[MEGA] State of the Gear-laxy

Replies

  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    EgoSlayer wrote: »
    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.

    They are not intending to serve up automatic anything. Matches being harder doesnt mean they are not winnable, and as they dial things in I hope we can start to see a better picture of what they built.

    But it still has some measure of win and loss, correct? They are a part of the system. Streaks would likely have you move up or down faster, wouldnt it? (Honest question)

    Again, winning and losing are just some of the many factors they can and will use and adjust, so I would imagine that the weight of a streak could be adjusted or the length examined could be made longer or shorter. Either way we dont know enough (and likely never will) about the system to discuss things beyond theoretical, and examine the "results".
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    scuba wrote: »
    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.

    Wanting to destroy guilds and creating content for guilds doesnt mean the same thing.

    I agree that guilds make up is always a factor and that mix guilds do not fair as well, but I still dont see how any of this shows intent to destroy guilds, as an active "attack" or shows any desire to have this happen. Letting guild content get stale would have a similar effect over time, wouldnt it?

    We are always at the mercy of "what they want", but only to the level of our own desires.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    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.

    It's not wholly based on it, it is just a factor.

    In a mixed tier system like TW is, one group moving up due to a win (not a streak), meeting a group above who lost (not a streak), would still be possible, why would adding an element of the streak one of them may be on, change anything?

    (Just asking, not exactly sure where you are coming from)
  • EgoSlayer
    71 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    EgoSlayer wrote: »
    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.

    They are not intending to serve up automatic anything. Matches being harder doesnt mean they are not winnable, and as they dial things in I hope we can start to see a better picture of what they built.

    But it still has some measure of win and loss, correct? They are a part of the system. Streaks would likely have you move up or down faster, wouldnt it? (Honest question)

    Again, winning and losing are just some of the many factors they can and will use and adjust, so I would imagine that the weight of a streak could be adjusted or the length examined could be made longer or shorter. Either way we dont know enough (and likely never will) about the system to discuss things beyond theoretical, and examine the "results".


    They specifically said in the "State of the Gear-laxy - September 2021" that it takes into account loss streaks - which means they are modifying the match to boost their chances to win so they can end that streak. At some point that modification is going to generate a(n automatic) win.

    Systems using elo, the streaks don't matter it's a mathematical model that predicts your chance of winning, and your rating only (greatly) increases when you beat the odds, or conversely if you're expected to win and don't your rating drops. The rating is what is used to create the match. It doesn't know if you won your last match, or lost the last ten, your rating is matched against another with a similar rating. If you're expected to lose the rating doesn't change, or changes very minimally (to avoid 'elo hell'). Who you beat, or who you lose to is more important than the actual result. Top rated players/teams will continue to win as there isn't valid competition. Likewise, poor players/teams drop down to the bottom of the ratings and are matched against each other and can have extensive losing streaks. The bell curve of an elo system will see the middle 60-80% of the groups near a 50/50 win rate, with the bottom end seeing far more losing streaks, and the top end seeing far more winning streaks. The system doesn't care about the streaks, it cares about the elo rating and making adjustments to it for the ranking to provide opponents who have a roughly equal chance of winning (+/- a few percent). It's always trying to provide that roughly equal match and continues to adjust the rating until it's accurate or the end of the scale is reached.

    If you're really interested, there is lots of data (and math) about elo systems. This is pretty good and looks at Overwatch which is a team based game and has to balance individual scores and a team score to create matches.

    https://towardsdatascience.com/the-math-behind-your-competitive-overwatch-match-a5184fc5a50f

    The TrueSkill system is also well documented and deals with teams and individuals rankings

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/trueskill-ranking-system/



    Post edited by EgoSlayer on
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    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.

    And over that period of time we are going to see the phase(s) they outlined working on the adjustments to the system.

    I agree the changes to the gear economy is not the way I would have rolled this out, but it is being rolled out.

    I would suspect the timelines are built on top level rewards, but maybe not, and 7 months sounds reasonable (as a guess not as a game play element), but there is a chance we will not see a GL before then.... not sure. All in all, we will likely see a GL before then with no r9, is my guess. seeing r9 being required in 6-9 months sounds very possible. We shall see.

    You are correct the end game gear will remain end game and hard fought to get and even harder to choose where to put it. It's not supposed to be easy, releasing r9 doesnt change that.

    I believe relics to some extent are part of the plan, as we have discussed. So yes we will just need to wait and see how it rolls out.
  • scuba
    12836 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    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.

    Wanting to destroy guilds and creating content for guilds doesnt mean the same thing.

