[MEGA] Upcoming Grand Arena Championship Division Changes

Replies

  • Kyno
    29146 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think everyone is in agreement about everyone who had to place 2 fleets should still have to.

    It's just that we have no other reason for having all these ships. Take them out of the game if we're not expected to use them anymore.

    Agreed, and this is one of the ideas being expressed in the conversation.

    The length of time it would take some to get back to them can be quite long for Div 4 and 5.


    Do you know if they are also discussing the total amount of teams needed at lower divisions too? Going from needing 10 teams to 6, in some cases, feels awful.

    Yes, both squads and ships are being discussed.
  • Nikoms565
    13925 posts Member
    Legend91 wrote: »

    The solution we got instead, while it's not a bad thing and still better than nothing for us bigger GP players, doesn't look very well thought out.

    If I had 100 crystals for everytime I thought this in the past 5 years....
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • MaruMaru
    2146 posts Member
    Maybe it's the spring in me, but I think it's too early to go sour about the new template. They should %100 resolve the "no changes to the rewards" and they have enough time for it before the thing is live.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    Maybe it's the spring in me, but I think it's too early to go sour about the new template. They should %100 resolve the "no changes to the rewards" and they have enough time for it before the thing is live.

    We kind of have to get sour at first. Like with cPit, hopefully enough disgruntled peasants will lead CG to a positive resolution. I'm oddly optimistic that they'll come through before any changes are pushed.

    In the meantime, like with cPit, our lack of knowledge as to their original intentions and ongoing discussions will lead to further frustration in the interim.
  • MaruMaru
    2146 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Maybe it's the spring in me, but I think it's too early to go sour about the new template. They should %100 resolve the "no changes to the rewards" and they have enough time for it before the thing is live.

    We kind of have to get sour at first. Like with cPit, hopefully enough disgruntled peasants will lead CG to a positive resolution. I'm oddly optimistic that they'll come through before any changes are pushed.

    In the meantime, like with cPit, our lack of knowledge as to their original intentions and ongoing discussions will lead to further frustration in the interim.

    Sure, the problems with a new premise has to be vocalised and it seems to have gone through now. I don't mind this keeping on 100 more pages either. I just won't be the one doing that this time and feeling positive it'll happen on natural course of events anyways.
  • Konju
    794 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Maybe it's the spring in me, but I think it's too early to go sour about the new template. They should %100 resolve the "no changes to the rewards" and they have enough time for it before the thing is live.

    We kind of have to get sour at first. Like with cPit, hopefully enough disgruntled peasants will lead CG to a positive resolution. I'm oddly optimistic that they'll come through before any changes are pushed.

    In the meantime, like with cPit, our lack of knowledge as to their original intentions and ongoing discussions will lead to further frustration in the interim.

    Sure, the problems with a new premise has to be vocalised and it seems to have gone through now. I don't mind this keeping on 100 more pages either. I just won't be the one doing that this time and feeling positive it'll happen on natural course of events anyways.

    I feel the same. All sentiments I feel about fleet placements and promotion rewards have been stated and acknowledged. Keeping an open mind that these will be resolved before the update hits without constant posts from me.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think everyone is in agreement about everyone who had to place 2 fleets should still have to.

    It's just that we have no other reason for having all these ships. Take them out of the game if we're not expected to use them anymore.

    Agreed, and this is one of the ideas being expressed in the conversation.

    The length of time it would take some to get back to them can be quite long for Div 4 and 5.


    Do you know if they are also discussing the total amount of teams needed at lower divisions too? Going from needing 10 teams to 6, in some cases, feels awful.

    Yes, both squads and ships are being discussed.

    I agree on the squads should be fixed, but I still think that changing ships to only include higher divisions is a better option. Not just Div 1 and Div 2. Maybe add Div 3 -Div 5. Lower divisions are so bloated by trying to build teams to really have decent ships. It currently is a toss up. Do you bloat with ships or do you bloat with squads. If you only place 1 ship, then you can go all in on your 1 fleet and still build squads. (this is only for say Div 6-Div 11)

  • Konju wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Maybe it's the spring in me, but I think it's too early to go sour about the new template. They should %100 resolve the "no changes to the rewards" and they have enough time for it before the thing is live.

    We kind of have to get sour at first. Like with cPit, hopefully enough disgruntled peasants will lead CG to a positive resolution. I'm oddly optimistic that they'll come through before any changes are pushed.

    In the meantime, like with cPit, our lack of knowledge as to their original intentions and ongoing discussions will lead to further frustration in the interim.

    Sure, the problems with a new premise has to be vocalised and it seems to have gone through now. I don't mind this keeping on 100 more pages either. I just won't be the one doing that this time and feeling positive it'll happen on natural course of events anyways.

    I feel the same. All sentiments I feel about fleet placements and promotion rewards have been stated and acknowledged. Keeping an open mind that these will be resolved before the update hits without constant posts from me.

    I’m with you guys on this as well.
    Extremely poor solution presented originally, but I have faith that the devs see the merit of our complaints and will readjust their design before implementation.

    And as opposed to cPit, I believe we will see implementation only after a better solution is reached, which hopefully means faster and with less work from the devs.
  • I saw the increases but am unsure about how the relationship between the old and new divisions works.

