In my view, they are making the change too complicated. It should just keep existing divisions, and add new divisions in the top, call it division 0, or division A, B or whatever naming convention, and scaling up the rewards. They can even add divisions that no one is qualified to be in now and this incentivized whales to rush to the higher divisions for bragging rights. All existing lower divisions from 2 and below remain exactly the same, only division 1 get split.
This way, no one in any divisions gets downgraded in squad number or rewards.
In my view, they are making the change too complicated. It should just keep existing divisions, and add new divisions in the top, call it division 0, or division A, B or whatever naming convention, and scaling up the rewards. They can even add divisions that no one is qualified to be in now and this incentivized whales to rush to the higher divisions for bragging rights. All existing lower divisions from 2 and below remain exactly the same, only division 1 get split.
This way, no one in any divisions gets downgraded in squad number or rewards.
From the outside that may seem less complicated, but from a background perspective, you are adding a lot more elements to the existing system.
That also doesnt solve anything, because no one would be moved out of the current divisions right now which is the point of doing the change.
If they really are still thinking about this can I suggest considering promoted divisions past the current division 1 with a bit of jeopardy? So for example everyone who gets Kyber in d1 gets promoted to a new tier. Get Kyber again, promoted again and so on (until the top tier is <32 players which would automatically cap it). Finish the season on aurodium and you stay in your promoted division. Anything less and you get demoted (down no further than old d1). Rewards get exponentially better as you go up each tier. This would add real incentive and discourage lazy auto deploying for mediocre rewards. It would also mean clever tacticians getting a chance to shoot for top tier rewards, even if they don’t have the fattest rosters.
If they really are still thinking about this can I suggest considering promoted divisions past the current division 1 with a bit of jeopardy? So for example everyone who gets Kyber in d1 gets promoted to a new tier. Get Kyber again, promoted again and so on (until the top tier is <32 players which would automatically cap it). Finish the season on aurodium and you stay in your promoted division. Anything less and you get demoted (down no further than old d1). Rewards get exponentially better as you go up each tier. This would add real incentive and discourage lazy auto deploying for mediocre rewards. It would also mean clever tacticians getting a chance to shoot for top tier rewards, even if they don’t have the fattest rosters.
Unfortunately there are no plans to "overhaul" the system like this.
The problem is the drop in squads
Divisions 7 through 9
Most of the players who will end up in these divisions will be dropping 2 squads from both O and D (4 squads total) from what they have been playing.
There is a lot of anger in the mid range GP players regarding this change. For most of them, this is their favourite mode. And now they should really stop developing new characters, as there is no point.
If anyone else feels the same, please chime in. Not a single mid range GP player likes this change.
@RiockTheGreat. they have not made the change, and have take the player feedback to discuss this further.
Generally speaking the goal seems to be to make the transition more even and have all players placing either the same or more squads as they do now, but we will have to wait and see how the new layout works out.
Again, the placement of SQAUDS would be welcomed. The placement 4 fleets at 4m GP is to be blunt, stupid. I have Malevolence and a decent Rebel squad. So basically I throw 2 crap fleets on D and hope my opponent doesn't have 2 GET 2 fleets. Seems logical no? Throw literal trash out just to place them. What is the actual point? There is 0 fun in placing things you know cannot or will not hold on D just to throw things out there. I understand their logic with this.
Again, like I have said 10 times before. Leave 4 fleets for Div 1-4 who can actually spare the GP for them. Let lower GP focus on teams to actually help their guilds in raids, TB, TW. How well does my 200k Empire fleet hold in GAC or TW? It doesn't if I want any semblance of competing in Fleet Arena.
2 fleets (4 total) is currently down at 3M. We will have to see where that line falls, but its not likely to go to a higher GP, it will likely stay at the same level.
It starts at 3.8m which is the bottom end of division 2 and which was absolutely fine for fielding 4 fleets.