    I agree that guilds make up is always a factor and that mix guilds do not fair as well, but I still dont see how any of this shows intent to destroy guilds, as an active "attack" or shows any desire to have this happen. Letting guild content get stale would have a similar effect over time, wouldnt it?

    We are always at the mercy of "what they want", but only to the level of our own desires.

    Your right on part, of course thier intent is to make money , (I have no issue with that). However If they didn't want to destroy guilds than they would keep doing the same thing over and over (see the definition of insanity) that is destroying guilds. Actions speak louder than words.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    scuba wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    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.

    Wanting to destroy guilds and creating content for guilds doesnt mean the same thing.

    I agree that guilds make up is always a factor and that mix guilds do not fair as well, but I still dont see how any of this shows intent to destroy guilds, as an active "attack" or shows any desire to have this happen. Letting guild content get stale would have a similar effect over time, wouldnt it?

    We are always at the mercy of "what they want", but only to the level of our own desires.

    Your right on part, of course thier intent is to make money , (I have no issue with that). However If they didn't want to destroy guilds than they would keep doing the same thing over and over (see the definition of insanity) that is destroying guilds. Actions speak louder than words.

    I see your point, but why create guilds if not to also have guild content, and how do you introduce guild content without someone seeing the grass being greener?

    Not quite a catch 22, but still, you cant directly relate creating content to a desire to destroy guilds. IMO.
  • As I see r9, it is a musthave in fleet arena, to get crystals. Now CG has successfully nerfed options of dolphins to reach the top fleet arena, and it is reserved only for whales and krakens in 300Mil plus guilds. Unless you buy 150$ packs...
    This is getting wirse and worse. My account is way over 7 million, but Im tired and fed up. Its not a game anymore, it feels more like something borrowed from loan shark.
  • Kyno
    32071 posts Moderator
    As I see r9, it is a musthave in fleet arena, to get crystals. Now CG has successfully nerfed options of dolphins to reach the top fleet arena, and it is reserved only for whales and krakens in 300Mil plus guilds. Unless you buy 150$ packs...
    This is getting wirse and worse. My account is way over 7 million, but Im tired and fed up. Its not a game anymore, it feels more like something borrowed from loan shark.

    Be aware that most evidence I have seen (grain of salt there) for fleet is that r9 is not the best investment.
  • scuba
    12836 posts Member
    As I see r9, it is a musthave in fleet arena, to get crystals. Now CG has successfully nerfed options of dolphins to reach the top fleet arena, and it is reserved only for whales and krakens in 300Mil plus guilds. Unless you buy 150$ packs...
    This is getting wirse and worse. My account is way over 7 million, but Im tired and fed up. Its not a game anymore, it feels more like something borrowed from loan shark.

    300 mil + guilds are not all krakens and whales. (don't get me wrong i hate this change), and that is what this change will try to force to happen, kick the little guys out of mixed guilds or higher gp players leave for other guilds

    also this:
    Kyno wrote: »
    As I see r9, it is a musthave in fleet arena, to get crystals. Now CG has successfully nerfed options of dolphins to reach the top fleet arena, and it is reserved only for whales and krakens in 300Mil plus guilds. Unless you buy 150$ packs...
    This is getting wirse and worse. My account is way over 7 million, but Im tired and fed up. Its not a game anymore, it feels more like something borrowed from loan shark.

    Be aware that most evidence I have seen (grain of salt there) for fleet is that r9 is not the best investment.
    It is more of a long term fu to people when the next round of gl's drop and require R9
  • As I see r9, it is a musthave in fleet arena, to get crystals.

    LOL, no.

    Malevolence wins consistently against negotiator with 2 of the three Geonosians being g12 and 2 other ships being pilotless. There is simply no need for r9. If you need unusual firepower, you can bring all your Geos to r3 or r4 with Spy being r6 and you'll massively outgun quite a lot of winning Malevolence fleets being used to take 1st place today.

    Negotiator will be r8, and several of the GR ships will be r5+ because of requirements for KAM and for GLs. I don't see any indication that we're going to need more than that. After all, to kill other Negos you just bring out your Malevolence, and to kill Malevolence, your big hurdle is the Hyena Bomber, which is pilotless, so the need to bring more firepower to kill Hyenas will never materialize: the Hyena simply does not get more powerful with the release of r9.

    There are Executors to consider, of course, but you can beat these (inconsistently, but still...) with other ships, and when you're facing off in Executor mirrors, the determining factor seems to be anything but r9. Many people would love to slow their Executor down, and the ship that has a shot at going first (don't know if it actually does) at r9 or r10 would be the IG2000, which isn't the idea ship, strategy wise, to put in your starting lineup.