    Can we get a post with the updated number of squads and fleets for each division in 5v5 and 3v3?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think everyone is in agreement about everyone who had to place 2 fleets should still have to.

    It's just that we have no other reason for having all these ships. Take them out of the game if we're not expected to use them anymore.

    Agreed, and this is one of the ideas being expressed in the conversation.

    The length of time it would take some to get back to them can be quite long for Div 4 and 5.


    Do you know if they are also discussing the total amount of teams needed at lower divisions too? Going from needing 10 teams to 6, in some cases, feels awful.

    Yes, both squads and ships are being discussed.

    Awesome
  • So at 4.3 GP and being in Division 2, I now move to Division 6, is that right? That doesn't really matter as the competition is the same. But it is unclear as to am I setting "one more defense" than my old division two or the old division 6? Am I getting old division 6 rewards or old division 2 rewards?

    Sorry if this has already been answered
  • https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/243961/mega-upcoming-grand-arena-championship-division-changes#latest

    TLDR, rewards will be “approximately” the same, teams required still being looked at so TBD.
    DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
  • I’m currently in division 1 and will be moved to division 4 with the bracket change. I have 5.8 million GP and think the highest opponent I’ve had was around 6.5 million. Almost every opponent I’ve faced since the second fleet spot was introduced to GAC has had both malevolence and negotiator. These ships have been common in fleet arenas for 1.5 years now. This is a long time for most people in the current division 1 to get both ships. Why are we being reduced to 1 fleet spot again?

    It was nice when ships were added so that basically all capital ships, not called Endurance, had a purpose. It became better when we got the second fleet spot because it was tiring to always see negotiator (and sometimes malevolence) on defense.

    Please don’t make the ship territory irrelevant again. I really don’t want to see, and use, the same fleets every match in GAC.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think everyone is in agreement about everyone who had to place 2 fleets should still have to.

    It's just that we have no other reason for having all these ships. Take them out of the game if we're not expected to use them anymore.

    Agreed, and this is one of the ideas being expressed in the conversation.

    The length of time it would take some to get back to them can be quite long for Div 4 and 5.


    Do you know if they are also discussing the total amount of teams needed at lower divisions too? Going from needing 10 teams to 6, in some cases, feels awful.

    Yes, both squads and ships are being discussed.

    Thanks for all the communication on this. Here's hoping they come up with a satisfactory alternative solution!
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Players in the top divisions will be placing more squads and fighting more battles. More time and effort should merit more reward.

    While the GAC rewards have always been a little underwhelming and I'm sure no one is going to protest against more rewards for anything, the point of the game is to play the game and have fun and not just to get rewards for doing things. If someone's primary focus is just getting rewards and min/maxing their time spent vs. rewards, then they can just join and auto GAC or, if they decide it's worth their time, play for whatever rewards are available.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Players in the top divisions will be placing more squads and fighting more battles. More time and effort should merit more reward.

    While the GAC rewards have always been a little underwhelming and I'm sure no one is going to protest against more rewards for anything, the point of the game is to play the game and have fun and not just to get rewards for doing things. If someone's primary focus is just getting rewards and min/maxing their time spent vs. rewards, then they can just join and auto GAC or, if they decide it's worth their time, play for whatever rewards are available.

    Right, I play the game to play the game! That's why it stinks for the people who would be moving down multiple divisions and setting fewer squads/fleets.
  • MaruMaru
    2146 posts Member
    This is how many players qualift for div 1 rn now lol. I like it though, plenty room to grow.

    a0i8mtbuad3y.png
  • Gifafi
    5426 posts Member
    edited April 27
    Here are some key things to note regarding the changes:
    The rewards will remain unchanged.
    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 following will be added to both 3v3 and 5v5 versions of GAC:
    Div 1: Add 4 total squads
    Divs 2-4: Add 3 total squads
    Div 5: Add 2 total squads
    Div 6: Add 1 total squad

    so div 2 adds 3 "total" squads. But that means 3 D slots, so that also means 3 O squads. which is 6 total. Again, CG really needs to hire a high school student who can speak in english. I mean, wut

    why use the word "total" when it is not only confusing, but literally incorrect?
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • I’m dropping from division 5 to division 9. I am currently placing about 5 squads and I’m going to drop to 3. I’m losing content here CG? Seems to be targeted towards the higher players
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think everyone is in agreement about everyone who had to place 2 fleets should still have to.

    It's just that we have no other reason for having all these ships. Take them out of the game if we're not expected to use them anymore.

    Agreed, and this is one of the ideas being expressed in the conversation.

    The length of time it would take some to get back to them can be quite long for Div 4 and 5.


    Do you know if they are also discussing the total amount of teams needed at lower divisions too? Going from needing 10 teams to 6, in some cases, feels awful.

    Yes, both squads and ships are being discussed.

    is a change in the game board in the discussion at all?
  • No matter what route they go with for number of squads and fleets on D, there will be a group of people that hate it.
  • Kyno
    29146 posts Moderator
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think everyone is in agreement about everyone who had to place 2 fleets should still have to.