You can field 4 fleets at 3.8m, you just cannot field 4 decent fleets. You will have 2 decent ones at that point. The one who used to use and the GET2 ship you got. The rest will be scraps. That is unless you totally neglect your roster in which you will lose your GAC anyways. How is that even remotely fun? Don't tell me that you know people with 4 solid fleets and a solid roster at 3.8m GP because I will call no way on that. I am at 3.75, I have every meta character outside a GL and Malevolence. I can put 2 fleets down that are worth anything because I chose to focus on my roster which will overall help me more than the worst part of this game. Fleets. Not to mention, helps my guild in TB and TW more than having 2 crappy scrap fleets.
The problem is the drop in squads
Divisions 7 through 9
Most of the players who will end up in these divisions will be dropping 2 squads from both O and D (4 squads total) from what they have been playing.
There is a lot of anger in the mid range GP players regarding this change. For most of them, this is their favourite mode. And now they should really stop developing new characters, as there is no point.
If anyone else feels the same, please chime in. Not a single mid range GP player likes this change.
@RiockTheGreat. they have not made the change, and have take the player feedback to discuss this further.
Generally speaking the goal seems to be to make the transition more even and have all players placing either the same or more squads as they do now, but we will have to wait and see how the new layout works out.
Again, the placement of SQAUDS would be welcomed. The placement 4 fleets at 4m GP is to be blunt, stupid. I have Malevolence and a decent Rebel squad. So basically I throw 2 crap fleets on D and hope my opponent doesn't have 2 GET 2 fleets. Seems logical no? Throw literal trash out just to place them. What is the actual point? There is 0 fun in placing things you know cannot or will not hold on D just to throw things out there. I understand their logic with this.
Again, like I have said 10 times before. Leave 4 fleets for Div 1-4 who can actually spare the GP for them. Let lower GP focus on teams to actually help their guilds in raids, TB, TW. How well does my 200k Empire fleet hold in GAC or TW? It doesn't if I want any semblance of competing in Fleet Arena.
2 fleets (4 total) is currently down at 3M. We will have to see where that line falls, but its not likely to go to a higher GP, it will likely stay at the same level.
It starts at 3.8m which is the bottom end of division 2 and which was absolutely fine for fielding 4 fleets.
You can field 4 fleets at 3.8m, you just cannot field 4 decent fleets. You will have 2 decent ones at that point. The one who used to use and the GET2 ship you got. The rest will be scraps. That is unless you totally neglect your roster in which you will lose your GAC anyways. How is that even remotely fun? Don't tell me that you know people with 4 solid fleets and a solid roster at 3.8m GP because I will call no way on that. I am at 3.75, I have every meta character outside a GL and Malevolence. I can put 2 fleets down that are worth anything because I chose to focus on my roster which will overall help me more than the worst part of this game. Fleets. Not to mention, helps my guild in TB and TW more than having 2 crappy scrap fleets.
I am at 3.1m and have 2 GET fleets. But your point about only having two fleets is valid, for me the "one I used to use" (geos) is partially absorbed by Mal so it's just scrubs beyond my Mal and Neg.
CG - Please do not reduce the number of teams required in GAC for players moving into the new lower divisions. My GP puts me in division 5 currently, and I've allocated resources into developing 10 total teams to be competitive. Reducing the required number of character teams down to 6 in the new division 8 is quite disappointing. I find GAC to be the most enjoyable content in your game, and the new changes would reduce the time I spend with your game. Not to mention the double whammy of wasted GP bloat from developing more teams than necessary AND not strengthening the maximum 6 character teams for the new GAC division 8.
Please consider increasing the number of character teams required for the new GAC divisions 7-9. Thanks.
The problem is the drop in squads
Divisions 7 through 9
Most of the players who will end up in these divisions will be dropping 2 squads from both O and D (4 squads total) from what they have been playing.
