[MEGA] Upcoming Grand Arena Championship Division Changes

Replies

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    CadoaBane wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Wow, this feedback... didn't seem to matter what Div you are in or moving to, no one seems happy.

    Div 1-3 after changes: waaa too many fights to have to do!

    Div 5+ after changes: waaa I don't get to do enough fights!

    Div 3+ after changes: waaa all my fleet investment for nothing!

    Personally I'd be fine with extra fights, because that means opponents having to reach further into their rosters to maybe see something interesting. But I think I'm going to be div 3 or 4 so: waaa not enough change for me! Oh and waaa my fleets sit in dry dock!

    Way to design a change that sits everyone in the same boat: unhappy mc unhappyboatface.
    This is pretty much how I feel about it (I’m new division 2 at 7.25M GP).

    They’ve used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Something needed fixed, but they’ve made other things worse in doing so.

    So much this. Instead of reworking all of the divisions and changing virtually everyone's requirements, then having to rebalance rewards, they simply should have broken up current Division 1 into an appropriate number of smaller Divisions then increased the required teams and tweaked the rewards for those new "top-end" divisions. Then in the future, they could simply keep adding and subdividing the top divisions as the players grew into them.

    But, instead, their current solution is not only overly-complicated, but suggests that every time the game outgrows the current Division system, they are going to redo the entire thing. How does a game like this have so little foresight? Unreal.

    Totally this. What CG should have done:

    b8ivf840hw7c.png

    Then as Nikoms said they can add more divisions on top in the future as rosters grow.

    We dont really have enough actual fleets to require 6, but I agree the reshuffle vs just expanding is an odd choice.
    Actually, there are enough fleets. Even at my range (5,8 mio gp) I regularly meet opponents in GAC who have all (capital) ships that are available in the game. I would not want fleet numbers to increase to 3 at my current gp range, but add a million more and I'd probably be okay with it.

    There are enough ships, but enough actual fleets.

    - no clean up (stated above)
    - 1-2 fleets that cant beat anything but each other, but are beat by the top 4
    - sub optimal layouts, just to field X number of fleets
    - maybe other points....

    IMO they would need to sure up the other fleets before adding more spots, as a requirement.

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    MBRedline wrote: »
    There are 8 capitals in the game, and 44 ships currently. That is enough for 6 full fleets plus 2 extra ships, and 2 extra capitols. How many competitive players actually use 4 reinforcements when attacking? So it is not unreasonable to think that a top end player could have 8 usable fleets. Imo.

    I'm currently at 3.4mil and I've been preparing for 4 fleets for a while now. I couldn't imagine that people with 6mil rosters don't have all the capitols and most all the ships in reserve.

    And the argument that you'd have to out junk teams doesn't make sense either. I have to put junk squads every gac at my gp level.

    You can develop past placing junk teams, and develop options as you grow. The same is not really true for our ship situation if you require 6 fleets. But, hey we can see where that ends up.
  • Just wanted to add my opinion that there needs to be 2 fleets added to the new div 3 and div 4 (I'm dropping from div 1 where fleets are currently a deciding factor to div 4 where it would now just be a farce).
  • Hortus
    615 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    We dont really have enough actual fleets to require 6, but I agree the reshuffle vs just expanding is an odd choice.

    We surely have on the top end. Separatists, GR, Rebels, FO, Resistance, Empire. Yes, using all at once will force to use suboptimal configs for some fleets (especially in reinforcements) but that's where strategy and tactics should come into the play, right?

    That is why I said actual fleets. Being forced to use sub optimal fleets because you have not developed your fleets is one thing, but being forced because you have no options is another. I would consider the latter a bad situation, and a bad way to add "strategy". IMO.

    I would also imagine that the way that would play out is junk goes on D, and your solid 3 stay for O, and everyone gets bored and max points. But maybe I'm wrong.

    They could sure up fleets and add another spot, that would be great. (Its on the 5 year plan I'm sure)

    Not sure what you are count as "actual" fleet. Rebels, FO and Separatists usually don't need more than 5 ships (you either win or lose before 3rd reinforcement, I never used more that two for countless combats even against fully maxed meta fleets). Full GR fleet is also fine. For both Resistance and Empire we can have solid starting lineup plus choice of 15-16 reinforcements for 8 remaining slots. Is it "no options"?

    Any of 6 capships can beat current meta if played right. I myself have successful experience fighting in Div1 against players who had both meta fleets without having any. Are you sure that there is no strategy there? :)
  • Nobody at any GP level should end up setting LESS squads or fleets than they do currently. Someone over there needs to look at what the various GP division ranges are setting now and compare it to what they’ll be setting under the new division format and make sure that doesn’t happen. Can’t imagine the intent was for anyone to end up with less squads or fleets....seems like this has to have been an oversight.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    We dont really have enough actual fleets to require 6, but I agree the reshuffle vs just expanding is an odd choice.