    It's just that we have no other reason for having all these ships. Take them out of the game if we're not expected to use them anymore.

    Agreed, and this is one of the ideas being expressed in the conversation.

    The length of time it would take some to get back to them can be quite long for Div 4 and 5.


    Do you know if they are also discussing the total amount of teams needed at lower divisions too? Going from needing 10 teams to 6, in some cases, feels awful.

    Yes, both squads and ships are being discussed.

    is a change in the game board in the discussion at all?

    Not that I am aware of.

    You mean more zones or a different layout, correct?
  • Did they change the teams already for this GA? I have 5 mil GP and i dont see any change in team numbers. Also, when i go against 6.1 mil GP player, shouldnt they be in a division where u have to put more teams out? Its still confusing for me. All me new oponents in this GA are freaking 6.1 mil GP in division 1
  • Kyno
    29146 posts Moderator
    marxuke123 wrote: »
    Did they change the teams already for this GA? I have 5 mil GP and i dont see any change in team numbers. Also, when i go against 6.1 mil GP player, shouldnt they be in a division where u have to put more teams out? Its still confusing for me. All me new oponents in this GA are freaking 6.1 mil GP in division 1

    @marxuke123 no, they didnt implement any changes yet, and are discussing changes to this plan.
  • LukeDukem8
    506 posts Member
    edited April 27
    Kyno wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think everyone is in agreement about everyone who had to place 2 fleets should still have to.

    It's just that we have no other reason for having all these ships. Take them out of the game if we're not expected to use them anymore.

    Agreed, and this is one of the ideas being expressed in the conversation.

    The length of time it would take some to get back to them can be quite long for Div 4 and 5.


    Do you know if they are also discussing the total amount of teams needed at lower divisions too? Going from needing 10 teams to 6, in some cases, feels awful.

    Yes, both squads and ships are being discussed.

    is a change in the game board in the discussion at all?

    Not that I am aware of.

    You mean more zones or a different layout, correct?

    Either/both would be nice. maybe a 321 setup. really anything different than what we have now.
  • Can someone explain me, why i got div4 (season ago i had 5), when im 2.5kk GP, i should have now like 7-8 div.
    What is going on?
  • Konju
    794 posts Member
    Koushe wrote: »
    Can someone explain me, why i got div4 (season ago i had 5), when im 2.5kk GP, i should have now like 7-8 div.
    What is going on?

    The update has not taken place yet. It won’t for another season.
  • So my 3.84m account sets the same as my 6.49m. Well done...not
  • CCyrilS
    5288 posts Member
    sndnichols wrote: »
    So my 3.84m account sets the same as my 6.49m. Well done...not

    As the last 17 posts state, there has been no change yet. Well done reading....not.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    However the “big brains” who have the final say are either willfully ignorant to what the player base is shouting right now, or just don’t care. I really love how I’m always ready to spend again, then the brain children making these decisions keep my wallet closed lol.

    How do you know they don't care what the player base is shouting about right now? We still don't know if they chose to ignore crumb / doja's updates or not

    The "big brains" won't make a public post if they decide to update ship squads, they'll just create a ticket internally and assign a developer to work on it, and inform Crumb / Doja to let the community know they are increasing squad placements in lower divisions, which all takes time and days or weeks to relay depending on when they want to announce it (before work is done on it or after a developer has done the changes)

    Because this isn’t some massive gear economy or shard economy shift that effects profits. It’s not some kind of mechanical change like CPit that needs testing and altering to find a balance between the best interest of profits/the game and what players want.

    It’s literally letting people who have been using 2 ship squads continue to do so. It’s adding a few pieces of gear for promotions for the new divisions. If they also cared, they’d also add some more currency in the end event and end of round rewards but I doubt it.

    I also know they don’t care because the only one that’s communicated with us has been Crumb and Doja. Where are the Q&As? Quality of life ol updates promised? Updates on gear economy changes? I don’t think for a second CG cares if it doesn’t involve profits

    Maybe, just maybe, there is internal discussion on whether they should reconfigure the announced divisions along player sentiment or if they should follow the player sentiment of adding more total divisions or if they should outline the announced plan (they might have some engagement data to justify this).

    Even though I’m very much for a change to the announced team placements, I can see why they might not be ready to announce anything, even if they have already decided to follow player sentiment and ensure everyone places the same or more squads+ships.

    Also, why would they increase gear rewards?
    I like gear as much as anyone, but I don’t understand why they should increase rewards for any existing divisions. Gear relief comes from new modes, tiers etc. not from bumping existing rewards.

    More teams, more time, more effort. All should be rewarded.

    You’re also missing my main point. Why is there even a discussion at all. Did the big brains at CG really think that players would be happy to set less teams and earn less promotion rewards after being demoted?

    The literally just had to create two new divisions and name them as such and structure those while keeping everything else the same. That is literally it. Keep the new thresholds by all means. But the new idea of taking away teams to set and attack with was not even remotely a good idea. Why was it ever an option? It boils down to their ignorance, lack of foresight or both.

    I imagine this derived out of like-bracketing groups of players by roster metrics. I doubt it was on a whim
Sign In or Register to comment.