[MEGA] State of the Gear-laxy

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    ShaggyB wrote: »
    Why are you dropping relic 9 before you make the phase 1 gear changes?

    Address the crunch then you can release new gear/relic gates.

    You jumped the shark again CG.

    R9 was delayed from August and is late as it is and was announced long before the gear changes

    Sure, but it still shows CGs true priority when they are more interested in a blatant cash grab than fixing the gear system that has been broken for years.

    There was no immediate need for r9, so there is no reason they couldn't wait until the gear changes were ready before releasing it together.

    It'll be interesting to see how long we have to wait for the alleged improvement for G12+. I'm guessing around Christmas?

    It wasn’t broken

    R9 has a need, we aren’t privy to future plans so we can’t comment whether there was an immediate need for it or not

    Yeah….their need is $$$. That’s it. That’s literally all there is to it. $150 for one R9 character….riiiigghhht.

    Don't agree with the r9 pricing myself, or the pack, but that's entirely different (price of r9) vs why r9 needs to be in game for the health of the game

    Yes R9 generates money, but I am talking about the importance of R9 to the health / progression of the game

    If R9 is so important to the overall health of the game then why did CG make it nearly impossible to get R9 unless you shell out $150 or belong to a top tiered guild? For my guild, it’ll take 20 TW victories to get one R9 character…..

    Because having a carrot and a reason to develop more and progress as a player and a guild is good for the health of the game.

    Also creating a more "intensive" competitive atmosphere is also a good thing for the health of the game, and part of a longer term plan that should be taking shape over the next few months involving individual game modes.

    Yes this game has a pace, it is different for each player.

    Yeah that might make sense if it was actually attainable for more than 1% of the entire player base. I don’t buy it and I doubt anyone besides apologists do either. It’s a cash grab and it’s as simple as that. R8 was already enough of a carrot. They brought R9 too fast.

    We don't need r9 for anything, so how is it brought out too early?

    If it's only a cash grab, how does it have a negative effect on players?

    What should CG do to defend against f2p veterans in high level guilds getting these precious rewards? And why do you think they are giving them away to the most likely spenders for free, if it's only to get money?

    Want to make a zeta bet that the next GL requires at least 1 R9 toon? At minimum
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    ShaggyB wrote: »
    Why are you dropping relic 9 before you make the phase 1 gear changes?

    Address the crunch then you can release new gear/relic gates.

    You jumped the shark again CG.

    R9 was delayed from August and is late as it is and was announced long before the gear changes

    Sure, but it still shows CGs true priority when they are more interested in a blatant cash grab than fixing the gear system that has been broken for years.

    There was no immediate need for r9, so there is no reason they couldn't wait until the gear changes were ready before releasing it together.

    It'll be interesting to see how long we have to wait for the alleged improvement for G12+. I'm guessing around Christmas?

    It wasn’t broken

    R9 has a need, we aren’t privy to future plans so we can’t comment whether there was an immediate need for it or not

    Yeah….their need is $$$. That’s it. That’s literally all there is to it. $150 for one R9 character….riiiigghhht.

    Don't agree with the r9 pricing myself, or the pack, but that's entirely different (price of r9) vs why r9 needs to be in game for the health of the game

    Yes R9 generates money, but I am talking about the importance of R9 to the health / progression of the game

    If R9 is so important to the overall health of the game then why did CG make it nearly impossible to get R9 unless you shell out $150 or belong to a top tiered guild? For my guild, it’ll take 20 TW victories to get one R9 character…..

    Because having a carrot and a reason to develop more and progress as a player and a guild is good for the health of the game.

    Also creating a more "intensive" competitive atmosphere is also a good thing for the health of the game, and part of a longer term plan that should be taking shape over the next few months involving individual game modes.

    Yes this game has a pace, it is different for each player.

    Yeah that might make sense if it was actually attainable for more than 1% of the entire player base. I don’t buy it and I doubt anyone besides apologists do either. It’s a cash grab and it’s as simple as that. R8 was already enough of a carrot. They brought R9 too fast.

    We don't need r9 for anything, so how is it brought out too early?

    If it's only a cash grab, how does it have a negative effect on players?