    We surely have on the top end. Separatists, GR, Rebels, FO, Resistance, Empire. Yes, using all at once will force to use suboptimal configs for some fleets (especially in reinforcements) but that's where strategy and tactics should come into the play, right?

    That is why I said actual fleets. Being forced to use sub optimal fleets because you have not developed your fleets is one thing, but being forced because you have no options is another. I would consider the latter a bad situation, and a bad way to add "strategy". IMO.

    I would also imagine that the way that would play out is junk goes on D, and your solid 3 stay for O, and everyone gets bored and max points. But maybe I'm wrong.

    They could sure up fleets and add another spot, that would be great. (Its on the 5 year plan I'm sure)

    Not sure what you are count as "actual" fleet. Rebels, FO and Separatists usually don't need more than 5 ships (you either win or lose before 3rd reinforcement, I never used more that two for countless combats even against fully maxed meta fleets). Full GR fleet is also fine. For both Resistance and Empire we can have solid starting lineup plus choice of 15-16 reinforcements for 8 remaining slots. Is it "no options"?

    Any of 6 capships can beat current meta if played right. I myself have successful experience fighting in Div1 against players who had both meta fleets without having any. Are you sure that there is no strategy there? :)

    You can make 6 fleets and have all 6 able to beat either of the 2 metas? That's interesting, I would love to see that.

    I agree you can make 6 fleets, and that each capital ship has lineups that can beat top metas, but those 2 ideas together I have not see work. Usually you are using a few ships that cross the lines to make a non meta capital ship win.

    GR, Seps, and rebels, are what I mean by actual fleets. They have synergy and dont necessarily cross lines as each one can be independently run. After that point, fleets start to fall apart, especially against the top 3.

    I'm not saying there is no strategy, but being forced with no options is different than being able to develop into a situation. Adding a 3rd spot at this point is forcing it, and calling it strategy.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Nobody at any GP level should end up setting LESS squads or fleets than they do currently. Someone over there needs to look at what the various GP division ranges are setting now and compare it to what they’ll be setting under the new division format and make sure that doesn’t happen. Can’t imagine the intent was for anyone to end up with less squads or fleets....seems like this has to have been an oversight.

    I'm sure they will look at it, and they are always considering feedback, but this was not an oversight, this is the current plan.

    I agree that not everyone should be required to place less, but I could see an argument for Div 5 having 1 less fleet and maybe a few of the lower divisions needing less teams, it helps newer/mid level players by lowering demand and opening them up to being able to make more choices. But that's just how I feel about this.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Recurve wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Arva wrote: »
    I rly hope CG does revisit this change, and does rethink the teams needed on the lower half of the divisions, and does extend the 2 fleets needed to at least division 5.
    Right now this change would make GAC in the lower brackets so much more boring and stale, couse you have to think so much less, about how you structure your defense and offense with only 3 teams up to 3.1 m GP, whereas previously you started setting more teams at 1,3m gp, and even earlier in 3v3 seasons.

    From their statements, it does seem like there is time and they are listening. We will have to wait and see if things will change.

    Yes because CG has a great history of listening to the player base.

    I'm glad we can agree.

    Listening...maybe
    Correcting....rarely
    Doing something correctly the first time...never
  • Vos_Landeck
    1666 posts Member
    edited April 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    I agree that not everyone should be required to place less, but I could see an argument for Div 5 having 1 less fleet and maybe a few of the lower divisions needing less teams, it helps newer/mid level players by lowering demand and opening them up to being able to make more choices. But that's just how I feel about this.

    I can see some argument at the lower tiers, although that punishes players who built up more teams at those levels based upon their current number of required GAC teams. It goes back to incentivizing top heavy “lean” rosters which is something they’ve been trying to get away from and it seems odd that the Dev Announcement only talked about more teams due to expanded rosters and didn’t mention anything about some people having less teams. I think everyone can agree though that the new Div 3 and 4 should have 2 fleets. 6 mil GP players dropping from 2 fleet to 1 fleet makes no sense.
  • MBRedline
    54 posts Member
    edited April 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    MBRedline wrote: »
    There are 8 capitals in the game, and 44 ships currently. That is enough for 6 full fleets plus 2 extra ships, and 2 extra capitols. How many competitive players actually use 4 reinforcements when attacking? So it is not unreasonable to think that a top end player could have 8 usable fleets. Imo.

    I'm currently at 3.4mil and I've been preparing for 4 fleets for a while now. I couldn't imagine that people with 6mil rosters don't have all the capitols and most all the ships in reserve.

    And the argument that you'd have to out junk teams doesn't make sense either. I have to put junk squads every gac at my gp level.

    You can develop past placing junk teams, and develop options as you grow. The same is not really true for our ship situation if you require 6 fleets. But, hey we can see where that ends up.

    Edit: that was someone else who said they beat meta with non meta. My mistake.

