[MEGA] State of the Gear-laxy

Replies

  • Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Things to keep in mind:

    This is the first phase of addressing the gear economy, not the final phase.
    The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.

    Being less secretive about the full plan might help...

    If the MM algorithm were known to the public, then the concern is it would be easier to exploit. So, we're not gonna elaborate on it more than a high-level view.

    Of course. I was reacting more to the part about the gear economy.

    This is a multi-step plan, part of which depends on monitoring how these initial changes will impact the overall economy, and stated we will provide more details as we get closer to implementing the next phase.

    It's not an attempt to be secretive. It's more of a prudent message addressing the overhaul of a complex in-game economy system. Shooting from the hip or providing details on things that could still be in flux wouldn't benefit anyone. Crumb and I said as much as we could about the plan for now and will def say more as soon as we can.
  • Nauros wrote: »
    Things to keep in mind:

    This is the first phase of addressing the gear economy, not the final phase.
    The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.

    Being less secretive about the full plan might help...

    If the MM algorithm were known to the public, then the concern is it would be easier to exploit. So, we're not gonna elaborate on it more than a high-level view.

    This is understandable, but also doesn't show much confidence that it is really any good, if you are concerned about it being exploited.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Rooster147 wrote: »
    Can cg give stats on guild gp on those who clear crancor?

    220 I believe was the lowest, but I may be off by a little.

    Well, we did have a forum post saying that 13 people TOTAL cleared Crancor back when it was introduced. Maybe I can find it.
  • Ultra
    8516 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    Things to keep in mind:

    This is the first phase of addressing the gear economy, not the final phase.
    The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.

    Being less secretive about the full plan might help...

    If the MM algorithm were known to the public, then the concern is it would be easier to exploit. So, we're not gonna elaborate on it more than a high-level view.

    This is understandable, but also doesn't show much confidence that it is really any good, if you are concerned about it being exploited.

    Matchmaking is algorithm, and every algorithm can be exploited

    I mean, I doubt any top software company can be confident about their product if their source code was leaked
  • Firefox54 wrote: »
    The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.

    Maybe you can't give us all the details, but will the matchmaking weigh the GLs more heavily? If not, unbalanced GLs will create a problem in the overall matchmaking since the non-GL counters have been nerfed. So, I'm not asking for the full details, but some insight into how the matchmaking will be performed ... at least to provide some confidence that the GLs will be more equally matched.

    Also, can you provide more details on the number of zones and/or squads needed at the various divisions?

    Thanks.

    Previously existing concerns about sandbagging, GL battles, etc were relayed to the devs. I can't go into details about the system - and no matchmaking system is perfect - but, I expect it to be vastly improved. More of fair and balanced battle was integral to the aim of the overhaul.

    I've reached out to the devs regarding the added number of defensive teams to be set and will get back to ya with the answer.
  • I like almost ALL of these changes, and the ones I’m not overly enthusiastic about, I’m neutral.
    R9? As @Ravens1113 said (I’m agreeing with him a lot more than I thought I would) it’s still a bit too soon, and if they require R8 mats, we’ll have a SERIOUS problem. I actually like tying them to TW, it’ll help with sandbagging.
    R8 Equalization? Good, for reasons I really don’t need to repeat.
    Matchmaking change? YES. FINALLY. THANK YOU.
    Gear crunch change? I’m so happy that they’re adding them to challenges, that’ll be SO HELPFUL. THANK YOU CG, YOU DID US GOOD THERE. And this is P1! I’m excited, not going to lie. CG has a GOLDEN opportunity to make some SERIOUS good will amongst the community. PLEASE, don’t mess this up.
    Slow rollout? Okay, fine. The Nerfs took a month+ to rollout IIRC.
    Final judgement? I can ALMOST forgive Grindquest and the Nerfs. If the remaining phases are as good as this, well, who knows. I’m very optimistic.
  • Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Things to keep in mind:

    This is the first phase of addressing the gear economy, not the final phase.
    The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.

    Being less secretive about the full plan might help...

    If the MM algorithm were known to the public, then the concern is it would be easier to exploit. So, we're not gonna elaborate on it more than a high-level view.

    Of course. I was reacting more to the part about the gear economy.

    This is a multi-step plan, part of which depends on monitoring how these initial changes will impact the overall economy, and stated we will provide more details as we get closer to implementing the next phase.

    It's not an attempt to be secretive. It's more of a prudent message addressing the overhaul of a complex in-game economy system. Shooting from the hip or providing details on things that could still be in flux wouldn't benefit anyone. Crumb and I said as much as we could about the plan for now and will def say more as soon as we can.

    The question I had from the announcement is, is phase 1 coming all at once in one update? It’s unclear if the “over the next few months” (paraphrasing) meant phase 1 over the next few months or if it meant all the phases over the next few months.
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    Firefox54 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MF6076 wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be better to have the TW reward structure similar to what's already in place?
    i.e R9 pieces 5 for a win / 4 for a loss, decreasing with signed up GP. Still gives incentive to play but doesn't harshly penalise for a loss.