There is a lot of anger in the mid range GP players regarding this change. For most of them, this is their favourite mode. And now they should really stop developing new characters, as there is no point.
If anyone else feels the same, please chime in. Not a single mid range GP player likes this change.
@RiockTheGreat. they have not made the change, and have take the player feedback to discuss this further.
Generally speaking the goal seems to be to make the transition more even and have all players placing either the same or more squads as they do now, but we will have to wait and see how the new layout works out.
Again, the placement of SQAUDS would be welcomed. The placement 4 fleets at 4m GP is to be blunt, stupid. I have Malevolence and a decent Rebel squad. So basically I throw 2 crap fleets on D and hope my opponent doesn't have 2 GET 2 fleets. Seems logical no? Throw literal trash out just to place them. What is the actual point? There is 0 fun in placing things you know cannot or will not hold on D just to throw things out there. I understand their logic with this.
Again, like I have said 10 times before. Leave 4 fleets for Div 1-4 who can actually spare the GP for them. Let lower GP focus on teams to actually help their guilds in raids, TB, TW. How well does my 200k Empire fleet hold in GAC or TW? It doesn't if I want any semblance of competing in Fleet Arena.
2 fleets (4 total) is currently down at 3M. We will have to see where that line falls, but its not likely to go to a higher GP, it will likely stay at the same level.
It starts at 3.8m which is the bottom end of division 2 and which was absolutely fine for fielding 4 fleets.
You can field 4 fleets at 3.8m, you just cannot field 4 decent fleets. You will have 2 decent ones at that point. The one who used to use and the GET2 ship you got. The rest will be scraps. That is unless you totally neglect your roster in which you will lose your GAC anyways. How is that even remotely fun? Don't tell me that you know people with 4 solid fleets and a solid roster at 3.8m GP because I will call no way on that. I am at 3.75, I have every meta character outside a GL and Malevolence. I can put 2 fleets down that are worth anything because I chose to focus on my roster which will overall help me more than the worst part of this game. Fleets. Not to mention, helps my guild in TB and TW more than having 2 crappy scrap fleets.
The requirement for 4 fleets at 3.8m GP is not new. If you chose to ignore it then that is your problem.
But even if you did neglect your fleet development you still have the possibility of using your stronger squad roster to block your opponent's access to your fleet zone. It's called strategy.
In my view, they are making the change too complicated. It should just keep existing divisions, and add new divisions in the top....
Yeah, if they reversed the numbering (make 1 the lowest division) then they could just keep adding more as the game grew. Would seem the cleaner option, surely a number change is simple code change.
Then additional divisions for the whale end don't impact any below.
Unfortunately no one out side of people who code and have seen thier code can say this or really have any understanding of how "simple" something is.
I'm no coder, but if that's too much of a challenge, sounds like their major overhaul to enable new content much more easily hasn't worked out so well?
In any case, could just leave as is then, and create new ones as A, B, C ... ?
Really doesn't matter the number/name, just the approach.
Hopefully they get something out with some good planning, and take on board the pages of feedback anwyay, and give an update with a bit more clarity. Fingers crossed.
Unfortunately no one out side of people who code and have seen thier code can say this or really have any understanding of how "simple" something is.
I'm no coder, but if that's too much of a challenge, sounds like their major overhaul to enable new content much more easily hasn't worked out so well?
In any case, could just leave as is then, and create new ones as A, B, C ... ?
Really doesn't matter the number/name, just the approach.
Hopefully they get something out with some good planning, and take on board the pages of feedback anwyay, and give an update with a bit more clarity. Fingers crossed.
GAC was created before the update, the update was to make that true for new content using the "new tools", which is what they said.
Again, they are keeping it the same, I'm not sure how anything can be "easier than that", and just adjusting the value of each bin.
In my view, they are making the change too complicated. It should just keep existing divisions, and add new divisions in the top....
...surely a number change is simple code change.
....
