What is it you would like for your research? Ally codes of top 50?
I checked the Swgoh.gg list of top lifetime fleet arena wins and several of my fleet shard are in the top 200
That would be great. That's really all I can look at easily without a lot of work on your end. Feel free to PM me or send via Discord at niko#0906. Thanks!
I reviewed some pre-migration posts about our shard and several of them mentioned that the players were in top guilds and listed their GPs. While I previously posted about it and several argued that it was not relevant to the situation, I still disagree. The current average GP for the main group of about 32 people is over 7.6M GP. I didn't count them all but it looks as if there are at least another 30 people outside that group with over 7M GP...
If you want to support your case it is, but yes, I know it's practically impossible to provide that data.
I'm not sure why you bothered to ask then... Here is something more comparable for you:
You averaged approx 3 wins per day over the last 9 days and on average take 30th at PO. It also looks like you won't get bumped too far outside top 50 based on that level of activity.
Compared to my shard, there are at least another 100 people who do the same amount of battles or more than you and that's not counting the main group of 32 people... There are simply way more active people in my shard. For people in my shard that do a similar amount of battles as you, they hover around rank 80 at PO.
I completely agree with you that you are in a "normal" veteran shard. However, it still does not compare to my outlier shard.
I assume your whole point with presenting your data and comparisons is to support your request for further adjustments (splits or whatever) of your fleet shard. Presenting completely irrelevant data like whatever you collected on me is a waste of time. It doesn't support your case in any way. Do you expect to be taken seriously this way?
I’m in an og ship shard iirc and I too would like an easier one. Tyty
You only average about 1 win per day and hover around 80... The people in my shard with about one battle per day float outside of rank 150 at least. I'll gladly trade lol!
If you want to support your case it is, but yes, I know it's practically impossible to provide that data.
I'm not sure why you bothered to ask then... Here is something more comparable for you:
You averaged approx 3 wins per day over the last 9 days and on average take 30th at PO. It also looks like you won't get bumped too far outside top 50 based on that level of activity.
Compared to my shard, there are at least another 100 people who do the same amount of battles or more than you and that's not counting the main group of 32 people... There are simply way more active people in my shard. For people in my shard that do a similar amount of battles as you, they hover around rank 80 at PO.
I completely agree with you that you are in a "normal" veteran shard. However, it still does not compare to my outlier shard.
But that doesnt matter, at least not without knowing when the shards were created. Roll out shards and non roll out shards are going to be different, there is no way around that.
Your shard doesnt need to compare to every roll out shard, and you can in no way declare your shard an outlier, without relevant information.
I reviewed some pre-migration posts about our shard and several of them mentioned that the players were in top guilds and listed their GPs. While I previously posted about it and several argued that it was not relevant to the situation, I still disagree. The current average GP for the main group of about 32 people is over 7.6M GP. I didn't count them all but it looks as if there are at least another 30 people outside that group with over 7M GP...
It is irrelevant, as the original split was due to population and no other factors, so who is in your shard is irrelevant to this discussion, which invlueldes thier GP, guild and anything else.
@Waqui How is the data irrelevant? The goal is to not only show CG there is a problem but also you and others that think they are in a comparable veteran shard that mine is still an outlier. Mine is obviously not comparable to yours when looking at that data. I'm sorry that you refuse to grasp that. Would you prefer a different way to compare? If not, I'd simply save your breath and move on to another thread.
And how would you recommend re-organizing the shard? Have the 100+ super active people all in the main group? It makes it too busy and then you get into a similar problem as @Kyno who said they have 65 people... No, the real issue is the active population in our group is still far larger than normal shards.
And I haven't missed any of Kyno's comments. That shard of Kyno's is the closest I have seen to a difficult veteran shard and hope that I hear more. And the reason I don't give up is 1) because I'm a persistent competitive player like the 60+ fleet members in my shard that STILL do 5+ battles per day fighting for the top 50 rank and 2) because it took CG over 2 years with player feedback to fix the issue the first time...
It is irrelevant, as the original split was due to population and no other factors, so who is in your shard is irrelevant to this discussion, which invlueldes thier GP, guild and anything else.