    What should CG do to defend against f2p veterans in high level guilds getting these precious rewards? And why do you think they are giving them away to the most likely spenders for free, if it's only to get money?

    Want to make a zeta bet that the next GL requires at least 1 R9 toon? At minimum

    No, because I believe r9 is on a "timeline" and not just a "next GL", so it could be, but not just because its the GL is next, but because it has been X amount of time.

    R8 was right around the natural time for players to have it ready when the first GL required it. I imagine r9 will be no different. Just need to get max rewards, and not spend it until that point. (Yes I know exactly how fun and rewarding that sounds)
  • Where's @TVF?

    So far it's just been the player base going "I feel like this sucks"

    To which Kyno replies"You're wrong because I can twist your words!"

    Meanwhile CG's assessing the impact of the changes as if they weren't clear beforehand.

    I need a more nuanced approach to make my popcorn worth popping.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    Where's TVF?

    So far it's just been the player base going "I feel like this sucks"

    To which Kyno replies"You're wrong because I can twist your words!"

    Meanwhile CG's assessing the impact of the changes as if they weren't clear beforehand.

    I need a more nuanced approach to make my popcorn worth popping.

    Who's words did I twist?

    And TVF is still waiting on his paycheck.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Where's TVF?

    So far it's just been the player base going "I feel like this sucks"

    To which Kyno replies"You're wrong because I can twist your words!"

    Meanwhile CG's assessing the impact of the changes as if they weren't clear beforehand.

    I need a more nuanced approach to make my popcorn worth popping.

    Who's words did I twist?

    And TVF is still waiting on his paycheck.

    Take your pick.
  • BobaFettish86
    129 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    And yes Kyno, compared to most mobile games this game is heavily tilted towards encouraging people to spend $$$ to progress. Do I think its a broken system? Heck yes, otherwise there would be more variety in the gear used to level up the characters. It's just a bottleneck designed to frustrate people into taking shortcuts. That is broken.

    Broken would require something to not be working, the game makes money and people are still trying to play it, so by no standard definition is this system broke.

    Also, from my understanding this game is more F2P friendly than others of it's type.

    Veteran players do very well also.

    Bottlenecks =/= broken, even having old bottlenecks =/= broken, and variety =/= player friendly.

    We all have things we want to be different, but these kinds of blanket statements are not helpful in any constructive way.

    Don't get me wrong, Kyno, I have no problem with grinding. I played WoW at a high level for years. But how can it be OK to increase the player ceiling before doing something about the floor? It could at least be done at the same time!

    This game has only become more F2P friendly since they added accelerated characters. There is nothing friendly about the gear system. They are finally doing something to make it less painful to collect mk5 stun guns etc, but my original point is that it shouldn't have been done in an effort to reduce the backlash to R9 release.

    I'm sorry you don't find that to be constructive criticism.

    But if you want some feedback, here you go: I'm not spending another $ on this game because CG only care about us when they find a huge portion of their playerbase ready to walk away from them.
  • Ultra
    8709 posts Moderator
    I mean, next GL will definitely require r9, it will be the incentive CG needs to push players to care about r9

    I don’t mind R9 - I wish earlier relic tiers (up to r4 or r5) would’ve been eased up with the introduction of r9 but TW r7 prize box is pretty bad to help with that
  • TVF wrote: »
    Where's TVF?

    The barrage of constant negativity combined with a ridiculous incident I'm not allowed to discuss has lead me to decide I'm better off just lurking here and mocking the terrible posts (most of them) from afar.

    I understand. I've missed you even if I don't always agree with you. All the best.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Where's TVF?

    So far it's just been the player base going "I feel like this sucks"

    To which Kyno replies"You're wrong because I can twist your words!"

    Meanwhile CG's assessing the impact of the changes as if they weren't clear beforehand.

    I need a more nuanced approach to make my popcorn worth popping.

    Who's words did I twist?

    And TVF is still waiting on his paycheck.

    You could take a look at your response a couple of posts above this one.

    "TBF, I dont believe CG has ever gone to someone house or made any threats to them, to make them do anything in game"

    That's not what the OP said and I'm guessing you know full well what the intent was.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Where's TVF?

    So far it's just been the player base going "I feel like this sucks"

    To which Kyno replies"You're wrong because I can twist your words!"