    Honestly, it feels like your contradicting yourself. You even said in another comment that you've beat meta teams with non meta teams. So I'm not sure how that there isn't room for development in roster, not to mention that the introduction of just a couple of ships could completely change the game at this point. Just like tie bomber and reb y wing.

    I will admit that the fleets may not be as easy to access, but I don't see there's much difference then squads? If I have to set a couple of g8 squads to make up the difference and make sure I full clear, then what's the difference to set chimera/bh, or mace and leftover GR?

    Just my opinion, obviously we see things differently, and may not see eye to eye.
    Especially since fleets were introduced before I started playing, I am seeing them on equal footing as squads, and have planned and worked toward the goal of having usable fleets since day one.
  • Hortus
    615 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    We dont really have enough actual fleets to require 6, but I agree the reshuffle vs just expanding is an odd choice.

    We surely have on the top end. Separatists, GR, Rebels, FO, Resistance, Empire. Yes, using all at once will force to use suboptimal configs for some fleets (especially in reinforcements) but that's where strategy and tactics should come into the play, right?

    That is why I said actual fleets. Being forced to use sub optimal fleets because you have not developed your fleets is one thing, but being forced because you have no options is another. I would consider the latter a bad situation, and a bad way to add "strategy". IMO.

    I would also imagine that the way that would play out is junk goes on D, and your solid 3 stay for O, and everyone gets bored and max points. But maybe I'm wrong.

    They could sure up fleets and add another spot, that would be great. (Its on the 5 year plan I'm sure)

    Not sure what you are count as "actual" fleet. Rebels, FO and Separatists usually don't need more than 5 ships (you either win or lose before 3rd reinforcement, I never used more that two for countless combats even against fully maxed meta fleets). Full GR fleet is also fine. For both Resistance and Empire we can have solid starting lineup plus choice of 15-16 reinforcements for 8 remaining slots. Is it "no options"?

    Any of 6 capships can beat current meta if played right. I myself have successful experience fighting in Div1 against players who had both meta fleets without having any. Are you sure that there is no strategy there? :)

    You can make 6 fleets and have all 6 able to beat either of the 2 metas? That's interesting, I would love to see that.

    I agree you can make 6 fleets, and that each capital ship has lineups that can beat top metas, but those 2 ideas together I have not see work. Usually you are using a few ships that cross the lines to make a non meta capital ship win.

    GR, Seps, and rebels, are what I mean by actual fleets. They have synergy and dont necessarily cross lines as each one can be independently run. After that point, fleets start to fall apart, especially against the top 3.

    I'm not saying there is no strategy, but being forced with no options is different than being able to develop into a situation. Adding a 3rd spot at this point is forcing it, and calling it strategy.

    I can set HMF-FO-Empire for offense and leave Nego, Mal and Raddus for defense, as an example. If my opponent reserved Nego, Mal and any third for offense as you suggest it basically guaranties that I'll get higher banners on the fleet zones, and will still have very good chances to win even if he'll go full defense. That's what I call strategy.

    Talking about how you need to use suboptimal fleets is the same thing as talking about how you need to split up your LS arena "titans" team for GAC. In both cases you need to split "optimal" teams for covering more field.
  • MBRedline wrote: »
    There are 8 capitals in the game, and 44 ships currently. That is enough for 6 full fleets plus 2 extra ships, and 2 extra capitols. How many competitive players actually use 4 reinforcements when attacking? So it is not unreasonable to think that a top end player could have 8 usable fleets. Imo.

    I'm currently at 3.4mil and I've been preparing for 4 fleets for a while now. I couldn't imagine that people with 6mil rosters don't have all the capitols and most all the ships in reserve.

    And the argument that you'd have to out junk teams doesn't make sense either. I have to put junk squads every gac at my gp level.

    There are not enough ships in the game for 3 fleets on defense. They need more ships and more capital ships before they expand anymore. Being forced to go into a battle underdogged is not only dumb but unfair. Not to mention you have empire ships shared between executrix and chimera as well as no galactic republic ships for endurance after using negotiator.
  • TVF
    36526 posts Member
    Amoliski wrote: »
    Please, please, please, please no more 3v3s. This most recent one I only had two people actually attack me the entire time. More than half of my matches were auto-placement nightmares, and several were people making achievements impossible with all of their best teams on defense and no offense attempts at.

    And even when I do get into a real match, It's sooooooooo tedious, which adding more teams is just going to make worse.

    The game isn't designed for 3v3. 3v3 isn't fun.

    Stop posting, fake me. Your avatar is bad and your post is bad.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    We dont really have enough actual fleets to require 6, but I agree the reshuffle vs just expanding is an odd choice.

    We surely have on the top end. Separatists, GR, Rebels, FO, Resistance, Empire. Yes, using all at once will force to use suboptimal configs for some fleets (especially in reinforcements) but that's where strategy and tactics should come into the play, right?

