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
Divisions don't really play into matchmaking that much. League and matchmaking GP are the real constraints there.
You could put evey player in one huge division and their matchmaking results wouldn't be noticably different.
What divisions do dictate are the number of squads/fleets to place defensively and the rewards available, which need to be scaled according to roster GP.
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.
Ah yes, I see your point about bucket size now, keeping the current bucket size 500k linear would be great besides all that jazz (moooar divs, moooar slots, slightly better rewards)
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.
Yeah I don't know if it's a problem at the low end but more divisions there would help with the feeling of progress, which helps people get into it.
The problem with adding only at the top end, is you basically have to wait for things to get bunched up before you can add that, to ensure you have enough players to add it.
If you shift up and add to the bottom as needed, there is no risk of bunching up in the low end, you just add as needed. It theory.
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.
Yeah I don't know if it's a problem at the low end but more divisions there would help with the feeling of progress, which helps people get into it.
The problem with adding only at the top end, is you basically have to wait for things to get bunched up before you can add that, to ensure you have enough players to add it.
If you shift up and add to the bottom as needed, there is no risk of bunching up in the low end, you just add as needed. It theory.
I don't see any difference between adding to the top and shifting up and add to the bottom as needed. Naturally as they add more to the top they would either need to come up with a new naming convention or move the numbers. They are the same thing though.
There is no real downgrade for a player at 4.500.000 gp suddenly going into division 4 from the exact bottom of current division 1. That division 4 will work the same as current division 1 (without risking getting matched with division 3 of that hypothetical future).
Your stance on small buckets, but not too many new divisions are at odds with eachother. If they did the fixed 500k step thing as I proposed from current structure we have room for 5 divisions till 7m for example.
Divisions don't really play into matchmaking that much. League and matchmaking GP are the real constraints there.
You could put evey player in one huge division and their matchmaking results wouldn't be noticably different.
Actually, I take that back, at least in part. Removing division as a matchmaking constraint would put us back where we were in early GAC with potential matches coming from your current division, the one above or the one below.
That yielded a more diverse and in my opinion more interesting set of matchups. However not everyone agreed with that assessment and there were the inevitable complaints about "unfair matches".
Reverting to that state would remove the benefit to lurking at the bottom end of a division's matchmaking GP range. Unfortunately it would also raise the legitimate issue of how many squads should be placed when two matched players are from different divisions with different requirements.
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.
I won't complain either but some will. They may even make the argument that they were getting on par with the best rewards and now they are getting less in comparison to the best.
And as the forums have shown, there doesn't have to actually be a legitimate reason to complain for people to do so.
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.
I won't complain either but some will. They may even make the argument that they were getting on par with the best rewards and now they are getting less in comparison to the best.
And as the forums have shown, there doesn't have to actually be a legitimate reason to complain for people to do so.
I agree and bet that it will happen. It's not based in reality though. They will have at least the same rewards and will gradually upgrade to better.
Maybe there is some other backdraw we are not foreseeing, this is just not 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.
Any time you restructure rewards there will be winners and losers. For example right now, it is possible to get in the top 10 in kyber with 5 mil gp (I'm nowhere near that but some are). If they split division 1 into 3 then division 3 rewards would have to be equal to or greater than the max div one rewards. I'm not sure CG would increase them that much. Also, rewards are often measured in comparison to the max and what others were getting. I'm sure going from max rewards to far below max rewards won't make some players happy.
I'm not saying they shouldn't adjust division 1. Just that it is more complicated than it initially appears.
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.
Any time you restructure rewards there will be winners and losers. For example right now, it is possible to get in the top 10 in kyber with 5 mil gp (I'm nowhere near that but some are). If they split division 1 into 3 then division 3 rewards would have to be equal to or greater than the max div one rewards. I'm not sure CG would increase them that much. Also, rewards are often measured in comparison to the max and what others were getting. I'm sure going from max rewards to far below max rewards won't make some players happy.
I'm not saying they shouldn't adjust division 1. Just that it is more complicated than it initially appears.
This is the same everywhere in the game though. If you can't complete some gc tiers or assault battles, that's that.
People in lower divisions are getting lower rewards as of now, this is not a new thing. When cg makes new divisions on top, the logical way is to keep the first 4.5m+ division with same rewards and increase it slightly on upper ones going from there.
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.
Yeah I don't know if it's a problem at the low end but more divisions there would help with the feeling of progress, which helps people get into it.
The problem with adding only at the top end, is you basically have to wait for things to get bunched up before you can add that, to ensure you have enough players to add it.
If you shift up and add to the bottom as needed, there is no risk of bunching up in the low end, you just add as needed. It theory.
