One thing I’ve noticed with match making is that sandbaggers and players who are very careful with their upgrades and relic upgrades seem to do a lot better / face easier opponents. We all know about the top 70/80 character GP for matchmaking. Some shrewd friends of mine leave many toons at r0 as the gp increase from g12-r0 is minuscule with a high effectiveness return. It’s when you start to upgrade everything to r3-r7 that you see a huge GP boost. I think if more ppl knew about this there would be a much fairer playing field.
At the end of the day you’re in control of your roster and need to be careful about what you upgrade and relic - it all matters for your matchmaking and can be the difference between facing someone with 3 GLs when you have 1. Maybe the next time you go to relic a toon that isn’t for a GL you’ll stop to think about whether you really need to take it to r3-5. I know I will. Atleast until something is done to improve matchmaking.
It seems like since the release of GLs the best thing to do is upgrade nothing until you have all the gear ready for the next GL otherwise your progress on gearing toons will count to your match making and likely put you against someone with more GLs finished. It seems unfair and boring but that’s GAC matchmaking.
With the relative rarity of relic mats (you have to farm the signal data and even the lower pieces salvage isn't infinite), it took GLs coming out to let you know you shouldn't just relic characters just because.
Saving the top gear pieces for the toons that will provide the most benefit has always been a thing. Even before relics.
Some players are careful on who they gear. Some aren't. Those that are typically do better. Matchmaking doesn't and shouldn't adjust for this.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
If we break down what @Kyno said a simple analogy would be a competition where you match people by the money they spent. Think of a community athletics event. You have 2 competitors and one bought shoes, a shirt and isotonic drinks and the other bought a pile of sweets. Who wins? More realistically speaking it would not be about sweets vs. shoes but appropriate shoes vs. inappropriate shoes. In the game this translates into toons unlocked, gear applied and zetas put on toons. In the model the game employs prices do not vary by utility by the way although this is a fundamental economical principle.
This approach leads to what we see in the game: more and more accounts look the same. People have the same toons and squads. Because if you want to be successful you have to develop your roster according to an ideal player life cycle model. Ultimately that makes the game more of a paint-by-numbers thing then a strategy game.
Amen to this.
One of my guild mates and I have near identical rosters, as we’ve both chased the first 2 GLs and now JML. Almost no difference in the make up of our top 80.
If there is an optimum strategy in a strategy game, it's not a surprise if several people use it. It's exactly the same in other non-srategic aspects of the game, like team composition for Arena and raids, or to choose your defensive teams in GAC.
It's the era of internet i guess: information is shared at the speed of write, so copying strategy/tactics of other is a new norm imo. I remember this happened in Magic the gathering quite a few years ago for instance: everyone used about the same decks because they're the most efficient, completely annihilating the strategic aspect of the game.
Edit: mtg managed to bring strategy back in the game with a new game mode: draft, which is now a standard in a lot of CCG. That could be fun here !
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
I know noone cares anymore but check who is again top 1 and top 2 kyber division 1. Same as last time
Where are they getting that GP from? First place in Kyber Div1 and I have the same GP but I have waaaay more g13 and relic levels then he does. But I guess when you are paired with other potatoes you get to be a spud.
I know noone cares anymore but check who is again top 1 and top 2 kyber division 1. Same as last time
Where are they getting that GP from? First place in Kyber Div1 and I have the same GP but I have waaaay more g13 and g12 then he does. But I guess when you are paired with other potatoes you get to be a spud.
I know noone cares anymore but check who is again top 1 and top 2 kyber division 1. Same as last time
Where are they getting that GP from? First place in Kyber Div1 and I have the same GP but I have waaaay more g13 and g12 then he does. But I guess when you are paired with other potatoes you get to be a spud.
Fleet ?
Negative. Have 200k+ on him in fleets. But to be clear, I have no issues with him being in first, just wondering how he has that GP with that roster is crazy imo.
I know noone cares anymore but check who is again top 1 and top 2 kyber division 1. Same as last time
Where are they getting that GP from? First place in Kyber Div1 and I have the same GP but I have waaaay more g13 and g12 then he does. But I guess when you are paired with other potatoes you get to be a spud.