    That is why I said actual fleets. Being forced to use sub optimal fleets because you have not developed your fleets is one thing, but being forced because you have no options is another. I would consider the latter a bad situation, and a bad way to add "strategy". IMO.

    I would also imagine that the way that would play out is junk goes on D, and your solid 3 stay for O, and everyone gets bored and max points. But maybe I'm wrong.

    They could sure up fleets and add another spot, that would be great. (Its on the 5 year plan I'm sure)

    Not sure what you are count as "actual" fleet. Rebels, FO and Separatists usually don't need more than 5 ships (you either win or lose before 3rd reinforcement, I never used more that two for countless combats even against fully maxed meta fleets). Full GR fleet is also fine. For both Resistance and Empire we can have solid starting lineup plus choice of 15-16 reinforcements for 8 remaining slots. Is it "no options"?

    Any of 6 capships can beat current meta if played right. I myself have successful experience fighting in Div1 against players who had both meta fleets without having any. Are you sure that there is no strategy there? :)

    You can make 6 fleets and have all 6 able to beat either of the 2 metas? That's interesting, I would love to see that.

    I agree you can make 6 fleets, and that each capital ship has lineups that can beat top metas, but those 2 ideas together I have not see work. Usually you are using a few ships that cross the lines to make a non meta capital ship win.

    GR, Seps, and rebels, are what I mean by actual fleets. They have synergy and dont necessarily cross lines as each one can be independently run. After that point, fleets start to fall apart, especially against the top 3.

    I'm not saying there is no strategy, but being forced with no options is different than being able to develop into a situation. Adding a 3rd spot at this point is forcing it, and calling it strategy.

    I can set HMF-FO-Empire for offense and leave Nego, Mal and Raddus for defense, as an example. If my opponent reserved Nego, Mal and any third for offense as you suggest it basically guaranties that I'll get higher banners on the fleet zones, and will still have very good chances to win even if he'll go full defense. That's what I call strategy.

    Talking about how you need to use suboptimal fleets is the same thing as talking about how you need to split up your LS arena "titans" team for GAC. In both cases you need to split "optimal" teams for covering more field.

    I agree we have the capital ships to do so. The fleets you set on D, would likely become the standard, because very few would risk the path you just showed would lead to less banners.... that's not really an option, or strategy. It paints them all into the same corner.

    I love ships and am all for them adding any usage for them, bring it on. I just see this as not being a fun addition as it doesnt add options, it just adds placeholders.

    What you are talking about with squads would be options, which is different than fleet in this situation, where you dont really have options to adjust your fleets with that many required.

    But let's see how it all plays out.
  • TVF
    36526 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    nabokovfan wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    From what they are saying the chart for method 2 looks correct.

    Everything about the divisions stays the same, just the entry GP changes. Pre-change teams needed doesnt change due to this change.

    This doesn't make any sense from the words in their post.
    To address the diverse range of GPs at the highest levels of GAC, we will be redistributing the number of players in GAC divisions to closely reflect the ratio of players that were originally in those divisions at the time of GAC’s launch. After the first and second divisions, players will be evenly divided among divisions 3 through 11.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    So anyone in division 1 and 2 should be requiring "more squads" and "ships will remain unchanged"

    This is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I'm saying, we need something official from them that says what is required in each division after the change. Not just fleet, characters as well. There's two very different interpretations and it changes how I plan for all of this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    This is exactly what I am saying. The top 4 divisions require more character squads, and nothing is changing about ships (2 placements in div 1 and 2, and no increase in number needed).

    Kyno please be clear:
    - 2 ship placements for people in “current” div1&2, irrespective of which “new” division they will be in
    - 2 ship placements for people in “new” div1&2 only

    Which is it?

    Because if it’s the second option, you cannot say “nothing is changing about ships”.

    It was 2 placements in div 1 and 2. It is still going to be 2 placements in div 1 and 2. Nothing about how ships were placed is changing.
    This is a disappointing response.

    “Nothing is changing about ships” has now become “nothing about how ships were placed is changing”.

    But it is changing Kyno. Some people who used to set 2 fleets, including some who have done that from the very first GAC where 2 fleet spots became a thing, will now be setting 1 fleet. This will be many thousands of players. Players who will have geared and levelled up capital ships and pilots exclusively for GAC that will now sit idle until the player reaches 6.8M GP.

    We can dance around semantics all you like, but I don’t see how you can defend this by stating “nothing is changing”. This is clearly an oversight and I just hope the devs have the bravery to admit they got this wrong and change it, rather than cower behind a wording technicality.

    I am not defending anything. I am stating what was stated.

    You're hiding behind technicalities. Everyone knows that "nothing about how ships were placed is changing" is irrelevant, all that matters is if people that used to be placing two fleets are now placing one. Which has been confirmed to be true. So sure, by one interpretation what you said is correct, but that interpretation has no bearing on the situation. We both know you are better than this.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    nabokovfan wrote: »
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    I've posted an update on the rewards here
    tldr; Promotion rewards are being adjusted as part of this change as well.