    Meanwhile CG's assessing the impact of the changes as if they weren't clear beforehand.

    I need a more nuanced approach to make my popcorn worth popping.

    Who's words did I twist?

    And TVF is still waiting on his paycheck.

    You could take a look at your response a couple of posts above this one.

    "TBF, I dont believe CG has ever gone to someone house or made any threats to them, to make them do anything in game"

    That's not what the OP said and I'm guessing you know full well what the intent was.

    I never said they said that.

    The intent was to say that this move is forcing players/guilds to do something. I was pointing out that I do not believe they are doing this through any physical means (half joking), and pointing out that players feeling like they have to move or do anything based on their desires is part of their choices, not a force coming from an outside source.

    They are offering a carrot, rewards. All players can get there through developing and building into the changes made.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    edited October 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    And yes Kyno, compared to most mobile games this game is heavily tilted towards encouraging people to spend $$$ to progress. Do I think its a broken system? Heck yes, otherwise there would be more variety in the gear used to level up the characters. It's just a bottleneck designed to frustrate people into taking shortcuts. That is broken.

    Broken would require something to not be working, the game makes money and people are still trying to play it, so by no standard definition is this system broke.

    Also, from my understanding this game is more F2P friendly than others of it's type.

    Veteran players do very well also.

    Bottlenecks =/= broken, even having old bottlenecks =/= broken, and variety =/= player friendly.

    We all have things we want to be different, but these kinds of blanket statements are not helpful in any constructive way.

    Don't get me wrong, Kyno, I have no problem with grinding. I played WoW at a high level for years. But how can it be OK to increase the player ceiling before doing something about the floor? It could at least be done at the same time!

    This game has only become more F2P friendly since they added accelerated characters. There is nothing friendly about the gear system. They are finally doing something to make it less painful to collect mk5 stun guns etc, but my original point is that it shouldn't have been done in an effort to reduce the backlash to R9 release.

    I'm sorry you don't find that to be constructive criticism.

    But if you want some feedback, here you go: I'm not spending another $ on this game because CG only care about us when they find a huge portion of their playerbase ready to walk away from them.

    TBF, changes don't like this do not come over night, so while this is timed to be coming after r9, it has been in the works for a bit, but it was said that "they needed to get r9 out of the way first". I know this doesnt change what you are saying and I agree that things like this should happen and not be "a response".

    Before the accelerated character many would still say this game was more f2p friendly than others.

    As long as players can progress onwards, I dont have as much of an issue with raising the ceiling, but I can see why other do.

    I understand, and have no control over how people feel or any ability to stop them from making the choices they want to make, nor do I want to.
  • This reward structure is complete garbage for the r9 mats. People want to play with who they want to. This reward system is probably causing a lot of people to drop solid guilds in order to join another that simply has more GP. This isn't like previous releases... HSTR, for example. We aren't talking about people dropping a guild with a lot of casual players or something. The disparity in this reward structure doesn't make any sense at all.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    See the moderators are grabbing the low hanging fruit and ignoring anything with some weight. Fun times it would be admirable if one of the two people designated to actually be engaging with the community would interject. Queue Kyno with the Doja and Crumb are aware comments.

    Queue Kyno:

    It's the weekend, they are not likely to comment on anything until Monday at the earliest.

    What would you like to see addressed?

    Manipulation of wins and losses via match making. This seems counterintuitive to a competitive mode. Before you say that isn't what the devs intend. Ultra intimated that earlier in this thread and many of the matchups point to that as well.
  • I'm a small fish, been playing just under a year, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I have 2 opinions on the relic mats in TW:

    1. My guild is still 35M away from qualifying for the relic prize box. And its not always easy to convince everyone to join in, so maybe more like 40M away. But I think the relic box should be added in at the 120M (tier 11?) level (where 3 zetas are earned) but reduced to maybe R5 mats. That way those who want to push are still getting what they need to keep up and reach those higher levels.
    2. I think that at lower level tiers, the top contributors (1-5) should get higher end relic mats (R7) so that they aren't punished for those that may not be trying as hard.

    I haven't read this whole thread so if I've repeated something, forgive me. I like the idea of helping lower players have a chance to catch up, and looking forward to seeing how the gear is addressed. Thanks CG!
  • Drathuk916 wrote: »
    ...Player satisfaction drives spending more than anything you would call a “carrot.” ...