Fleet ?
Negative. Have 200k+ on him in fleets. But to be clear, I have no issues with him being in first, just wondering how he has that GP with that roster is crazy imo.
Looks like they must have about 500k buried in the depths of their roster. Likely they have g11 on several characters that don't m as keep their top 80 where you may only have gear 8 on them. Or they may have every character at lvl 85 and at a low gear level rather than leaving unused characters at level 1 gear 1. There are probably 90 characters outside the top 80 (excluding GLs and other difficult characters) just having all those characters geared to a gp of 5,000 adds nearly 500k to your gp but doesn't affect matchmaking at all.
I know noone cares anymore but check who is again top 1 and top 2 kyber division 1. Same as last time
Where are they getting that GP from? First place in Kyber Div1 and I have the same GP but I have waaaay more g13 and g12 then he does. But I guess when you are paired with other potatoes you get to be a spud.
Fleet ?
Negative. Have 200k+ on him in fleets. But to be clear, I have no issues with him being in first, just wondering how he has that GP with that roster is crazy imo.
My guess is crazy broad roster, as he have about 20 more characters g11+ (if you total g11+g12+g13 on both sides), maybe a lot more g10-g11. It's working as intended if I remember correctly, as developers said GA would reward broad rosters (or something like that, maybe I'm paraphrasing).
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
This might be one of the rare occasions I agree with your entire statement xD. It puts an active responsibility on CG's behalf. But once put on paper it's not that heavy a job and can vastly improve our experience not having to think about fuzz and just drive upwards nonstop (=spending incentive).
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Pushed back, meaning players at the lower end of the division nearer to the low end than the proposed average shift the division brackets would move up.
Meaning that players in any division who grow GP at a lower rate than the average, would be more likely to be the ones dropped down a division as this "correction" is made periodically.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Pushed back, meaning players at the lower end of the division nearer to the low end than the proposed average shift the division brackets would move up.
Meaning that players in any division who grow GP at a lower rate than the average, would be more likely to be the ones dropped down a division as this "correction" is made periodically.
I understand that. Let's say current div 1 lowbie range became div 4. Players there are getting the same rewards and they have a shoot at further rewards once they progress one div upper. Isn't this just like how current divisions are structured for players on any division but div 1?
Or... is the idea to completely scratch current division gp structure and remake it each time update is needed? This is the one that can cause complaints since it might actively change outcomes for a player. But there's no such necessity.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Pushed back, meaning players at the lower end of the division nearer to the low end than the proposed average shift the division brackets would move up.
Meaning that players in any division who grow GP at a lower rate than the average, would be more likely to be the ones dropped down a division as this "correction" is made periodically.
I understand that. Let's say current div 1 lowbie range became div 4. Players there are getting the same rewards and they have a shoot at further rewards once they progress one div upper. Isn't this just like how current divisions are structured for players on any division but div 1?
Or... is the idea to completely scratch current division gp structure and remake it each time update is needed? This is the one that can cause complaints since it might actively change outcomes for a player. But there's no such necessity.
Well the move ahouldnt be that big, so in theory you would only ever move back 1 division.
It would be based on a new divisions bracket set up. The current ones are too large at the top end, the buckets need to be smaller. Then from there you shift the range if each bucket, by some amount and add a division at the bottome as needed.
It wouldnt need to be done that often, but it needs to be done to prevent the clumping we see now
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Pushed back, meaning players at the lower end of the division nearer to the low end than the proposed average shift the division brackets would move up.
Meaning that players in any division who grow GP at a lower rate than the average, would be more likely to be the ones dropped down a division as this "correction" is made periodically.
I understand that. Let's say current div 1 lowbie range became div 4. Players there are getting the same rewards and they have a shoot at further rewards once they progress one div upper. Isn't this just like how current divisions are structured for players on any division but div 1?
Or... is the idea to completely scratch current division gp structure and remake it each time update is needed? This is the one that can cause complaints since it might actively change outcomes for a player. But there's no such necessity.
Well the move ahouldnt be that big, so in theory you would only ever move back 1 division.