    Can we get a clarification on which of these is correct?

    Method 1: Division 1 and 2 keep same requirements based on GP/Previous requirements. Then added the new squads as mentioned in the post.

    tfraupepaguf.png

    Or Method 2: Swap GP column and add squads, meaning fleet / teams are revised by division as well as GP changes.

    o313vd2bhrqs.png
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes, 2 ship placements will only be Div 1 and 2.

    This part was confirmed by Crumb, that is why I posted it again after double checking.



    Could you please just clarify how many teams do we need in the NEW divisions 10 - 7 (GP from 1M - 3.1)

    From what they are saying the chart for method 2 looks correct.

    Everything about the divisions stays the same, just the entry GP changes. Pre-change teams needed doesnt change due to this change.



    But....why would you make the amount of teams only 6 total for these divisions? That means players who have been focusing on their roster with GAC in mind and have deeper rosters are going to have to drop multiple teams that they have invested time and resources into. Who does this benefit? Why are the mid game players being punished when you can simply keep the number of teams required the same

    nk963xpkhdm6.png

    Trying to get verification, but yes this is what I believe it will look like. Nothing about the old system changes, except the entry GP (edit to add:) and the additional teams stated in the post.

    Div 6 went up one team, and div 5 (the old div 1 cut off) and up need either the same or more teams. No one is using less teams.

    I'm moving from div 4 to div 8, going from 6 teams to 3. That is less teams.
  • Rebmes
    376 posts Member
    There goes my Friday morning.

    This looks amazing but I'll have wasted a lot of resources on my fleets. I wish CG would stop pretending ships don't exist.
  • TVF
    36526 posts Member
    Rebmes wrote: »
    There goes my Friday morning.

    This looks amazing but I'll have wasted a lot of resources on my fleets. I wish CG would stop pretending ships don't exist.

    I mean, I agree but this is dumb, but how does it affect your morning?
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    nabokovfan wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    From what they are saying the chart for method 2 looks correct.

    Everything about the divisions stays the same, just the entry GP changes. Pre-change teams needed doesnt change due to this change.

    This doesn't make any sense from the words in their post.
    To address the diverse range of GPs at the highest levels of GAC, we will be redistributing the number of players in GAC divisions to closely reflect the ratio of players that were originally in those divisions at the time of GAC’s launch. After the first and second divisions, players will be evenly divided among divisions 3 through 11.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    So anyone in division 1 and 2 should be requiring "more squads" and "ships will remain unchanged"

    This is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I'm saying, we need something official from them that says what is required in each division after the change. Not just fleet, characters as well. There's two very different interpretations and it changes how I plan for all of this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    This is exactly what I am saying. The top 4 divisions require more character squads, and nothing is changing about ships (2 placements in div 1 and 2, and no increase in number needed).

    Kyno please be clear:
    - 2 ship placements for people in “current” div1&2, irrespective of which “new” division they will be in
    - 2 ship placements for people in “new” div1&2 only

    Which is it?

    Because if it’s the second option, you cannot say “nothing is changing about ships”.

    It was 2 placements in div 1 and 2. It is still going to be 2 placements in div 1 and 2. Nothing about how ships were placed is changing.
    This is a disappointing response.

    “Nothing is changing about ships” has now become “nothing about how ships were placed is changing”.

    But it is changing Kyno. Some people who used to set 2 fleets, including some who have done that from the very first GAC where 2 fleet spots became a thing, will now be setting 1 fleet. This will be many thousands of players. Players who will have geared and levelled up capital ships and pilots exclusively for GAC that will now sit idle until the player reaches 6.8M GP.

    We can dance around semantics all you like, but I don’t see how you can defend this by stating “nothing is changing”. This is clearly an oversight and I just hope the devs have the bravery to admit they got this wrong and change it, rather than cower behind a wording technicality.

    I am not defending anything. I am stating what was stated.

    You're hiding behind technicalities. Everyone knows that "nothing about how ships were placed is changing" is irrelevant, all that matters is if people that used to be placing two fleets are now placing one. Which has been confirmed to be true. So sure, by one interpretation what you said is correct, but that interpretation has no bearing on the situation. We both know you are better than this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    - the top 4 divisions place more teams that they did previously
    - each division places the same number of fleets they did previously

    That is exactly what it says and that is exactly what I said. There is no interpretation needed, it's just the changes to rhe system in place.

    This post is outlining the system.

    Where a player falls into the new system and how they feel about that is welcome feedback, but doesnt need to be directed at me, as that was not what I am talking about. I was clarifying the question asked about what was said.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    TVF wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    There goes my Friday morning.

    This looks amazing but I'll have wasted a lot of resources on my fleets. I wish CG would stop pretending ships don't exist.

    I mean, I agree but this is dumb, but how does it affect your morning?