I'm not sure how you would split division one and only send players at the low end of it down one division while also still maintaining relatively the same bucket size as now.
In lower divisions, you go to a new division after every 500k gp. If you spit div 1 into 500k gp segments, then you would have to split it 8 or 10 times to get up to the 8 or 10 mil gp players. That would definitely drop some more than one division.
And if you only split it in half, you would have about a 3 mil gp bucket in both the new div om1 and div 2 which would likely still have similar issues as we have now.
I do think the gap can be wider at higher divisions since a 500k gap is far less significant if you are at 5 mil gp than if you are at 1 mil 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.
Any time you restructure rewards there will be winners and losers. For example right now, it is possible to get in the top 10 in kyber with 5 mil gp (I'm nowhere near that but some are). If they split division 1 into 3 then division 3 rewards would have to be equal to or greater than the max div one rewards. I'm not sure CG would increase them that much. Also, rewards are often measured in comparison to the max and what others were getting. I'm sure going from max rewards to far below max rewards won't make some players happy.
I'm not saying they shouldn't adjust division 1. Just that it is more complicated than it initially appears.
This is the same everywhere in the game though. If you can't complete some gc tiers or assault battles, that's that.
People in lower divisions are getting lower rewards as of now, this is not a new thing. When cg makes new divisions on top, the logical way is to keep the first 4.5m+ division with same rewards and increase it slightly on upper ones going from there.
I agree with you. That is the logical way to do it. Will it be the way CG actually does it? Who knows.
And even if they do it pretty well, there will still be complaining. This is the forums after all. So I'm sure CG is carefully deciding how to change it if they plan to.
Or they may have no intention to change it. I think many guilds hit max gp for tw years ago. As far as I can remember, they never split the divisions there either. And I would assume it would have a similar grouping at the top.
With the ever evolving characters and number of characters to choose from in the game bringing our GP higher and higher, isn’t it time that the GAC GP brackets are expanded?
Why not add 1-2 more divisions, 4.49 to infinity is a pretty big gap compared to when GAC was released
I mean, no offense, but I'm pretty sure they've got more complete data than what has been collected on Reddit. No tea, no shade, no lemonade to the people who collected that data, of course, that was a lot of hard work and they took it seriously. But tagging them in it is kind of like a high school student tagging a college professor.
They know this is the case--it's a matter of whether they think it's a problem or not.
I mean, no offense, but I'm pretty sure they've got more complete data than what has been collected on Reddit. No tea, no shade, no lemonade to the people who collected that data, of course, that was a lot of hard work and they took it seriously. But tagging them in it is kind of like a high school student tagging a college professor.
They know this is the case--it's a matter of whether they think it's a problem or not.
They may, we don't. Until doja have seen the last topic, he wasn't even aware of it. It's a bit useless to be talking about what might not work, don't you think? I don't remember a lot of occasions cg dealing with something until they are pressured into it.
I mean, no offense, but I'm pretty sure they've got more complete data than what has been collected on Reddit. No tea, no shade, no lemonade to the people who collected that data, of course, that was a lot of hard work and they took it seriously. But tagging them in it is kind of like a high school student tagging a college professor.
They know this is the case--it's a matter of whether they think it's a problem or not.
You are probably right but the point is not if they have more accurate data, but rather if they are looking at it or not.
Tagging them would (maybe) increase the will to look at the issue.
I mean, no offense, but I'm pretty sure they've got more complete data than what has been collected on Reddit. No tea, no shade, no lemonade to the people who collected that data, of course, that was a lot of hard work and they took it seriously. But tagging them in it is kind of like a high school student tagging a college professor.
They know this is the case--it's a matter of whether they think it's a problem or not.
I don't remember a lot of occasions cg dealing with something until they are pressured into it.
Well of course you don't remember that happening, those problems got solved before they were memorable.
I mean, no offense, but I'm pretty sure they've got more complete data than what has been collected on Reddit. No tea, no shade, no lemonade to the people who collected that data, of course, that was a lot of hard work and they took it seriously. But tagging them in it is kind of like a high school student tagging a college professor.
They know this is the case--it's a matter of whether they think it's a problem or not.
I don't remember a lot of occasions cg dealing with something until they are pressured into it.
Well of course you don't remember that happening, those problems got solved before they were memorable.
Well since this is not one of those topics, it's worth for me to try.