    I wish this were true. But is it? :(
  • SerWulfgar wrote: »

    A one word answer to an already tangential question doesn't really contribute to the conversation, does it?

    You talk about smalltalk387, or about TVF in general?

    I was replying to smalltalk387s one word response to the answer to the tangential question.


    1. My guild is still 35M away from qualifying for the relic prize box. And its not always easy to convince everyone to join in, so maybe more like 40M away. But I think the relic box should be added in at the 120M (tier 11?) level (where 3 zetas are earned) but reduced to maybe R5 mats. That way those who want to push are still getting what they need to keep up and reach those higher levels.
    2. I think that at lower level tiers, the top contributors (1-5) should get higher end relic mats (R7) so that they aren't punished for those that may not be trying as hard.

    TW has always been a "guild rewards" event - their intention has always been to grant the same rewards to the entire guild, much like TB. The problem with modeling it after a raid rewards structure would be this - Who would get the most rewards? The players that posted more defense? Players that got the most offensive banners? If it's just the player with the most banners it would be easy to game the system by posting tons of trash teams on defense and then going hard on offense - which would probably earn someone a quick trip to a /gkick but it would also make it difficult to motivate players with weaker rosters to even participate. I think the idea is to have an event where everyones participation is encouraged and rewarded equally.

  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    So the two highest gp individuals in the game have 1 r9 and 44/45 r8s and the rest r7. These two obviously don’t represent the norm and still probably would need to spend well over 20k (7500 on the packs for Aeros alone) to get all characters to r8 or grind for approximately 3 years.

    If your biggest of the biggest whales can spend 20k plus more before they’d have nothing to buy then you don’t need the next jump in relics. What you call the carrot (next gl) quite frankly is just another stick. You keep hitting us over the head and expect us to see it as positive reinforcement.

    Player satisfaction drives spending more than anything you would call a “carrot.” I know the moderators are disappointed with many of the decisions cg has made over the past four months. Stop telling us we’re wrong when you’ve both expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the game to a certain degree. I mean unless you wish to argue that the past four months really hasn’t been a net negative on player satisfaction and you really believe the game will grow as a result of these changes.

    As you said, we have spoken our piece.

    If you think rolling out r9 with no required purpose to it yet is a stick, I guess we just have different definitions.

    I agree they should have done things in a different order to help get players some much needed good feelings. I can also recognize that the good never out places the bad, and that doing in a different order would have immediately wiped out any good once r9 fell "later". All in all, I am just hopeful that we are moving from here with a focus on the plan they laid out and with some other ideas they have been discussing, that seem promising, but I'm sure will be recieved as a mixed bag.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    See the moderators are grabbing the low hanging fruit and ignoring anything with some weight. Fun times it would be admirable if one of the two people designated to actually be engaging with the community would interject. Queue Kyno with the Doja and Crumb are aware comments.

    Queue Kyno:

    It's the weekend, they are not likely to comment on anything until Monday at the earliest.

    What would you like to see addressed?

    Manipulation of wins and losses via match making. This seems counterintuitive to a competitive mode. Before you say that isn't what the devs intend. Ultra intimated that earlier in this thread and many of the matchups point to that as well.

    Yes streaks on either side will effect the matchups you have. I am unaware of a competitive matching system that doesnt have some measure of record(w/l) attached to the scoring/rating. Seriously, not snark, can you point me to one?

    I agree they likely have some goal in mind of how the average should play out, and I'm not sure I would disagree with a guild on a winning streak to be put into a situations that increase in difficulty. If anything I disagree with the losing side getting easier matches, let the guilds losing face each other, but in theory the general idea of those 2 does work together towards the same goal. Generally speaking we dont know enough about the parameters to know how hard they are going to push, and we will need to see more matches to see how this is working.

    If it works well when dialed in, that will be interesting to see. I would consider this first run an outlier, before I would call it anywhere near normal.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    Just want to make sure that I understand that our wins and losses will now be manipulated by the match making system and will no longer be controlled by our effort, modding, coordination or ability to understand the mechanics of the game?

    Just to go back to this one, no this is not accurate.