It would be based on a new divisions bracket set up. The current ones are too large at the top end, the buckets need to be smaller. Then from there you shift the range if each bucket, by some amount and add a division at the bottome as needed.
It wouldnt need to be done that often, but it needs to be done to prevent the clumping we see now
When you say smaller buckets, is it for what's beyond current div 1 or complete restructuring of the divisions from lowest gp?
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Pushed back, meaning players at the lower end of the division nearer to the low end than the proposed average shift the division brackets would move up.
Meaning that players in any division who grow GP at a lower rate than the average, would be more likely to be the ones dropped down a division as this "correction" is made periodically.
I understand that. Let's say current div 1 lowbie range became div 4. Players there are getting the same rewards and they have a shoot at further rewards once they progress one div upper. Isn't this just like how current divisions are structured for players on any division but div 1?
Or... is the idea to completely scratch current division gp structure and remake it each time update is needed? This is the one that can cause complaints since it might actively change outcomes for a player. But there's no such necessity.
Well the move ahouldnt be that big, so in theory you would only ever move back 1 division.
It would be based on a new divisions bracket set up. The current ones are too large at the top end, the buckets need to be smaller. Then from there you shift the range if each bucket, by some amount and add a division at the bottome as needed.
It wouldnt need to be done that often, but it needs to be done to prevent the clumping we see now
When you say smaller buckets, is it for what's beyond current div 1 or complete restructuring of the divisions from lowest gp?
I just think that each bucket should be evaluated and be made to allow for more general focusing of matchmaking. The course adjustment if you will.
I think both the top and bottom ends need smaller buckets, but maybe just more buckets over all helps with that, not sure.
Edit to add: they could even group these "matchmaking buckets" together for reward purposes, so some of the up and down movement that would happen, doesnt hurt the players as much
I don't see a MM issue in Division overpopulation. The more the merrier; if the data would show a sharp drop in lower divisions, that would be an issue.
The only point of Divisions is "how many teams do you have to put on D ?", it doens't affect MM thx to the high number of players in each division, which offer diversity.
However, at very high GP, you have too much good teams for only 7 teams on D (based on what I see on youtube, not my case), which seems to lead to boring matchups, because you don't have to make hard choices and probably face the same defensive kings over and over.
I hope when the numbers will show that we have enough players at the high end on D1, they'll add a "Legend Division" of sort with 1 or 2 more teams on D. That should do the trick and can be expand as time goes on, without affecting lower divisions.
PS: if this was already said in this thread, I guess I missed it.
Now for a response on topic.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Pushed back, meaning players at the lower end of the division nearer to the low end than the proposed average shift the division brackets would move up.
Meaning that players in any division who grow GP at a lower rate than the average, would be more likely to be the ones dropped down a division as this "correction" is made periodically.
I understand that. Let's say current div 1 lowbie range became div 4. Players there are getting the same rewards and they have a shoot at further rewards once they progress one div upper. Isn't this just like how current divisions are structured for players on any division but div 1?
Or... is the idea to completely scratch current division gp structure and remake it each time update is needed? This is the one that can cause complaints since it might actively change outcomes for a player. But there's no such necessity.
Well the move ahouldnt be that big, so in theory you would only ever move back 1 division.
It would be based on a new divisions bracket set up. The current ones are too large at the top end, the buckets need to be smaller. Then from there you shift the range if each bucket, by some amount and add a division at the bottome as needed.
It wouldnt need to be done that often, but it needs to be done to prevent the clumping we see now
When you say smaller buckets, is it for what's beyond current div 1 or complete restructuring of the divisions from lowest gp?
I just think that each bucket should be evaluated and be made to allow for more general focusing of matchmaking. The course adjustment if you will.
I think both the top and bottom ends need smaller buckets, but maybe just more buckets over all helps with that, not sure.
Edit to add: they could even group these "matchmaking buckets" together for reward purposes, so some of the up and down movement that would happen, doesnt hurt the players as much
I don't see the need for any division that's currently below div 1. Maybe very low gp players aren't reporting their problem as such, I haven't seen any report about how wide the divisions are below. I think this would be complicating things unnecessarily.