This pattern is inevitable with an ageing (mature?) game and player base and a system of divisions based solely on GP. Even if new divisions get added the tendency for a top heavy distribution will always be there. Best solution would be a promoted premier division that you had to earn entry to through performance (and which you could get relegated from too)
This pattern is inevitable with an ageing (mature?) game and player base and a system of divisions based solely on GP. Even if new divisions get added the tendency for a top heavy distribution will always be there. Best solution would be a promoted premier division that you had to earn entry to through performance (and which you could get relegated from too)
There can be a dynamic system that we don't even need to keep track of. But it's not fully necessary. CG just needs to keep up with their previous pledge when GAC was first released; to keep the manually adjusted divisions in check and keep on adding before year-s pass over it.
@CG_Doja_Fett updating with 3 months of new data. Ever getting more lopsided.
Next time you post an update, I'd suggest adjusting the values Y axis to be similar from original to now, would make it even more apparent how top heavy this is getting.
Also, cheers for posting this.
Would make so much sense to add at least one more division on top, demanding more teams used (and looking deeper into each players roster).
@CG_Doja_Fett updating with 3 months of new data. Ever getting more lopsided.
Next time you post an update, I'd suggest adjusting the values Y axis to be similar from original to now, would make it even more apparent how top heavy this is getting.
Also, cheers for posting this.
Would make so much sense to add at least one more division on top, demanding more teams used (and looking deeper into each players roster).
You are right. I could have certainly done that if I had direct access to the document. It's done by Taliana who doesn't like the forums, but posts it on reddit when she does post it.
Contrary to mine, her main emphasis is to keep track of the active # of players, so she has hard time gathering enough lowbie spot samples especially in div 11 and other lowbie divisions which makes the total number less accurate. It's very solid when it comes to high divisions though since many players report zero banner positions from there getting us much closer to absolute bottom of those divisions.
The divisions definitely need to be re-balanced but we also need more squads on the maps. There are several viable teams that have come to the game since the original GA started up and the GLs require farming of several mediocre characters that have no real use in GAC.
The divisions definitely need to be re-balanced but we also need more squads on the maps. There are several viable teams that have come to the game since the original GA started up and the GLs require farming of several mediocre characters that have no real use in GAC.
Agreed, I'm mostly interested in the slot bump in -to be- division personally, but I also think current div 2 and lower quarters of div 1 (like 4.5 to 5.5m) can also use extra slots. Above that we need more than one slots. At 6.7m, I can easily put 3 more extra teams on defense and lend 3 extra teams for offense which I never get to use currently.
The divisions definitely need to be re-balanced but we also need more squads on the maps. There are several viable teams that have come to the game since the original GA started up and the GLs require farming of several mediocre characters that have no real use in GAC.
Agreed, I'm mostly interested in the slot bump in -to be- division personally, but I also think current div 2 and lower quarters of div 1 (like 4.5 to 5.5m) can also use extra slots. Above that we need more than one slots. At 6.7m, I can easily put 3 more extra teams on defense and lend 3 extra teams for offense which I never get to use currently.
We’ve heard you and will be adding 2 more slots for ships on defense!
The divisions definitely need to be re-balanced but we also need more squads on the maps. There are several viable teams that have come to the game since the original GA started up and the GLs require farming of several mediocre characters that have no real use in GAC.
Agreed, I'm mostly interested in the slot bump in -to be- division personally, but I also think current div 2 and lower quarters of div 1 (like 4.5 to 5.5m) can also use extra slots. Above that we need more than one slots. At 6.7m, I can easily put 3 more extra teams on defense and lend 3 extra teams for offense which I never get to use currently.
We’ve heard you and will be adding 2 more slots for ships on defense!
Lmao, you have 8 caps sure, only thing missing is the ships, a small problem. I think 2 slots is just good enough rn, not too much or too little.
Replies
You could put evey player in one huge division and their matchmaking results wouldn't be noticably different.
What divisions do dictate are the number of squads/fleets to place defensively and the rewards available, which need to be scaled according to roster GP.
Ah yes, I see your point about bucket size now, keeping the current bucket size 500k linear would be great besides all that jazz (moooar divs, moooar slots, slightly better rewards)
Yeah I don't know if it's a problem at the low end but more divisions there would help with the feeling of progress, which helps people get into it.
The problem with adding only at the top end, is you basically have to wait for things to get bunched up before you can add that, to ensure you have enough players to add it.
If you shift up and add to the bottom as needed, there is no risk of bunching up in the low end, you just add as needed. It theory.
I don't see any difference between adding to the top and shifting up and add to the bottom as needed. Naturally as they add more to the top they would either need to come up with a new naming convention or move the numbers. They are the same thing though.
There is no real downgrade for a player at 4.500.000 gp suddenly going into division 4 from the exact bottom of current division 1. That division 4 will work the same as current division 1 (without risking getting matched with division 3 of that hypothetical future).
Your stance on small buckets, but not too many new divisions are at odds with eachother. If they did the fixed 500k step thing as I proposed from current structure we have room for 5 divisions till 7m for example.