    Wins and losses will be factors in the MM, but not the only ones, there are many factors.

    At the general level winning should make matches harder, and losing should make them easier. In essence allowing some averaging of rewards and record. A good MM system should offer somewhere around a 50% ratio, not that this is a hard goal or anything they have stated. How you get there should feel engaging and competitive, which was not the case in this first run, but should improve as they dial things in. IMO.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Just want to make sure that I understand that our wins and losses will now be manipulated by the match making system and will no longer be controlled by our effort, modding, coordination or ability to understand the mechanics of the game?

    Just to go back to this one, no this is not accurate.

    Wins and losses will be factors in the MM, but not the only ones, there are many factors.

    At the general level winning should make matches harder, and losing should make them easier. In essence allowing some averaging of rewards and record. A good MM system should offer somewhere around a 50% ratio, not that this is a hard goal or anything they have stated. How you get there should feel engaging and competitive, which was not the case in this first run, but should improve as they dial things in. IMO.

    Could we have equality of opportunities instead of equality of outcome? Even if they nowehere stated this as a goal.

    I for one dont think that a good MM should reward us with more difficult opponents if we happen to be better than others with similar (close to equal) parameters to us. I dont see it inspiring or particularly fair that a 270M guild with 140 GL-s gets a 340M guild with 220 GL-s as opponents partially because the first one was having a 8-0 series and the other one was having a 0-8 series. (Data is hypothetical, I criticise the principle)

    Ultimately, I think it is just an ugly move to change the "rules" of the meta-countering with a nerf that was bigger than Rey's ingame forehead and then with a really close followup create a new field of progression that is meta-based. I can see people struggling to adapt to this in such short time that we were given. So when you declare that now it takes a GL to beat another GL the community needs to adapt, but the GL-s are so big investments that they take months to acquire. We did not have months to prepare for this. Probably was not even intended for us to be prepared.

    This is all somewhat fair game in the end but some of the moves are really ugly in my opinion.
  • ShadowJediKnight
    19 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    1. My guild is still 35M away from qualifying for the relic prize box. And its not always easy to convince everyone to join in, so maybe more like 40M away. But I think the relic box should be added in at the 120M (tier 11?) level (where 3 zetas are earned) but reduced to maybe R5 mats. That way those who want to push are still getting what they need to keep up and reach those higher levels.
    2. I think that at lower level tiers, the top contributors (1-5) should get higher end relic mats (R7) so that they aren't punished for those that may not be trying as hard.

    TW has always been a "guild rewards" event - their intention has always been to grant the same rewards to the entire guild, much like TB. The problem with modeling it after a raid rewards structure would be this - Who would get the most rewards? The players that posted more defense? Players that got the most offensive banners? If it's just the player with the most banners it would be easy to game the system by posting tons of trash teams on defense and then going hard on offense - which would probably earn someone a quick trip to a /gkick but it would also make it difficult to motivate players with weaker rosters to even participate. I think the idea is to have an event where everyones participation is encouraged and rewarded equally.

    [/quote]

    Hm, fair point. I didn't think of that.

    *Edit* I screwed up the quote.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    See the moderators are grabbing the low hanging fruit and ignoring anything with some weight. Fun times it would be admirable if one of the two people designated to actually be engaging with the community would interject. Queue Kyno with the Doja and Crumb are aware comments.

    Queue Kyno:

    It's the weekend, they are not likely to comment on anything until Monday at the earliest.

    What would you like to see addressed?

    Manipulation of wins and losses via match making. This seems counterintuitive to a competitive mode. Before you say that isn't what the devs intend. Ultra intimated that earlier in this thread and many of the matchups point to that as well.

    Yes streaks on either side will effect the matchups you have. I am unaware of a competitive matching system that doesnt have some measure of record(w/l) attached to the scoring/rating. Seriously, not snark, can you point me to one?
    .

    Massive difference between tracking W/L and using streaks to serve up automatic wins to teams on a losing streak against a much lower rated team on a winning streak to end their streak/lower their ratio.

    Elo doesn't care about streaks, or any of the modified versions of it like TrueSkill, etc. Cream moves up to the top and the bulk of the groups trend to the middle and a 50/50 W/L record.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    ShaggyB wrote: »
    Why are you dropping relic 9 before you make the phase 1 gear changes?