We just need additions to upper edge regularly once there's enough players beyond where a new division should be. i.e. if the last division was 6.8m and it got there from 6.1m (700k step), the new division should come when there's enough players beyond next step. Next step should be 700-800-900k depending on how wide CG wants to do it as things progress. CG can just not widen the steps and keep at 500k jumps going forth though. Nature of the new divisions doesn't change with it. Just the regularity of new division.
I don't see a MM issue in Division overpopulation. The more the merrier; if the data would show a sharp drop in lower divisions, that would be an issue.
The only point of Divisions is "how many teams do you have to put on D ?", it doens't affect MM thx to the high number of players in each division, which offer diversity.
However, at very high GP, you have too much good teams for only 7 teams on D (based on what I see on youtube, not my case), which seems to lead to boring matchups, because you don't have to make hard choices and probably face the same defensive kings over and over.
I hope when the numbers will show that we have enough players at the high end on D1, they'll add a "Legend Division" of sort with 1 or 2 more teams on D. That should do the trick and can be expand as time goes on, without affecting lower divisions.
PS: if this was already said in this thread, I guess I missed it.
Yeah, I mean it is and it isnt. I think it would help a bit with the things we see in dev 1 and 2 where the top rankings come from the bottom of the bracket.
So I guess that's not really matchmaking but it is the course adjustment of the whole system that would not allow that to happen as much.
I don't see a MM issue in Division overpopulation. The more the merrier; if the data would show a sharp drop in lower divisions, that would be an issue.
The only point of Divisions is "how many teams do you have to put on D ?", it doens't affect MM thx to the high number of players in each division, which offer diversity.
However, at very high GP, you have too much good teams for only 7 teams on D (based on what I see on youtube, not my case), which seems to lead to boring matchups, because you don't have to make hard choices and probably face the same defensive kings over and over.
I hope when the numbers will show that we have enough players at the high end on D1, they'll add a "Legend Division" of sort with 1 or 2 more teams on D. That should do the trick and can be expand as time goes on, without affecting lower divisions.
PS: if this was already said in this thread, I guess I missed it.
At 6.4m I can easily afford 4 more teams, even 6 more besides 8 teams. Not all of these teams will be premium by the nature of it, but it gets to reach places in our rosters where everyone developed differently and imo would make matches much more interesting.
Replies
With the relative rarity of relic mats (you have to farm the signal data and even the lower pieces salvage isn't infinite), it took GLs coming out to let you know you shouldn't just relic characters just because.
Saving the top gear pieces for the toons that will provide the most benefit has always been a thing. Even before relics.
Some players are careful on who they gear. Some aren't. Those that are typically do better. Matchmaking doesn't and shouldn't adjust for this.
The data shows what you would expect it to show. Over time gp increases. So div 1 will grow as long as more people go in to it faster than people at high gp quit the g ad me. The lower divisions will stay relatively the same as long as the rate at which people join th ef game and the speed at which gp increases remain relatively constant.
Unfortunately, the data doesn't show if div 1 can be broken up at this time. To see that we would need to see what the gp breakdown is within div 1 since those are the chunks you would remove from that div to create new ones.
I do think that you can probably divide it into at least two but they may be waiting to split it into 3 or 4 to make the graph look more like it did at the beginning of gac.
On our side we can not possibly know how the spread is within div 1.That shouldn't matter in terms of needing multiple new divisions though. It's a problem cg needs to solve to determine where to place the top most division so it doesn't have too few people in it. Otherwise there's no such thing as too few. i.e. div 11 has 11k people in it which is more than enough for the system to work fine without constantly matching the same folks.
Sure does
If there is an optimum strategy in a strategy game, it's not a surprise if several people use it. It's exactly the same in other non-srategic aspects of the game, like team composition for Arena and raids, or to choose your defensive teams in GAC.
It's the era of internet i guess: information is shared at the speed of write, so copying strategy/tactics of other is a new norm imo. I remember this happened in Magic the gathering quite a few years ago for instance: everyone used about the same decks because they're the most efficient, completely annihilating the strategic aspect of the game.
Edit: mtg managed to bring strategy back in the game with a new game mode: draft, which is now a standard in a lot of CCG. That could be fun here !