And that's part of the problem. Our active population, not the total population, is not comparable to others. What else would you like to look at? Has anyone quit the game in your shard? How fast do they drop and how far?
It is irrelevant, as the original split was due to population and no other factors, so who is in your shard is irrelevant to this discussion, which invlueldes thier GP, guild and anything else.
And that's part of the problem. Our active population, not the total population, is not comparable to others. What else would you like to look at? Has anyone quit the game in your shard? How fast do they drop and how far?
But how do you know that, it is very difficult to get any relevant data of that kind past the top 50. Yes you have done a lot to make note of that for your shard, but that doesnt help paint the picture of other shards.
I understand you may feel that way, but you have no proof beyond what you know of your shard.
I have spoken to people who have and stepped back myself for a bit. I could easily reach out and discuss the same details for the top 100 or more for my shard, I know there are over 150 active players at a bare minimum from someone who shares my hour dropping to almost 200 at one point.
Who quit is irrelevant.
How far someone falls can be misleading. I can drop by 5 attacks and not leave the top 30, but someone at 30 falling from 5 attacks would fall much further "in comparison" because the jumps get bigger. Points like this can actually be relevant, but more likely to show that your "2nd group" is not falling as far as you think, unless you are very careful about how you portray this data.
I understand that it can be difficult for us to compare shards but I like where this is going @Kyno . You do have the most difficult fleet shard I have seen so far and that's why I would at least like to see your top 50. And same for @DarjeloSalas if interested in sharing still.
But how do you know that, it is very difficult to get any relevant data of that kind past the top 50. Yes you have done a lot to make note of that for your shard, but that doesnt help paint the picture of other shards.
Reviewing a single person's fleet battles per day and ranking over an amount of time should be sufficient to see how they would do in my shard as I have a database of over 200 players in my shard. Yes, I climbed around and collected that... If you can stay near top 50 with 3 or so battles per day, you are obviously not the same as ours.
Helps determine active population. If someone who quit a month ago and sits in top 200 still, that would reflect the active amount of players in a shard.
I understand that it can be difficult for us to compare shards but I like where this is going Kyno . You do have the most difficult fleet shard I have seen so far and that's why I would at least like to see your top 50. And same for DarjeloSalas if interested in sharing still.
That alone shows you are not an outlier, which does kind of mean there is no reason for them to take any action.
Reviewing a single person's fleet battles per day and ranking over an amount of time should be sufficient to see how they would do in my shard as I have a database of over 200 players in my shard. Yes, I climbed around and collected that... If you can stay near top 50 with 3 or so battles per day, you are obviously not the same as ours.
Not without know a lot more details about when the shard is created.
And judging by a single person is not really that helpful to the grande view of a shard, but I guess it will give a limited view.
Not all shards are the same, and I would imagine that any shard created after the first few days of shops opening, and went the more normal way of creation is going to be different, and that's ok.
Being an outlier in this situation is going to be linked to a sub set of the whole.
Helps determine active population. If someone who quit a month ago and sits in top 200 still, that would reflect the active amount of players in a shard.
To some extent, that would be a valid point, but again because jumps get larger as you move out, someone can just be in a spot that isnt seen as much and it doesnt paint the whole picture.
I agree with you on a lot of those points @Kyno. I only want to compare to day 1 fleet shards. If day 1 shards had a similar creation process, I would expect the top 50 in those shards to look fairly similar when reviewing GP and other stats. This would assume a similar level of players growing at a similar rate over this time. Obviously, there would be some differences as each shard is not a perfect sample of the overall population in this game and number of battles would vary based on how the shard was organized. If we did find my shard top 50 is still not similar enough compared to other day 1 shards, that is more reason for me to believe there is an issue with the larger population in my shard but won't be able to found out without more assistance. Thanks and have a good weekend!
I agree with you on a lot of those points Kyno. I only want to compare to day 1 fleet shards. If day 1 shards had a similar creation process, I would expect the top 50 in those shards to look fairly similar when reviewing GP and other stats. This would assume a similar level of players growing at a similar rate over this time. Obviously, there would be some differences as each shard is not a perfect sample of the overall population in this game and number of battles would vary based on how the shard was organized. If we did find my shard top 50 is still not similar enough compared to other day 1 shards, that is more reason for me to believe there is an issue with the larger population in my shard but won't be able to found out without more assistance. Thanks and have a good weekend!