    With the release of r12 maybe you can consistently get one of the other BH ships to go before Executor, but r9 isn't enough.

    There is no reason to get r9 for fleet arena.
  • As I see r9, it is a musthave in fleet arena, to get crystals.

    LOL, no.

    Malevolence wins consistently against negotiator with 2 of the three Geonosians being g12 and 2 other ships being pilotless. There is simply no need for r9. If you need unusual firepower, you can bring all your Geos to r3 or r4 with Spy being r6 and you'll massively outgun quite a lot of winning Malevolence fleets being used to take 1st place today.

    Negotiator will be r8, and several of the GR ships will be r5+ because of requirements for KAM and for GLs. I don't see any indication that we're going to need more than that. After all, to kill other Negos you just bring out your Malevolence, and to kill Malevolence, your big hurdle is the Hyena Bomber, which is pilotless, so the need to bring more firepower to kill Hyenas will never materialize: the Hyena simply does not get more powerful with the release of r9.

    There are Executors to consider, of course, but you can beat these (inconsistently, but still...) with other ships, and when you're facing off in Executor mirrors, the determining factor seems to be anything but r9. Many people would love to slow their Executor down, and the ship that has a shot at going first (don't know if it actually does) at r9 or r10 would be the IG2000, which isn't the idea ship, strategy wise, to put in your starting lineup.

    With the release of r12 maybe you can consistently get one of the other BH ships to go before Executor, but r9 isn't enough.

    There is no reason to get r9 for fleet arena.

    Many people are complaining about Exec vs Exec being a coinflip meta. R9 stops that dead.

    Also, take a look at swgoh.gg. Nearly half of all R9s (from people who spent for it) are on Piett. That’s for a reason.

    Well, there’s also one R9 Tusken Raider, but we don’t talk about that.
  • Many people are complaining about Exec vs Exec being a coinflip meta. R9 stops that dead.

    No it doesn't. It just creates a new coin flip meta at r9.

    If you're unlucky enough to be in a fleet shard dominated by Executors, you're going to have to win while going second, either from the coin flip at r8 or forcing an arms race so that the RNG that forces you to act second is a coin flip at r9. You can't go to r9 and expect everyone else to stay at r8.

    So you're going to have to win battles going 2nd no matter what happens. Might as well save the relic mats and keep your Piett at r8.
  • scuba
    12836 posts Member
    Many people are complaining about Exec vs Exec being a coinflip meta. R9 stops that dead.

    No it doesn't. It just creates a new coin flip meta at r9.

    If you're unlucky enough to be in a fleet shard dominated by Executors, you're going to have to win while going second, either from the coin flip at r8 or forcing an arms race so that the RNG that forces you to act second is a coin flip at r9. You can't go to r9 and expect everyone else to stay at r8.

    So you're going to have to win battles going 2nd no matter what happens. Might as well save the relic mats and keep your Piett at r8.
    Exactly, and this is what is wrong with this meta. Degrading (or not upgrading) your team is better and cg does nothing. Maybe by the next meta in a year they will fix this.
  • All I'm saying is you better do this right CG. I currently have over 70 7* characters needing mk5 stun guns, that's close to 3500 total. I'm sure many others are in the same boat. It's been 5 years since you've done an update for this.

    For the sake of SWGOH new and f2p players DO IT RIGHT.
  • Ultra
    8685 posts Moderator
    Don't expect 3500 stun guns overnight, but adding them to weekly challenges means that you are getting about ~50 per week just by hitting the sim button (Phase 1 rollout)
  • Ultra wrote: »
    Don't expect 3500 stun guns overnight, but adding them to weekly challenges means that you are getting about ~50 per week just by hitting the sim button (Phase 1 rollout)

    If the drop rates are the same. I don’t want to expect the worst, but I can’t accept the best either
  • Many people are complaining about Exec vs Exec being a coinflip meta. R9 stops that dead.

    No it doesn't. It just creates a new coin flip meta at r9.

    If you're unlucky enough to be in a fleet shard dominated by Executors, you're going to have to win while going second, either from the coin flip at r8 or forcing an arms race so that the RNG that forces you to act second is a coin flip at r9. You can't go to r9 and expect everyone else to stay at r8.

    So you're going to have to win battles going 2nd no matter what happens. Might as well save the relic mats and keep your Piett at r8.