That yielded a more diverse and in my opinion more interesting set of matchups. However not everyone agreed with that assessment and there were the inevitable complaints about "unfair matches".
Reverting to that state would remove the benefit to lurking at the bottom end of a division's matchmaking GP range. Unfortunately it would also raise the legitimate issue of how many squads should be placed when two matched players are from different divisions with different requirements.
I won't complain either but some will. They may even make the argument that they were getting on par with the best rewards and now they are getting less in comparison to the best.
And as the forums have shown, there doesn't have to actually be a legitimate reason to complain for people to do so.
I agree and bet that it will happen. It's not based in reality though. They will have at least the same rewards and will gradually upgrade to better.
Maybe there is some other backdraw we are not foreseeing, this is just not it.
Any time you restructure rewards there will be winners and losers. For example right now, it is possible to get in the top 10 in kyber with 5 mil gp (I'm nowhere near that but some are). If they split division 1 into 3 then division 3 rewards would have to be equal to or greater than the max div one rewards. I'm not sure CG would increase them that much. Also, rewards are often measured in comparison to the max and what others were getting. I'm sure going from max rewards to far below max rewards won't make some players happy.
I'm not saying they shouldn't adjust division 1. Just that it is more complicated than it initially appears.
This is the same everywhere in the game though. If you can't complete some gc tiers or assault battles, that's that.
People in lower divisions are getting lower rewards as of now, this is not a new thing. When cg makes new divisions on top, the logical way is to keep the first 4.5m+ division with same rewards and increase it slightly on upper ones going from there.
I'm not sure how you would split division one and only send players at the low end of it down one division while also still maintaining relatively the same bucket size as now.
In lower divisions, you go to a new division after every 500k gp. If you spit div 1 into 500k gp segments, then you would have to split it 8 or 10 times to get up to the 8 or 10 mil gp players. That would definitely drop some more than one division.
And if you only split it in half, you would have about a 3 mil gp bucket in both the new div om1 and div 2 which would likely still have similar issues as we have now.
I do think the gap can be wider at higher divisions since a 500k gap is far less significant if you are at 5 mil gp than if you are at 1 mil gp.
I agree with you. That is the logical way to do it. Will it be the way CG actually does it? Who knows.
And even if they do it pretty well, there will still be complaining. This is the forums after all. So I'm sure CG is carefully deciding how to change it if they plan to.
Or they may have no intention to change it. I think many guilds hit max gp for tw years ago. As far as I can remember, they never split the divisions there either. And I would assume it would have a similar grouping at the top.
Why not add 1-2 more divisions, 4.49 to infinity is a pretty big gap compared to when GAC was released
https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/jpeh92/what_a_difference_a_year_makes_watching_the/
@CG_Doja_Fett
They know this is the case--it's a matter of whether they think it's a problem or not.
They may, we don't. Until doja have seen the last topic, he wasn't even aware of it. It's a bit useless to be talking about what might not work, don't you think? I don't remember a lot of occasions cg dealing with something until they are pressured into it.
You are probably right but the point is not if they have more accurate data, but rather if they are looking at it or not.
Tagging them would (maybe) increase the will to look at the issue.
Well of course you don't remember that happening, those problems got solved before they were memorable.
Well since this is not one of those topics, it's worth for me to try.
- CG, probably
Yeeeesh
There can be a dynamic system that we don't even need to keep track of. But it's not fully necessary. CG just needs to keep up with their previous pledge when GAC was first released; to keep the manually adjusted divisions in check and keep on adding before year-s pass over it.
Also, cheers for posting this.
Would make so much sense to add at least one more division on top, demanding more teams used (and looking deeper into each players roster).
You are right. I could have certainly done that if I had direct access to the document. It's done by Taliana who doesn't like the forums, but posts it on reddit when she does post it.
Contrary to mine, her main emphasis is to keep track of the active # of players, so she has hard time gathering enough lowbie spot samples especially in div 11 and other lowbie divisions which makes the total number less accurate. It's very solid when it comes to high divisions though since many players report zero banner positions from there getting us much closer to absolute bottom of those divisions.
Agreed, I'm mostly interested in the slot bump in -to be- division personally, but I also think current div 2 and lower quarters of div 1 (like 4.5 to 5.5m) can also use extra slots. Above that we need more than one slots. At 6.7m, I can easily put 3 more extra teams on defense and lend 3 extra teams for offense which I never get to use currently.
We’ve heard you and will be adding 2 more slots for ships on defense!
Lmao, you have 8 caps sure, only thing missing is the ships, a small problem. I think 2 slots is just good enough rn, not too much or too little.