Actually day 1 shards could be wildly different as far as GP and other stats go, that is why that is irrelevant. They are going to be a random assortment of players who were active at that time and over the level needed to open ships. They should be all over the place from that perspective, they will not have the baked in process grouping them by opening that later shards or arena shards have.
@Waqui How is the data irrelevant? The goal is to not only show CG there is a problem but also you and others that think they are in a comparable veteran shard that mine is still an outlier. Mine is obviously not comparable to yours when looking at that data. I'm sorry that you refuse to grasp that.
Your shard is not an outlier since it compares to some (not all - but some) other shards. Somehow you refuse to accept this.
If not, I'd simply save your breath and move on to another thread.
And how would you recommend re-organizing the shard? Have the 100+ super active people all in the main group? It makes it too busy and then you get into a similar problem as @Kyno who said they have 65 people...
How you organise is up to you. However, I'm sure that having two competing shard chats generates additional battles/activity.
Your shard is not an outlier since it compares to some (not all - but some) other shards.
Your simple statements with no support do little to help anyone here. And I'm not going to provide the impossible stats that you think would help. Your shard is not comparable and you have nothing else to provide here that is helpful.
No, the real issue is the active population in our group is still far larger than normal shards.
And I haven't missed any of Kyno's comments.
Yet, you keep claiming that your shard's composition makes it an outlier.
As I stated before, the abnormally large active population resulted in 3 shard chats being created over time (and two the outside ones combined so there's still 2 now). The population has always been the problem and the organization of the shard is a by-product of the mess we were put in.
Go ahead and have your last word...This will be my last response to your comments unless something of substance is provided.
I agree with you on a lot of those points Kyno. I only want to compare to day 1 fleet shards. If day 1 shards had a similar creation process, I would expect the top 50 in those shards to look fairly similar when reviewing GP and other stats. This would assume a similar level of players growing at a similar rate over this time. Obviously, there would be some differences as each shard is not a perfect sample of the overall population in this game and number of battles would vary based on how the shard was organized. If we did find my shard top 50 is still not similar enough compared to other day 1 shards, that is more reason for me to believe there is an issue with the larger population in my shard but won't be able to found out without more assistance. Thanks and have a good weekend!
Actually day 1 shards could be wildly different as far as GP and other stats go, that is why that is irrelevant. They are going to be a random assortment of players who were active at that time and over the level needed to open ships. They should be all over the place from that perspective, they will not have the baked in process grouping them by opening that later shards or arena shards have.
Could you explain how the shards would be significantly different? If we or at least most of us in a shard were active at the time of creation and continue to be, wouldn't they be relatively close in general. While there might be some more p2p or f2p players in different shards, or some in better/worse guilds, if the shards were created at the same time and the group continues to grow and play, they should be relatively similar. And if our shard was at a recognized disadvantage for almost 2 years prior to the split with a significant amount of zeta mats and crystals lost (and never compensated as part of the fix), should we be expected to be slightly weaker than other day 1 shards? I'm not sure what the loss was but I think it was around at least 25k+ crystals and 60+ full zetas for just a top 50 finish.
Your shard is not an outlier since it compares to some (not all - but some) other shards.
Your simple statements with no support do little to help anyone here. And I'm not going to provide the impossible stats that you think would help. Your shard is not comparable and you have nothing else to provide here that is helpful.
Stop staring blindly on my shard. Your shard is not an outlier since it compares to some (not all - some) other shards no matter whether it compares to mine or not.
Complainers on these forums often don't provide the relevant data. Why would you be any different?
No, the real issue is the active population in our group is still far larger than normal shards.
And I haven't missed any of Kyno's comments.
Yet, you keep claiming that your shard's composition makes it an outlier.
As I stated before, the abnormally large active population resulted in 3 shard chats being created over time (and two the outside ones combined so there's still 2 now). The population has always been the problem and the organization of the shard is a by-product of the mess we were put in.