    Expect everyone else to stay at R8? No. But not everyone can get R9, and spenders can get it before FTP can in all cases.

    Yes, you’ll have to learn to win against the coinflip of R9s if your goal is to punch through R9s. But from what I can tell winning after losing that Coinflip is not a certain thing. Winning the battle after winning the coinflip is much easier. So your choice is always lose the coinflip vs R9 and lose 50% of coinflips vs R8, or lose 50% of coinflips vs R9 and lose none vs R8. It’s an advantage, and probably the biggest one a single R9 can offer until the next GLs.

    Plus at least now that’s an actual possibility. With an R8 required Piett the only match that wouldn’t be a coinflip is one where a Piett is missing 6* mods.
  • Natgmn
    91 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    Let's face facts.. they have done nothing in the past year but force people to spend money. All rewards in game are gated behind massive gp requirements or spending hundreds of dollars. There has been no effort by cg to give anything to early to midgame players except hugely priced packs. They nerfed characters for no reason, raised the cost of galactic legends but not the power, destroyed conquest, now tw is bleh and rewards are gated. Guilds lost tons of players and people are still quitting. If this continues the game will be dead. Fix your game stop devaluing rosters and give us a break and a chance to get the cool stuff without paying huge amounts of money. You say your giving us stuff in phases yet you do the opposite first. The community is out of patience cg needs to fix this massive money grab of a game that is quickly becoming pay to play. It used to be a lot of fun but this year they took the magic away..
  • Xcien
    2288 posts Member
    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.

    Glad to see you’re still here. Was wondering what had happened to you.
    One may learn a great deal about a people by the stories they tell of others.

    Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback is appreciated.
  • Ultra wrote: »
    Don't expect 3500 stun guns overnight, but adding them to weekly challenges means that you are getting about ~50 per week just by hitting the sim button (Phase 1 rollout)

    Do you have insider info?
  • Ultra
    8685 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Don't expect 3500 stun guns overnight, but adding them to weekly challenges means that you are getting about ~50 per week just by hitting the sim button (Phase 1 rollout)

    Do you have insider info?

    Its from the state of the galaxy
  • scuba
    12836 posts Member
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Don't expect 3500 stun guns overnight, but adding them to weekly challenges means that you are getting about ~50 per week just by hitting the sim button (Phase 1 rollout)

    Do you have insider info?
    How else do you think @Ultra is most times first in new kit release announcements?
  • Ultra wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Don't expect 3500 stun guns overnight, but adding them to weekly challenges means that you are getting about ~50 per week just by hitting the sim button (Phase 1 rollout)

    Do you have insider info?

    Its from the state of the galaxy

    We know theyll be in daily challenges but not the amount. If it’s about 50 a week, does that mean you know something we don’t?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I see your point, but why create guilds if not to also have guild content, and how do you introduce guild content without someone seeing the grass being greener?

    Not quite a catch 22, but still, you cant directly relate creating content to a desire to destroy guilds. IMO.

    Guilds can progress at different rates without implementing hard GP cutoffs at unreasonable levels. People who want to progress faster will still seek out more competitive or larger guilds but at the same time it doesn't slam the door in everyone elses face.

    We had the same issue when Geo TB was introduced, a game mode designed to scale rewards yet they put an artificial GP barrier in.

    As an illustrated example I could argue that anyone over 4M GP (Not a figure I've researched in detail just pulled from a quick scan of my guild mates who already have GLs) should be able to start farming R9 mats, people should be able to choose whether they want to invest deep into a character/squad or broadly across more units. Then you have to account for guild churn and inactivity so you should always base the figure on sub 50 members, so lets say 45. 4M x 45 = 180M, so the R9 rewards should come down another 7 divisions. If that means you need to up the number of mats needed for a R9 so be it, we don't need to be wedded to 20 you can simply make it 50 so division 23 is getting say 10/4 and division 13 is getting 2/1 with a spread between the 2 extremes. Again these figures are just for illustration purposes the main point is you don't need to cut off rewards so high up, smaller guilds will progress slower regardless even if you give them all 1000 free R9 mats today they wont keep up with all the other mats required beyond this.
  • The guild that we faced was badly mismatched against us (highlighted earlier in the this thread at 351M v 290M). The original developer post states that "each Guild's prize pool is determined by its own division". I don't think this is appropriate, and should be based upon the higher guild's GP.

    I also think the same principle should be applied if the match goes across boundary lines.
  • Sorry if this has been responded to already, but when do we have any idea when these gear farming changes are actually going to come into effect?
Sign In or Register to comment.