    Address the crunch then you can release new gear/relic gates.

    You jumped the shark again CG.

    R9 was delayed from August and is late as it is and was announced long before the gear changes

    Sure, but it still shows CGs true priority when they are more interested in a blatant cash grab than fixing the gear system that has been broken for years.

    There was no immediate need for r9, so there is no reason they couldn't wait until the gear changes were ready before releasing it together.

    It'll be interesting to see how long we have to wait for the alleged improvement for G12+. I'm guessing around Christmas?

    It wasn’t broken

    R9 has a need, we aren’t privy to future plans so we can’t comment whether there was an immediate need for it or not

    Yeah….their need is $$$. That’s it. That’s literally all there is to it. $150 for one R9 character….riiiigghhht.

    Don't agree with the r9 pricing myself, or the pack, but that's entirely different (price of r9) vs why r9 needs to be in game for the health of the game

    Yes R9 generates money, but I am talking about the importance of R9 to the health / progression of the game

    If R9 is so important to the overall health of the game then why did CG make it nearly impossible to get R9 unless you shell out $150 or belong to a top tiered guild? For my guild, it’ll take 20 TW victories to get one R9 character…..

    Because having a carrot and a reason to develop more and progress as a player and a guild is good for the health of the game.

    Also creating a more "intensive" competitive atmosphere is also a good thing for the health of the game, and part of a longer term plan that should be taking shape over the next few months involving individual game modes.

    Yes this game has a pace, it is different for each player.

    Yeah that might make sense if it was actually attainable for more than 1% of the entire player base. I don’t buy it and I doubt anyone besides apologists do either. It’s a cash grab and it’s as simple as that. R8 was already enough of a carrot. They brought R9 too fast.

    We don't need r9 for anything, so how is it brought out too early?

    If it's only a cash grab, how does it have a negative effect on players?

    What should CG do to defend against f2p veterans in high level guilds getting these precious rewards? And why do you think they are giving them away to the most likely spenders for free, if it's only to get money?

    Want to make a zeta bet that the next GL requires at least 1 R9 toon? At minimum

    No, because I believe r9 is on a "timeline" and not just a "next GL", so it could be, but not just because its the GL is next, but because it has been X amount of time.

    R8 was right around the natural time for players to have it ready when the first GL required it. I imagine r9 will be no different. Just need to get max rewards, and not spend it until that point. (Yes I know exactly how fun and rewarding that sounds)

    At the current time it’s going to take people 4 months to get a single R9 toon depending on what division you are in. Let’s say 320mil. For those in that bracket, and assuming the intended 50/50 win loss ratio that’s been discussed as the goal, that’s 3 R9 materials per rotation (2 for a win, 1 for a loss) so 6 a month. You need 3.5 months for ONE R9, and that’s assuming the win loss ratio. Future GL’s will need multiple R9 as both JMK and LV needed 2-4 of them depending on which.

    You would need to factor in 7 months of that same ratio for just that, but also need to factor in the income of Aero’s since for whatever reason, CG refused to make R8 material exclusive of R8 to help out the grind but I digress.

    The point? This isn’t a good system for R9 release and it’s far too early for it given how people are still struggling to get R8 materials even regularly clearing Crancor.

    Idk, the other gear changes are nice in theory (let’s see the application first whenever they gets implemented), but the relic system also needs addressing via scavenger exchange rates to make lower relic material easier to get, or by making unique materials to specific relic levels and not continuing to stack materials upon materials.
  • scuba
    12836 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Olejandro wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Actually it is not guaranteed to break up guilds.

    There hasn't been? Can show guilds below 220m GP beating CRancor?

    I can show you. My guild for example. We beat the CRancor since 205M GP. Now we got 31*/20* at GeosTB, 3 years with no losses at TW in a row (hitting it this October), and we are on of the best resulted guilds at Russia & CIS region. There are a lot of great players with great rosters here. But now it seems like CG is saying us "go to hell" because we have "just" 240M. I hope CG will lose their players base just like <300M GP guilds losing their players right now. Hope this will make CG thinking and listen to the community. Every recent update I thought "lol, they can't do anything worse than that" but you always impress me. You just troll the community for last 6 months or maybe even an year.