Go ahead and have your last word...This will be my last response to your comments unless something of substance is provided.
If your 2 shard chats insist on competing and fighting each other outside your payout/climb it generates extra activity. You can't blame your choices on design. Have you considered having all members of both shard chats agree to:
A. Not battling anyone unless it's your time to climb (f.ex. less than 2 hrs to your payout) - not even to help a friend from your shard chat.
B. Not messing with the climb of anyone unless you're both inside top-10.
C. Not messing with the payout of anyone unless you're both inside top-10 and there's less than 30 minutes to your own payout.
Try limiting your rivalry and extra battles to top-10 (or whatever ranks make sense for your shard). Don't waste time battling outside your time to climb.
I agree with you on a lot of those points Kyno. I only want to compare to day 1 fleet shards. If day 1 shards had a similar creation process, I would expect the top 50 in those shards to look fairly similar when reviewing GP and other stats. This would assume a similar level of players growing at a similar rate over this time. Obviously, there would be some differences as each shard is not a perfect sample of the overall population in this game and number of battles would vary based on how the shard was organized. If we did find my shard top 50 is still not similar enough compared to other day 1 shards, that is more reason for me to believe there is an issue with the larger population in my shard but won't be able to found out without more assistance. Thanks and have a good weekend!
Actually day 1 shards could be wildly different as far as GP and other stats go, that is why that is irrelevant. They are going to be a random assortment of players who were active at that time and over the level needed to open ships. They should be all over the place from that perspective, they will not have the baked in process grouping them by opening that later shards or arena shards have.
Could you explain how the shards would be significantly different? If we or at least most of us in a shard were active at the time of creation and continue to be, wouldn't they be relatively close in general. While there might be some more p2p or f2p players in different shards, or some in better/worse guilds, if the shards were created at the same time and the group continues to grow and play, they should be relatively similar. And if our shard was at a recognized disadvantage for almost 2 years prior to the split with a significant amount of zeta mats and crystals lost (and never compensated as part of the fix), should we be expected to be slightly weaker than other day 1 shards? I'm not sure what the loss was but I think it was around at least 25k+ crystals and 60+ full zetas for just a top 50 finish.
When ships were created there were many players above the level needed to open ships, but in many different ranges of length of play. Meaning when they all got sorted into shards they would be much more random, than a shard that opens and is only filled with "new players" opening up ships "naturally ".
That would mean that the base starting range would be larger.
I would love to see your math on 25k, considering the poor distribution of crystals in ships, please keep in mind not everyone gets 1 in a shard, no matter how your shard is set up.
I highly doubt there was nearly as much effect as you say, but that's not the point of this thread and nothing will come of that now.
I’m in an og ship shard iirc and I too would like an easier one. Tyty
You only average about 1 win per day and hover around 80... The people in my shard with about one battle per day float outside of rank 150 at least. I'll gladly trade lol!
Ha. Fair enough. But I just meant the sentiment. The odds of anyone getting a new shard are...not good.
I would love to see your math on 25k, considering the poor distribution of crystals in ships, please keep in mind not everyone gets 1 in a shard, no matter how your shard is set up.
I tried to find someone's post about the math but couldn't, so I re-created it. Ships opened 11/22/16 and our shard migration occurred on 5/17/18. That's 540 days. Simply the amount of days to address the issue is what causes the losses to be significant. Due to the pre-migration population, it was impossible to get rank 50 at PO without multiple refreshes as you typically would end up in 200-400 range each day even with the current meta so to try to go for PO at rank #50 for 50 crystals would just be a waste. I used to do 5 battles a day to try and at least hit the 200 mark and get the extra 200 fleet arena tokens (1,200 for #100-200 vs 1,000 for #200-500). Therefore this total loss calculation would only be for getting rank 50 daily and assumes you would be at rank 100-200 pre-migration:
Crystals: 540 days * 50 crystals for rank 50 = 27,000 total
Zetas: 540 days * 100 fleet arena tokens (diff b/w 1,200 at #101-200 and 1,300 at #50) = 54,000 fleet arena tokens or 27 zeta mats.