It absolutely does matter to how they split it. It's pretty obvious that they could just split it in 2 and it would be better. But it would just need fixing again in a matter of months.
How to split it where it'll be a good split for as long as possible definitely depends on the distribution of the players within the division rather than the number of players in each division.
In addition you would also need to know how the gp of the top 80 characters are distributed and how it compares to the total gp.
For example if top 80 gp maxes out for most players at 7 mil gp, there would really be no point in making a 7-8 mil gp div and a 8-9 mil gp division since they are essentially equal as far as gac goes. Obviously, that would have to be adjusted for any additional slots they want to add. For example, if they add two defensive teams, they would likely need to know top 100 gp for the new division.
The more slots you add, the more you can split the more you can separate high gp players into new divisions.
But while, this data is good, it really doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. Over time gp increases and as it does division 1 grows in number.
And yes, I'm sure that CG has the data. But from this data, we can't tell what the best solution may be.
Where are they getting that GP from? First place in Kyber Div1 and I have the same GP but I have waaaay more g13 and relic levels then he does. But I guess when you are paired with other potatoes you get to be a spud.
Fleet ?
Negative. Have 200k+ on him in fleets. But to be clear, I have no issues with him being in first, just wondering how he has that GP with that roster is crazy imo.
Looks like they must have about 500k buried in the depths of their roster. Likely they have g11 on several characters that don't m as keep their top 80 where you may only have gear 8 on them. Or they may have every character at lvl 85 and at a low gear level rather than leaving unused characters at level 1 gear 1. There are probably 90 characters outside the top 80 (excluding GLs and other difficult characters) just having all those characters geared to a gp of 5,000 adds nearly 500k to your gp but doesn't affect matchmaking at all.
My guess is crazy broad roster, as he have about 20 more characters g11+ (if you total g11+g12+g13 on both sides), maybe a lot more g10-g11. It's working as intended if I remember correctly, as developers said GA would reward broad rosters (or something like that, maybe I'm paraphrasing).
Can't agree less, it didn't matter when the current division structure was made back then, see that there's a math to it and that math is a step ladder independent of population distributions. Us knowing approx. populations right now is just proof current div 1 got way overcrowded over time and lost it's distinctive nature. Divisions doesn't need to be evenly populated.
agreed, the only real consideration for a division, is at the level that there is enough people in it to properly make matches and at some level offer enough variance in the groups made over time.
considering the mathematics of this, they dont need to be even increments and probably shouldn't be. the top end should have smaller bandwidths as the whole population starts to hit the "end point" saturation, which is the only place this ends up. redistribution of the divisions needs to be done with some regularity to prevent the current state of things.
Or just index them for inflation after the next adjustment. With inflation being the average increase in gp over time.
but the average increase over time will be less at the top, so I dont think it would be that simple. i feel like you would end up pushing the top end out too much, pushing top players into lower divisions if you tried to do that.
You would push players that don't advance fast enough into lower divisions but you effectively do that by adding divisions to the top as well. You could also index the rewards too so that if you get bumped from division 1, the new div 2 rewards are as good as div 1 were.
You would still have to occasionally add a division at the bottom to keep the bottom one from ballooning ssf ince the requirement to join is level 85 rather than a min gp.
The way that it would work would let's say the average ftp casual player adds 1.2 mil gp a year. They would just add 100k to the divisions every month and maybe periodically adjust rewards. But if you base it on ftp casual rates, then those that focused could still climb divisions.
i see what you mean, i just feel like the average move across the board, vs at the top end is so different that it would pull too many player down, and you would end up massing players into the one (or some combination) of divisions that are on pace with the average.
but without numbers it would be hard to see exactly how this would work, so sounds good. they probably have some number that they want to keep in a division for "random matchmaking purposes" so they may still need to do a change based on that at some point if you pull too many people down, but overall any solution that lengthens the time before this type of grouping happens is always a good idea.
This might be one of the rare occasions I agree with your entire statement xD. It puts an active responsibility on CG's behalf. But once put on paper it's not that heavy a job and can vastly improve our experience not having to think about fuzz and just drive upwards nonstop (=spending incentive).
