of skill, not everyone knows how to farm mods properly, or farm toons in a way that’s the most productive. So to make being a good player and roster 2 independent points, it’s giving zero value to roster creation, which one could argue is the biggest skill in this game
The issue here is skill, or rather a lack thereof. I won all three battles in the last two GACs (and I probably shouldn't have because the only reason I did was an overpowered LV datacron) This time I was matched against someone who has a roster so big that I had no hope of beating them regardless of strategy, game knowledge, or skill. Here's the thing though, I know there are other players who have a roster around the size of mine that are better at the game than me. Why am I not fighting these people where I at least have a hope of winning if they mess up, instead of someone who can completely stonewall me with their front zones and then still full clear me after dropping two battles?
TL;DR
Harder should be determined by skill rather than roster size and datacrons.