I was off on the zeta mats in my earlier post but it really depends on what ranks you decide are reachable/comparable. The crystal loss is really shocking as that's simply for reaching rank 50, which seems so easy to reach.
And to continue my argument, it is still extremely difficult to reach rank 50 at PO without doing all 5 battles a day as you often can fall outside 100 overnight due to the activity of the group. This does not include interacting with the top 30 main group and has nothing to do with how the shard is organized. There are too many people trying to climb and reach top 50.
Replies
What is it you would like for your research? Ally codes of top 50?
I checked the Swgoh.gg list of top lifetime fleet arena wins and several of my fleet shard are in the top 200
That would be great. That's really all I can look at easily without a lot of work on your end. Feel free to PM me or send via Discord at niko#0906. Thanks!
You averaged approx 3 wins per day over the last 9 days and on average take 30th at PO. It also looks like you won't get bumped too far outside top 50 based on that level of activity.
Compared to my shard, there are at least another 100 people who do the same amount of battles or more than you and that's not counting the main group of 32 people... There are simply way more active people in my shard. For people in my shard that do a similar amount of battles as you, they hover around rank 80 at PO.
I completely agree with you that you are in a "normal" veteran shard. However, it still does not compare to my outlier shard.
Obviously because...
I assume your whole point with presenting your data and comparisons is to support your request for further adjustments (splits or whatever) of your fleet shard. Presenting completely irrelevant data like whatever you collected on me is a waste of time. It doesn't support your case in any way. Do you expect to be taken seriously this way?
It looks like you missed this bit:
Wipe the tears from your eyes, have a biscuit and move on. Reorganize your shard chat(s) if needed.
But that doesnt matter, at least not without knowing when the shards were created. Roll out shards and non roll out shards are going to be different, there is no way around that.
Your shard doesnt need to compare to every roll out shard, and you can in no way declare your shard an outlier, without relevant information.
It is irrelevant, as the original split was due to population and no other factors, so who is in your shard is irrelevant to this discussion, which invlueldes thier GP, guild and anything else.
And how would you recommend re-organizing the shard? Have the 100+ super active people all in the main group? It makes it too busy and then you get into a similar problem as @Kyno who said they have 65 people... No, the real issue is the active population in our group is still far larger than normal shards.
And I haven't missed any of Kyno's comments. That shard of Kyno's is the closest I have seen to a difficult veteran shard and hope that I hear more. And the reason I don't give up is 1) because I'm a persistent competitive player like the 60+ fleet members in my shard that STILL do 5+ battles per day fighting for the top 50 rank and 2) because it took CG over 2 years with player feedback to fix the issue the first time...
And that's part of the problem. Our active population, not the total population, is not comparable to others. What else would you like to look at? Has anyone quit the game in your shard? How fast do they drop and how far?
But how do you know that, it is very difficult to get any relevant data of that kind past the top 50. Yes you have done a lot to make note of that for your shard, but that doesnt help paint the picture of other shards.
I understand you may feel that way, but you have no proof beyond what you know of your shard.
I have spoken to people who have and stepped back myself for a bit. I could easily reach out and discuss the same details for the top 100 or more for my shard, I know there are over 150 active players at a bare minimum from someone who shares my hour dropping to almost 200 at one point.
Who quit is irrelevant.
How far someone falls can be misleading. I can drop by 5 attacks and not leave the top 30, but someone at 30 falling from 5 attacks would fall much further "in comparison" because the jumps get bigger. Points like this can actually be relevant, but more likely to show that your "2nd group" is not falling as far as you think, unless you are very careful about how you portray this data.
That alone shows you are not an outlier, which does kind of mean there is no reason for them to take any action.
Not without know a lot more details about when the shard is created.
And judging by a single person is not really that helpful to the grande view of a shard, but I guess it will give a limited view.
Not all shards are the same, and I would imagine that any shard created after the first few days of shops opening, and went the more normal way of creation is going to be different, and that's ok.
Being an outlier in this situation is going to be linked to a sub set of the whole.
To some extent, that would be a valid point, but again because jumps get larger as you move out, someone can just be in a spot that isnt seen as much and it doesnt paint the whole picture.