Unfortunately no one out side of people who code and have seen thier code can say this or really have any understanding of how "simple" something is.
Also:
I am decent software engineer. I have to say that if their coding can’t accommodate what I suggested easily with some simple config on static data, I would look down on their developers. I think their developers are pretty good, so chance is that it should have been easy.
Also I want to be more specific. In my proposal, no one other than division 1 will be moved to a new division by the change. Division 1 will be split into division 1 and division 0. After change, player can promote their division by growing their account, and new divisions can be added as top division grow, or can be added before anyone qualify to be there.
In my view, they are making the change too complicated. It should just keep existing divisions, and add new divisions in the top....
...surely a number change is simple code change.
....
Unfortunately no one out side of people who code and have seen thier code can say this or really have any understanding of how "simple" something is.
Also:
I am decent software engineer. I have to say that if their coding can’t accommodate what I suggested easily with some simple config on static data, I would look down on their developers. I think their developers are pretty good, so chance is that it should have been easy.
Also I want to be more specific. In my proposal, no one other than division 1 will be moved to a new division by the change. Division 1 will be split into division 1 and division 0. After change, player can promote their division by growing their account, and new divisions can be added as top division grow, or can be added before anyone qualify to be there.
1) Adding even one new division to the top requires repurposing 0 from an invalid value to a valid one, invalidating boundary checks throughout the client and server code bases
2) Adding more than one division to the top requires going negative which opens up a whole host of additional issues, especially if they are using an unsigned integer for the division number
3) Only splitting division one is a half-baked solution which ignores the issue of population distribution across all the divisions both today and in the future
4) Simply adding more divisions likewise ignores the issue of population distribution across the divisions
Which is most likely why they opted to refactor the current division structure rather than trying to add new ones. But of course a decent software engineer would have thought of that.
There’s a lot more people than that, but most still participate. Those who participate definitely see auto-deploys and know the members of the guild who sit at the bottom of the GAC leaderboards.
There’s a lot more people than that, but most still participate. Those who participate definitely see auto-deploys and know the members of the guild who sit at the bottom of the GAC leaderboards.
Common complaint is "me and others in my guild have noticed x."
There’s a lot more people than that, but most still participate. Those who participate definitely see auto-deploys and know the members of the guild who sit at the bottom of the GAC leaderboards.
Common complaint is "me and others in my guild have noticed x."
But yes, the number is more than three, got me.
My complete guess is that GAC lack of participation/enjoyment is around 6-10% of the player base. This could be seen as 3-5 people per guild. Not insignificant and not a majority. Some guilds have better and some have worse so this could be skewed.
GAC does take a lot of time for minimal rewards imo. I don’t enjoy it (and haven’t for quite some time; more Conquest please, new raid please), but I still participate because some rewards are better than none. That’s it.
We will see if the new changes requiring more time (for higher divisions) for the same rewards will drive player engagement more or less soon enough.
In my view, they are making the change too complicated. It should just keep existing divisions, and add new divisions in the top....
...surely a number change is simple code change.
....
Unfortunately no one out side of people who code and have seen thier code can say this or really have any understanding of how "simple" something is.
Also:
I am decent software engineer. I have to say that if their coding can’t accommodate what I suggested easily with some simple config on static data, I would look down on their developers. I think their developers are pretty good, so chance is that it should have been easy.
Also I want to be more specific. In my proposal, no one other than division 1 will be moved to a new division by the change. Division 1 will be split into division 1 and division 0. After change, player can promote their division by growing their account, and new divisions can be added as top division grow, or can be added before anyone qualify to be there.
1) Adding even one new division to the top requires repurposing 0 from an invalid value to a valid one, invalidating boundary checks throughout the client and server code bases
2) Adding more than one division to the top requires going negative which opens up a whole host of additional issues, especially if they are using an unsigned integer for the division number
3) Only splitting division one is a half-baked solution which ignores the issue of population distribution across all the divisions both today and in the future
4) Simply adding more divisions likewise ignores the issue of population distribution across the divisions
Which is most likely why they opted to refactor the current division structure rather than trying to add new ones. But of course a decent software engineer would have thought of that.