    They probably spit out their coffee after reading the dev post.
  • TVF
    36526 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    nabokovfan wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    From what they are saying the chart for method 2 looks correct.

    Everything about the divisions stays the same, just the entry GP changes. Pre-change teams needed doesnt change due to this change.

    This doesn't make any sense from the words in their post.
    To address the diverse range of GPs at the highest levels of GAC, we will be redistributing the number of players in GAC divisions to closely reflect the ratio of players that were originally in those divisions at the time of GAC’s launch. After the first and second divisions, players will be evenly divided among divisions 3 through 11.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    So anyone in division 1 and 2 should be requiring "more squads" and "ships will remain unchanged"

    This is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I'm saying, we need something official from them that says what is required in each division after the change. Not just fleet, characters as well. There's two very different interpretations and it changes how I plan for all of this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    This is exactly what I am saying. The top 4 divisions require more character squads, and nothing is changing about ships (2 placements in div 1 and 2, and no increase in number needed).

    Kyno please be clear:
    - 2 ship placements for people in “current” div1&2, irrespective of which “new” division they will be in
    - 2 ship placements for people in “new” div1&2 only

    Which is it?

    Because if it’s the second option, you cannot say “nothing is changing about ships”.

    It was 2 placements in div 1 and 2. It is still going to be 2 placements in div 1 and 2. Nothing about how ships were placed is changing.
    This is a disappointing response.

    “Nothing is changing about ships” has now become “nothing about how ships were placed is changing”.

    But it is changing Kyno. Some people who used to set 2 fleets, including some who have done that from the very first GAC where 2 fleet spots became a thing, will now be setting 1 fleet. This will be many thousands of players. Players who will have geared and levelled up capital ships and pilots exclusively for GAC that will now sit idle until the player reaches 6.8M GP.

    We can dance around semantics all you like, but I don’t see how you can defend this by stating “nothing is changing”. This is clearly an oversight and I just hope the devs have the bravery to admit they got this wrong and change it, rather than cower behind a wording technicality.

    I am not defending anything. I am stating what was stated.

    You're hiding behind technicalities. Everyone knows that "nothing about how ships were placed is changing" is irrelevant, all that matters is if people that used to be placing two fleets are now placing one. Which has been confirmed to be true. So sure, by one interpretation what you said is correct, but that interpretation has no bearing on the situation. We both know you are better than this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    - the top 4 divisions place more teams that they did previously
    - each division places the same number of fleets they did previously

    That is exactly what it says and that is exactly what I said. There is no interpretation needed, it's just the changes to rhe system in place.

    This post is outlining the system.

    Where a player falls into the new system and how they feel about that is welcome feedback, but doesnt need to be directed at me, as that was not what I am talking about. I was clarifying the question asked about what was said.

    None of this has anything to do with the core issue, we both know it, and since you just keep doubling down, I'm moving on.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    nabokovfan wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    From what they are saying the chart for method 2 looks correct.

    Everything about the divisions stays the same, just the entry GP changes. Pre-change teams needed doesnt change due to this change.

    This doesn't make any sense from the words in their post.
    To address the diverse range of GPs at the highest levels of GAC, we will be redistributing the number of players in GAC divisions to closely reflect the ratio of players that were originally in those divisions at the time of GAC’s launch. After the first and second divisions, players will be evenly divided among divisions 3 through 11.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    So anyone in division 1 and 2 should be requiring "more squads" and "ships will remain unchanged"

    This is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I'm saying, we need something official from them that says what is required in each division after the change. Not just fleet, characters as well. There's two very different interpretations and it changes how I plan for all of this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    This is exactly what I am saying. The top 4 divisions require more character squads, and nothing is changing about ships (2 placements in div 1 and 2, and no increase in number needed).

    Kyno please be clear:
    - 2 ship placements for people in “current” div1&2, irrespective of which “new” division they will be in
    - 2 ship placements for people in “new” div1&2 only

    Which is it?

    Because if it’s the second option, you cannot say “nothing is changing about ships”.

    It was 2 placements in div 1 and 2. It is still going to be 2 placements in div 1 and 2. Nothing about how ships were placed is changing.
    This is a disappointing response.

    “Nothing is changing about ships” has now become “nothing about how ships were placed is changing”.

    But it is changing Kyno. Some people who used to set 2 fleets, including some who have done that from the very first GAC where 2 fleet spots became a thing, will now be setting 1 fleet. This will be many thousands of players. Players who will have geared and levelled up capital ships and pilots exclusively for GAC that will now sit idle until the player reaches 6.8M GP.

    We can dance around semantics all you like, but I don’t see how you can defend this by stating “nothing is changing”. This is clearly an oversight and I just hope the devs have the bravery to admit they got this wrong and change it, rather than cower behind a wording technicality.

    I am not defending anything. I am stating what was stated.