Actually day 1 shards could be wildly different as far as GP and other stats go, that is why that is irrelevant. They are going to be a random assortment of players who were active at that time and over the level needed to open ships. They should be all over the place from that perspective, they will not have the baked in process grouping them by opening that later shards or arena shards have.
Your shard is not an outlier since it compares to some (not all - but some) other shards. Somehow you refuse to accept this.
Check my previous posts. You appear to have missed some.
How you organise is up to you. However, I'm sure that having two competing shard chats generates additional battles/activity.
Yet, you keep claiming that your shard's composition makes it an outlier.
Go ahead and have your last word...This will be my last response to your comments unless something of substance is provided.
Could you explain how the shards would be significantly different? If we or at least most of us in a shard were active at the time of creation and continue to be, wouldn't they be relatively close in general. While there might be some more p2p or f2p players in different shards, or some in better/worse guilds, if the shards were created at the same time and the group continues to grow and play, they should be relatively similar. And if our shard was at a recognized disadvantage for almost 2 years prior to the split with a significant amount of zeta mats and crystals lost (and never compensated as part of the fix), should we be expected to be slightly weaker than other day 1 shards? I'm not sure what the loss was but I think it was around at least 25k+ crystals and 60+ full zetas for just a top 50 finish.
Stop staring blindly on my shard. Your shard is not an outlier since it compares to some (not all - some) other shards no matter whether it compares to mine or not.
Complainers on these forums often don't provide the relevant data. Why would you be any different?
If your 2 shard chats insist on competing and fighting each other outside your payout/climb it generates extra activity. You can't blame your choices on design. Have you considered having all members of both shard chats agree to:
A. Not battling anyone unless it's your time to climb (f.ex. less than 2 hrs to your payout) - not even to help a friend from your shard chat.
B. Not messing with the climb of anyone unless you're both inside top-10.
C. Not messing with the payout of anyone unless you're both inside top-10 and there's less than 30 minutes to your own payout.
Try limiting your rivalry and extra battles to top-10 (or whatever ranks make sense for your shard). Don't waste time battling outside your time to climb.
When ships were created there were many players above the level needed to open ships, but in many different ranges of length of play. Meaning when they all got sorted into shards they would be much more random, than a shard that opens and is only filled with "new players" opening up ships "naturally ".
That would mean that the base starting range would be larger.
I would love to see your math on 25k, considering the poor distribution of crystals in ships, please keep in mind not everyone gets 1 in a shard, no matter how your shard is set up.
I highly doubt there was nearly as much effect as you say, but that's not the point of this thread and nothing will come of that now.
Ha. Fair enough. But I just meant the sentiment. The odds of anyone getting a new shard are...not good.
I tried to find someone's post about the math but couldn't, so I re-created it. Ships opened 11/22/16 and our shard migration occurred on 5/17/18. That's 540 days. Simply the amount of days to address the issue is what causes the losses to be significant. Due to the pre-migration population, it was impossible to get rank 50 at PO without multiple refreshes as you typically would end up in 200-400 range each day even with the current meta so to try to go for PO at rank #50 for 50 crystals would just be a waste. I used to do 5 battles a day to try and at least hit the 200 mark and get the extra 200 fleet arena tokens (1,200 for #100-200 vs 1,000 for #200-500). Therefore this total loss calculation would only be for getting rank 50 daily and assumes you would be at rank 100-200 pre-migration:
Crystals: 540 days * 50 crystals for rank 50 = 27,000 total
Zetas: 540 days * 100 fleet arena tokens (diff b/w 1,200 at #101-200 and 1,300 at #50) = 54,000 fleet arena tokens or 27 zeta mats.
I was off on the zeta mats in my earlier post but it really depends on what ranks you decide are reachable/comparable. The crystal loss is really shocking as that's simply for reaching rank 50, which seems so easy to reach.
And to continue my argument, it is still extremely difficult to reach rank 50 at PO without doing all 5 battles a day as you often can fall outside 100 overnight due to the activity of the group. This does not include interacting with the top 30 main group and has nothing to do with how the shard is organized. There are too many people trying to climb and reach top 50.