Re: 1 and 2
First of all, the division name/number we see need not be the same as its index value or key in whatever table/array they use to identify the revisions. For example, they could have a table with N records for N divisions. Then, each record could have a "DivisionName" field that is used to display the division name in the game. For example, division "1" could have an ID/key of "sfhaldsfasdfp8o234iuj" in their Divisions table.
Second, not a software engineer, data analyst, but if they are using the table index/key as the name of the division displayed, that is a big best practices no-no. The key used to identify the division in the division table should not contain any information about the record itself. If the table key contains information and you want to change some of that information on that record, either the key has to change or no longer be associated with the data in that record.
So, if they have coded their game or structured their data in a way that adding new divisions is prohibitively difficult, then they either took some shortcuts at the outset or didn't follow norms and best practices.
To clarify, I am not stating that this is the case. For all we know, they think the number of divisions is appropriate and felt that changing the GP thresholds made more sense than creating more divisions. I would wager that they just don't want to increase the number of divisions (11 is a lot), and they didn't consider the full impact of their initially proposed change. Luckily they told us what they had in mind months before release, and they have been provided with said unthought of impact and can make the necessary adjustments.
After cPit changes, I am uncharacteristically optimistic that CG has received the forum's criticisms and will have a better rollout plan than what was originally announced.
3) Only splitting division one is a half-baked solution which ignores the issue of population distribution across all the divisions both today and in the future
4) Simply adding more divisions likewise ignores the issue of population distribution across the divisions
Which is most likely why they opted to refactor the current division structure rather than trying to add new ones.
This is most certainly correct.
It's a lot more likely they didn't want to maintain divisions that could potentially shrink down to 1000 players. Keeping the number of divisions fixed allows them to reshuffle in the future to keep things even, long after the player base stops growing.
It also keeps the amount of scrip they give out relatively even. More divisions means more people getting top rewards.
If adding divisions would not be too hard to code, and it probably isn't, "it was too hard to do" is probably not the primary reason they didn't do it.
33.9% join and autoset defense in 5v5 GAC. 37% in 3v3. According to Doja in Operation Metaverse Q&A.
Ooh, love stats! Very interesting to see. Does show less like 3v3, so from that perspective looks about right!
Are there stats on how many attack too? Some may set a defence but not bother attacking too.
I have seen a number (mostly on my opponent GAC history, not my matches) where they don't attack.
Be great to see these stats before and after the proposed changes, and if they encourage more to actively participate.
In my view, they are making the change too complicated. It should just keep existing divisions, and add new divisions in the top....
...surely a number change is simple code change.
....
Unfortunately no one out side of people who code and have seen thier code can say this or really have any understanding of how "simple" something is.
Also:
I am decent software engineer. I have to say that if their coding can’t accommodate what I suggested easily with some simple config on static data, I would look down on their developers. I think their developers are pretty good, so chance is that it should have been easy.
Also I want to be more specific. In my proposal, no one other than division 1 will be moved to a new division by the change. Division 1 will be split into division 1 and division 0. After change, player can promote their division by growing their account, and new divisions can be added as top division grow, or can be added before anyone qualify to be there.
1) Adding even one new division to the top requires repurposing 0 from an invalid value to a valid one, invalidating boundary checks throughout the client and server code bases
2) Adding more than one division to the top requires going negative which opens up a whole host of additional issues, especially if they are using an unsigned integer for the division number
3) Only splitting division one is a half-baked solution which ignores the issue of population distribution across all the divisions both today and in the future
4) Simply adding more divisions likewise ignores the issue of population distribution across the divisions
Which is most likely why they opted to refactor the current division structure rather than trying to add new ones. But of course a decent software engineer would have thought of that.