    You are definitely one of the lowest guilds I have heard of doing this, congratulations.

    They are unlikely to adjust the numbers down to guild of your size, as they want to promote growth and development. Your guild can develop into this situation and many of these changes should be helping your lower members grow faster.

    No they want to destroy guilds. It has always been that way.
    New guild based contents and guilds fall a part and die as people jump ship chasing the new shiny.
    Cpit didn't do it as much as other guild content has. This new TW format will. Yes it is the individual player decision to jump ship and go elsewhere however it is CG that keeps making changes that foster and push this mentality since the introduction of guilds. Guild content doesn't foster mixed guilds of high and low gp players, yes some players will stick with it and not follow what CG is pushing, however guild content is always destroying guilds. Making the new required shiny (and yes it is required) exclusive to TW and then doubling down on how **** the game mode is just well ****. We as players can't control TW matchmaking and have no input, and I am sorry i have no confidence they will ever get it close to good. So R9 comes down to either your guild does what CG wants and has the teams needed or slowest grind yet. I have honestly never contemplated quiting this game, however this has me close.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Just want to make sure that I understand that our wins and losses will now be manipulated by the match making system and will no longer be controlled by our effort, modding, coordination or ability to understand the mechanics of the game?

    Just to go back to this one, no this is not accurate.

    Wins and losses will be factors in the MM, but not the only ones, there are many factors.

    At the general level winning should make matches harder, and losing should make them easier. In essence allowing some averaging of rewards and record. A good MM system should offer somewhere around a 50% ratio, not that this is a hard goal or anything they have stated. How you get there should feel engaging and competitive, which was not the case in this first run, but should improve as they dial things in. IMO.

    Could we have equality of opportunities instead of equality of outcome? Even if they nowehere stated this as a goal.

    I for one dont think that a good MM should reward us with more difficult opponents if we happen to be better than others with similar (close to equal) parameters to us. I dont see it inspiring or particularly fair that a 270M guild with 140 GL-s gets a 340M guild with 220 GL-s as opponents partially because the first one was having a 8-0 series and the other one was having a 0-8 series. (Data is hypothetical, I criticise the principle)

    Ultimately, I think it is just an ugly move to change the "rules" of the meta-countering with a nerf that was bigger than Rey's ingame forehead and then with a really close followup create a new field of progression that is meta-based. I can see people struggling to adapt to this in such short time that we were given. So when you declare that now it takes a GL to beat another GL the community needs to adapt, but the GL-s are so big investments that they take months to acquire. We did not have months to prepare for this. Probably was not even intended for us to be prepared.

    This is all somewhat fair game in the end but some of the moves are really ugly in my opinion.

    Unfortunately hypothetical values doesnt work in this case, since yes you can make values that would be less desirable, but as they dial things in those matches should start to be better and not as drastic as your example or what we saw this round.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    See the moderators are grabbing the low hanging fruit and ignoring anything with some weight. Fun times it would be admirable if one of the two people designated to actually be engaging with the community would interject. Queue Kyno with the Doja and Crumb are aware comments.

    Queue Kyno:

    It's the weekend, they are not likely to comment on anything until Monday at the earliest.

    What would you like to see addressed?

    Manipulation of wins and losses via match making. This seems counterintuitive to a competitive mode. Before you say that isn't what the devs intend. Ultra intimated that earlier in this thread and many of the matchups point to that as well.

    Yes streaks on either side will effect the matchups you have. I am unaware of a competitive matching system that doesnt have some measure of record(w/l) attached to the scoring/rating. Seriously, not snark, can you point me to one?

    I agree they likely have some goal in mind of how the average should play out, and I'm not sure I would disagree with a guild on a winning streak to be put into a situations that increase in difficulty. If anything I disagree with the losing side getting easier matches, let the guilds losing face each other, but in theory the general idea of those 2 does work together towards the same goal. Generally speaking we dont know enough about the parameters to know how hard they are going to push, and we will need to see more matches to see how this is working.

    If it works well when dialed in, that will be interesting to see. I would consider this first run an outlier, before I would call it anywhere near normal.

    Win/losses yes match making based on how your trending NO.
Sign In or Register to comment.