    You're hiding behind technicalities. Everyone knows that "nothing about how ships were placed is changing" is irrelevant, all that matters is if people that used to be placing two fleets are now placing one. Which has been confirmed to be true. So sure, by one interpretation what you said is correct, but that interpretation has no bearing on the situation. We both know you are better than this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    - the top 4 divisions place more teams that they did previously
    - each division places the same number of fleets they did previously

    That is exactly what it says and that is exactly what I said. There is no interpretation needed, it's just the changes to rhe system in place.

    This post is outlining the system.

    Where a player falls into the new system and how they feel about that is welcome feedback, but doesnt need to be directed at me, as that was not what I am talking about. I was clarifying the question asked about what was said.

    None of this has anything to do with the core issue, we both know it, and since you just keep doubling down, I'm moving on.

    Picking my post up when I am discussing this point with another poster and trying to make it about the core issue, is not something I can stop people from doing.
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    My biggest issue with the proposed reduction in the number of fleets for mid-division players is that it significantly lessens the amount of strategy in GAC. If you have, say, 4.5M GP and both Mal and Negotiator fleets, you will probably always win the fleet portion against players in your division who don’t have both. I can’t imagine that CG desires an outcome of this division change in which less strategy is required. I sincerely hope they rethink this to make the ship reqs the same as what they are now for each player.
  • Gorgus wrote: »
    My biggest issue with the proposed reduction in the number of fleets for mid-division players is that it significantly lessens the amount of strategy in GAC. If you have, say, 4.5M GP and both Mal and Negotiator fleets, you will probably always win the fleet portion against players in your division who don’t have both. I can’t imagine that CG desires an outcome of this division change in which less strategy is required. I sincerely hope they rethink this to make the ship reqs the same as what they are now for each player.

    100%. Ship reqs and fleet reqs should be the same or higher for everyone at every GP level. Neither should go down for anyone.
  • Acymetric wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    My biggest issue with the proposed reduction in the number of fleets for mid-division players is that it significantly lessens the amount of strategy in GAC. If you have, say, 4.5M GP and both Mal and Negotiator fleets, you will probably always win the fleet portion against players in your division who don’t have both. I can’t imagine that CG desires an outcome of this division change in which less strategy is required. I sincerely hope they rethink this to make the ship reqs the same as what they are now for each player.

    100%. Ship reqs and fleet reqs should be the same or higher for everyone at every GP level. Neither should go down for anyone.


    Same thing with regular teams, there is no reason I should be using 4 less teams due to these changes. That's 4 teams worth of resources wasted.
  • TVF
    36526 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    nabokovfan wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    From what they are saying the chart for method 2 looks correct.

    Everything about the divisions stays the same, just the entry GP changes. Pre-change teams needed doesnt change due to this change.

    This doesn't make any sense from the words in their post.
    To address the diverse range of GPs at the highest levels of GAC, we will be redistributing the number of players in GAC divisions to closely reflect the ratio of players that were originally in those divisions at the time of GAC’s launch. After the first and second divisions, players will be evenly divided among divisions 3 through 11.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    So anyone in division 1 and 2 should be requiring "more squads" and "ships will remain unchanged"

    This is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I'm saying, we need something official from them that says what is required in each division after the change. Not just fleet, characters as well. There's two very different interpretations and it changes how I plan for all of this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    This is exactly what I am saying. The top 4 divisions require more character squads, and nothing is changing about ships (2 placements in div 1 and 2, and no increase in number needed).

    Kyno please be clear:
    - 2 ship placements for people in “current” div1&2, irrespective of which “new” division they will be in
    - 2 ship placements for people in “new” div1&2 only

    Which is it?

    Because if it’s the second option, you cannot say “nothing is changing about ships”.

    It was 2 placements in div 1 and 2. It is still going to be 2 placements in div 1 and 2. Nothing about how ships were placed is changing.
    This is a disappointing response.

    “Nothing is changing about ships” has now become “nothing about how ships were placed is changing”.

    But it is changing Kyno. Some people who used to set 2 fleets, including some who have done that from the very first GAC where 2 fleet spots became a thing, will now be setting 1 fleet. This will be many thousands of players. Players who will have geared and levelled up capital ships and pilots exclusively for GAC that will now sit idle until the player reaches 6.8M GP.

    We can dance around semantics all you like, but I don’t see how you can defend this by stating “nothing is changing”. This is clearly an oversight and I just hope the devs have the bravery to admit they got this wrong and change it, rather than cower behind a wording technicality.

    I am not defending anything. I am stating what was stated.

    You're hiding behind technicalities. Everyone knows that "nothing about how ships were placed is changing" is irrelevant, all that matters is if people that used to be placing two fleets are now placing one. Which has been confirmed to be true. So sure, by one interpretation what you said is correct, but that interpretation has no bearing on the situation. We both know you are better than this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    - the top 4 divisions place more teams that they did previously
    - each division places the same number of fleets they did previously

    That is exactly what it says and that is exactly what I said. There is no interpretation needed, it's just the changes to rhe system in place.