Re: 1 and 2
First of all, the division name/number we see need not be the same as its index value or key in whatever table/array they use to identify the revisions. For example, they could have a table with N records for N divisions. Then, each record could have a "DivisionName" field that is used to display the division name in the game. For example, division "1" could have an ID/key of "sfhaldsfasdfp8o234iuj" in their Divisions table.
Second, not a software engineer, data analyst, ...
I can tell. You are way outside of your domain and trying to misapply its principles.
I would say I'm moderately outside my lane. I would like to hear your defense for why adding a division would be a technical challenge that doesn't involve something being poorly set up from the start.
And to restate, I don't think it would be hard for them to do. I think they just don't see adding divisions to be prudent, which I would agree with.
Your arguments claimed that 0 and negative integers were invalid values. Support for that?
You also seem to think they would need to add 0 or negative integers somewhere. Support for that?
I would say I'm moderately outside my lane. I would like to hear your defense for why adding a division would be a technical challenge that doesn't involve something being poorly set up from the start.
And to restate, I don't think it would be hard for them to do. I think they just don't see adding divisions to be prudent, which I would agree with.
Your arguments claimed that 0 and negative integers were invalid values. Support for that?
You also seem to think they would need to add 0 or negative integers somewhere. Support for that?
I think you are more in the lane than him:) while there could be other valid concerns for CG to do what they plan to do, for example, maintain similar population size in each divisions etc, technical difficulty shouldn’t be one of them unless their developers are terrible software engineers.
Replies
This way, no one in any divisions gets downgraded in squad number or rewards.
From the outside that may seem less complicated, but from a background perspective, you are adding a lot more elements to the existing system.
That also doesnt solve anything, because no one would be moved out of the current divisions right now which is the point of doing the change.
Unfortunately there are no plans to "overhaul" the system like this.
You can field 4 fleets at 3.8m, you just cannot field 4 decent fleets. You will have 2 decent ones at that point. The one who used to use and the GET2 ship you got. The rest will be scraps. That is unless you totally neglect your roster in which you will lose your GAC anyways. How is that even remotely fun? Don't tell me that you know people with 4 solid fleets and a solid roster at 3.8m GP because I will call no way on that. I am at 3.75, I have every meta character outside a GL and Malevolence. I can put 2 fleets down that are worth anything because I chose to focus on my roster which will overall help me more than the worst part of this game. Fleets. Not to mention, helps my guild in TB and TW more than having 2 crappy scrap fleets.
I am at 3.1m and have 2 GET fleets. But your point about only having two fleets is valid, for me the "one I used to use" (geos) is partially absorbed by Mal so it's just scrubs beyond my Mal and Neg.
Please consider increasing the number of character teams required for the new GAC divisions 7-9. Thanks.
But even if you did neglect your fleet development you still have the possibility of using your stronger squad roster to block your opponent's access to your fleet zone. It's called strategy.
Then additional divisions for the whale end don't impact any below.
Unfortunately no one out side of people who code and have seen thier code can say this or really have any understanding of how "simple" something is.
Also:
In any case, could just leave as is then, and create new ones as A, B, C ... ?
Really doesn't matter the number/name, just the approach.
Hopefully they get something out with some good planning, and take on board the pages of feedback anwyay, and give an update with a bit more clarity. Fingers crossed.
GAC was created before the update, the update was to make that true for new content using the "new tools", which is what they said.
Again, they are keeping it the same, I'm not sure how anything can be "easier than that", and just adjusting the value of each bin.
I am decent software engineer. I have to say that if their coding can’t accommodate what I suggested easily with some simple config on static data, I would look down on their developers. I think their developers are pretty good, so chance is that it should have been easy.
Also I want to be more specific. In my proposal, no one other than division 1 will be moved to a new division by the change. Division 1 will be split into division 1 and division 0. After change, player can promote their division by growing their account, and new divisions can be added as top division grow, or can be added before anyone qualify to be there.