There's really no perfect way to do it. In the end, however they do it you'll have slower progressing players pushed back. It's just not possible to not have that when krackens progress that much faster due to spending.
If they just split the top into 3 for example , at 5 mil gp I'd be pushed to div 3 (you'd have to just rename them. Div 0 just doesn't work). And by the time I reached the 8 million gp that would be the new division 1, it would likely need split again.
The adjusting for inflation idea was just an idea to do it a bit more gradually.
But you'd still need to add additional teams occasionally so that may complicate a gradual approach.
And of course you have to consider the complaining that would ensue (likely from some of the same people who are demanding this change) when it results in them being knocked back two or three divisions.
I don't fully see what you mean by "pushed back" in practicality. However they structure new divisions, besides a name change to your division, your rewards structure will either stay the same or improve. I'm certainly not a player that will be in the topmost division if this get made the way I imagine (gradually increasing steps as the current one). And that gives me incentive to keep pushing one division higher. You won't be hearing any complaints from me and I don't see how a player can have legitimate complaint for it.
Pushed back, meaning players at the lower end of the division nearer to the low end than the proposed average shift the division brackets would move up.
Meaning that players in any division who grow GP at a lower rate than the average, would be more likely to be the ones dropped down a division as this "correction" is made periodically.
I understand that. Let's say current div 1 lowbie range became div 4. Players there are getting the same rewards and they have a shoot at further rewards once they progress one div upper. Isn't this just like how current divisions are structured for players on any division but div 1?
Or... is the idea to completely scratch current division gp structure and remake it each time update is needed? This is the one that can cause complaints since it might actively change outcomes for a player. But there's no such necessity.
Well the move ahouldnt be that big, so in theory you would only ever move back 1 division.
It would be based on a new divisions bracket set up. The current ones are too large at the top end, the buckets need to be smaller. Then from there you shift the range if each bucket, by some amount and add a division at the bottome as needed.
It wouldnt need to be done that often, but it needs to be done to prevent the clumping we see now
When you say smaller buckets, is it for what's beyond current div 1 or complete restructuring of the divisions from lowest gp?
I just think that each bucket should be evaluated and be made to allow for more general focusing of matchmaking. The course adjustment if you will.
I think both the top and bottom ends need smaller buckets, but maybe just more buckets over all helps with that, not sure.
Edit to add: they could even group these "matchmaking buckets" together for reward purposes, so some of the up and down movement that would happen, doesnt hurt the players as much
The only point of Divisions is "how many teams do you have to put on D ?", it doens't affect MM thx to the high number of players in each division, which offer diversity.
However, at very high GP, you have too much good teams for only 7 teams on D (based on what I see on youtube, not my case), which seems to lead to boring matchups, because you don't have to make hard choices and probably face the same defensive kings over and over.
I hope when the numbers will show that we have enough players at the high end on D1, they'll add a "Legend Division" of sort with 1 or 2 more teams on D. That should do the trick and can be expand as time goes on, without affecting lower divisions.
PS: if this was already said in this thread, I guess I missed it.
I don't see the need for any division that's currently below div 1. Maybe very low gp players aren't reporting their problem as such, I haven't seen any report about how wide the divisions are below. I think this would be complicating things unnecessarily.
We just need additions to upper edge regularly once there's enough players beyond where a new division should be. i.e. if the last division was 6.8m and it got there from 6.1m (700k step), the new division should come when there's enough players beyond next step. Next step should be 700-800-900k depending on how wide CG wants to do it as things progress. CG can just not widen the steps and keep at 500k jumps going forth though. Nature of the new divisions doesn't change with it. Just the regularity of new division.
Yeah, I mean it is and it isnt. I think it would help a bit with the things we see in dev 1 and 2 where the top rankings come from the bottom of the bracket.
So I guess that's not really matchmaking but it is the course adjustment of the whole system that would not allow that to happen as much.
At 6.4m I can easily afford 4 more teams, even 6 more besides 8 teams. Not all of these teams will be premium by the nature of it, but it gets to reach places in our rosters where everyone developed differently and imo would make matches much more interesting.