    This post is outlining the system.

    Where a player falls into the new system and how they feel about that is welcome feedback, but doesnt need to be directed at me, as that was not what I am talking about. I was clarifying the question asked about what was said.

    None of this has anything to do with the core issue, we both know it, and since you just keep doubling down, I'm moving on.

    Picking my post up when I am discussing this point with another poster and trying to make it about the core issue, is not something I can stop people from doing.

    Putting aside whether or not that actually happened, addressing the part that people actually care about is something you *can* do, and would prevent these long back-and-forths from ever happening.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Maybe CG needs a beta server, filled with meticulous readers, for their announcements. :P

    It seems to me that certain folks ending up needing fewer squads/fleets than before was an oversight--whether in planned design changes or communication, I don't know--but it didn't take long for the forum users to catch it. Seems like they could prevent a lot of forehead wrinkles with some better proof reading.

    All that said, I'm glad they posted this so long before the proposed changes would take effect and that they are reportedly heeding feedback. Bumpy announcement, but this could end up being a positive change all around when all is said and done. 6 months ago, I would have zero faith in such a positive outcome. But their changes to cPit have given me hope :D
  • One explanation to why they don’t just add more divisions to the existing ones instead of doing this overly complicated recalibrating is simply that they don’t have the player base to support more divisions :(
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    nabokovfan wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    From what they are saying the chart for method 2 looks correct.

    Everything about the divisions stays the same, just the entry GP changes. Pre-change teams needed doesnt change due to this change.

    This doesn't make any sense from the words in their post.
    To address the diverse range of GPs at the highest levels of GAC, we will be redistributing the number of players in GAC divisions to closely reflect the ratio of players that were originally in those divisions at the time of GAC’s launch. After the first and second divisions, players will be evenly divided among divisions 3 through 11.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    So anyone in division 1 and 2 should be requiring "more squads" and "ships will remain unchanged"

    This is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I'm saying, we need something official from them that says what is required in each division after the change. Not just fleet, characters as well. There's two very different interpretations and it changes how I plan for all of this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    This is exactly what I am saying. The top 4 divisions require more character squads, and nothing is changing about ships (2 placements in div 1 and 2, and no increase in number needed).

    Kyno please be clear:
    - 2 ship placements for people in “current” div1&2, irrespective of which “new” division they will be in
    - 2 ship placements for people in “new” div1&2 only

    Which is it?

    Because if it’s the second option, you cannot say “nothing is changing about ships”.

    It was 2 placements in div 1 and 2. It is still going to be 2 placements in div 1 and 2. Nothing about how ships were placed is changing.
    This is a disappointing response.

    “Nothing is changing about ships” has now become “nothing about how ships were placed is changing”.

    But it is changing Kyno. Some people who used to set 2 fleets, including some who have done that from the very first GAC where 2 fleet spots became a thing, will now be setting 1 fleet. This will be many thousands of players. Players who will have geared and levelled up capital ships and pilots exclusively for GAC that will now sit idle until the player reaches 6.8M GP.

    We can dance around semantics all you like, but I don’t see how you can defend this by stating “nothing is changing”. This is clearly an oversight and I just hope the devs have the bravery to admit they got this wrong and change it, rather than cower behind a wording technicality.

    I am not defending anything. I am stating what was stated.

    You're hiding behind technicalities. Everyone knows that "nothing about how ships were placed is changing" is irrelevant, all that matters is if people that used to be placing two fleets are now placing one. Which has been confirmed to be true. So sure, by one interpretation what you said is correct, but that interpretation has no bearing on the situation. We both know you are better than this.
    The top divisions will require more character squads (ships will remain unchanged) to address the growth and expansion rosters have undergone since the original launch of GAC.

    - the top 4 divisions place more teams that they did previously
    - each division places the same number of fleets they did previously

    That is exactly what it says and that is exactly what I said. There is no interpretation needed, it's just the changes to rhe system in place.

    This post is outlining the system.

    Where a player falls into the new system and how they feel about that is welcome feedback, but doesnt need to be directed at me, as that was not what I am talking about. I was clarifying the question asked about what was said.

    None of this has anything to do with the core issue, we both know it, and since you just keep doubling down, I'm moving on.

    Picking my post up when I am discussing this point with another poster and trying to make it about the core issue, is not something I can stop people from doing.

    Putting aside whether or not that actually happened, addressing the part that people actually care about is something you *can* do, and would prevent these long back-and-forths from ever happening.

    My comments were to someone asking a question about the post and what it meant. Sorry I didnt also add into that post about a different topic being discussed by others.

    I was just clarifying the posts in the most direct way. People going out of their way to spin that into a different topic is not something i *can* prevent.
  • Ztoe13
    14 posts Member
    If you watch the swgoh youtuber, AP GAINS latest video on the update you can see that it ruined GAC for the newer players
Sign In or Register to comment.