2) Adding more than one division to the top requires going negative which opens up a whole host of additional issues, especially if they are using an unsigned integer for the division number
3) Only splitting division one is a half-baked solution which ignores the issue of population distribution across all the divisions both today and in the future
4) Simply adding more divisions likewise ignores the issue of population distribution across the divisions
Which is most likely why they opted to refactor the current division structure rather than trying to add new ones. But of course a decent software engineer would have thought of that.
The time it takes for the rewards aren't worth it. People don't even bother anymore
You have info on participation rates? I'm all ears.
Common complaint is "me and others in my guild have noticed x."
But yes, the number is more than three, got me.
My complete guess is that GAC lack of participation/enjoyment is around 6-10% of the player base. This could be seen as 3-5 people per guild. Not insignificant and not a majority. Some guilds have better and some have worse so this could be skewed.
GAC does take a lot of time for minimal rewards imo. I don’t enjoy it (and haven’t for quite some time; more Conquest please, new raid please), but I still participate because some rewards are better than none. That’s it.
We will see if the new changes requiring more time (for higher divisions) for the same rewards will drive player engagement more or less soon enough.
Re: 1 and 2
First of all, the division name/number we see need not be the same as its index value or key in whatever table/array they use to identify the revisions. For example, they could have a table with N records for N divisions. Then, each record could have a "DivisionName" field that is used to display the division name in the game. For example, division "1" could have an ID/key of "sfhaldsfasdfp8o234iuj" in their Divisions table.
Second, not a software engineer, data analyst, but if they are using the table index/key as the name of the division displayed, that is a big best practices no-no. The key used to identify the division in the division table should not contain any information about the record itself. If the table key contains information and you want to change some of that information on that record, either the key has to change or no longer be associated with the data in that record.
So, if they have coded their game or structured their data in a way that adding new divisions is prohibitively difficult, then they either took some shortcuts at the outset or didn't follow norms and best practices.
To clarify, I am not stating that this is the case. For all we know, they think the number of divisions is appropriate and felt that changing the GP thresholds made more sense than creating more divisions. I would wager that they just don't want to increase the number of divisions (11 is a lot), and they didn't consider the full impact of their initially proposed change. Luckily they told us what they had in mind months before release, and they have been provided with said unthought of impact and can make the necessary adjustments.
After cPit changes, I am uncharacteristically optimistic that CG has received the forum's criticisms and will have a better rollout plan than what was originally announced.
This is most certainly correct.
It's a lot more likely they didn't want to maintain divisions that could potentially shrink down to 1000 players. Keeping the number of divisions fixed allows them to reshuffle in the future to keep things even, long after the player base stops growing.
It also keeps the amount of scrip they give out relatively even. More divisions means more people getting top rewards.
If adding divisions would not be too hard to code, and it probably isn't, "it was too hard to do" is probably not the primary reason they didn't do it.
33.9% join and autoset defense in 5v5 GAC. 37% in 3v3. According to Doja in Operation Metaverse Q&A.
Link?
That feels high.
Ooh, love stats! Very interesting to see. Does show less like 3v3, so from that perspective looks about right!
Are there stats on how many attack too? Some may set a defence but not bother attacking too.
I have seen a number (mostly on my opponent GAC history, not my matches) where they don't attack.
Be great to see these stats before and after the proposed changes, and if they encourage more to actively participate.
And to restate, I don't think it would be hard for them to do. I think they just don't see adding divisions to be prudent, which I would agree with.
Your arguments claimed that 0 and negative integers were invalid values. Support for that?
You also seem to think they would need to add 0 or negative integers somewhere. Support for that?
I think you are more in the lane than him:) while there could be other valid concerns for CG to do what they plan to do, for example, maintain similar population size in each divisions etc, technical difficulty shouldn’t be one of them unless their developers are terrible software engineers.