    I believe this part was done to more directly deal with the sign up and " do nothing" element of the game mode. Trying to actively push playing the game mode, and really trying to win.

    Also with loss tracking the numbers should average out, in theory.

    The concern that I have with with the thought process in your response is that they're using rewards to drive folks to play the event, not giving us an event that is fun and enjoyable that we want to play. Folks would still play TW if it were enjoyable, but every TW looks and feels about the same (same teams, same process, etc) ... and with the new changes to nerf non-GLs it will likely be even worse as it will primarily be dependent on GLs ... and pulling a GAC approach to expand the number of teams needed to be placed on defense or offense just makes the game more of a chore, not more enjoyable.

    So, I agree with you that the changes in gear was done to remove the "do nothing" element of TW, but it's likely just going to make the game mode a grind, not increase the enjoyment and that is (to me) the core potential problem with the proposed change. Better matchmaking will make TW more fair, but it won't make it more enjoyable ... and neither will expanding the number of teams on defense and offense ... that's just more work/effort on top of the other game modes that have undergone similar changes.

    One last comment, I will agree that changes to the divisions and reward structures were merited, but the mode itself needs to be changed, not just the reward structure or number of teams to be used.

    Thanks.

    Rewards are always used to incentives players to play. They want players to always be striving to be a part of every game mode, and develop in "every way". If you dont think being competitive is fun, it is not likely they can change a competitive game mode to be fun for everyone.
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    I present The Sandbagger's Charter...

    2cuif7jnfao7.png

    And the sandbagger's motivation...

    skfqi3q05ewy.png

    So CG_Doja_Fett_MINI , one of the best things about TW is that losing is not a big deal in terms of loot. Win-loss ratio is mostly a matter of pride.

    With these changes however you are pushing the higher GP guilds to try to sandbag, whether they want to or not, in order to not get left behind relic-wise and you are enabling them to do so. Both of those are bad.

    Sign up GP dictates rewards.

    Background elements are in place to not have it be an advantage to do so.

    Both of these make it less ideal to do so.
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    TotalNerd wrote: »
    Ok...I was wrong. It seems as though you do care about F2P people. I will take my crow with some Frank's Red Hot (I put that stuff on everything) and a pinch of salt. This actually makes me feel optimistic about the future of the game. Keep it up!

    The Pepper Plant is a good one as well. Very tasty and not too hot.

    Maybe we should stay on topic. 😏
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    LumiB wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Things to keep in mind:

    This is the first phase of addressing the gear economy, not the final phase.
    The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.

    Being less secretive about the full plan might help...

    If the MM algorithm were known to the public, then the concern is it would be easier to exploit. So, we're not gonna elaborate on it more than a high-level view.

    Of course. I was reacting more to the part about the gear economy.

    This is a multi-step plan, part of which depends on monitoring how these initial changes will impact the overall economy, and stated we will provide more details as we get closer to implementing the next phase.

    It's not an attempt to be secretive. It's more of a prudent message addressing the overhaul of a complex in-game economy system. Shooting from the hip or providing details on things that could still be in flux wouldn't benefit anyone. Crumb and I said as much as we could about the plan for now and will def say more as soon as we can.

    The question I had from the announcement is, is phase 1 coming all at once in one update? It’s unclear if the “over the next few months” (paraphrasing) meant phase 1 over the next few months or if it meant all the phases over the next few months.

    From the details we have, yes phase 1 will be in a single update.

    Other phases will be spread out over a period of time.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    TotalNerd wrote: »
    Ok...I was wrong. It seems as though you do care about F2P people. I will take my crow with some Frank's Red Hot (I put that stuff on everything) and a pinch of salt. This actually makes me feel optimistic about the future of the game. Keep it up!

    The Pepper Plant is a good one as well. Very tasty and not too hot.

    Maybe we should stay on topic. 😏

    I issued myself a warning. For the previous off-topic post and another for this one.
  • Honestly so many people who have berated CG for not tackling the gear crunch are now continue to moan. At some point you need to question whether this is the game for you, since it obviously brings you such misery. So many of the suggested, obvious fixes have actually come to fruition and its only phase 1!

    Personally the daily challenges and gear crunch changes are everything. The amount of characters I have stuck behind a stun gun is unreal. Everything else is a bonus.

    I'd also point out that these changes effect the next few years not just the immediate. Flat lining R8 in crankor doesn't disadvantage top contributers because your guild will collectively improve helping you get R9 in TW. Relic materials in TW for r1-7 will collectively help your guild get R8 etc. Try see it as a long term benefit.

    I understand peoples concerns about guilds breaking up but as someone who has changed guilds a few times as I've progressed the biggest problem isnt these changes its the nature of the guild your in. If your guild is hyper competitive nothing will change officers will still nag and kick those not pulling their weight. If your guild is casual top players will still eventually leave if they wish to be competitive or be happy to carry others. Issues occur when the guild doesn't advertise their nature and competitiveness right.

    My only 2 hopes (and in no way criticisms) are that they:
    1. Increase/change the frequency that the core gear appears in the hard nodes so you don't end up farming the same characters long after you've farmed them.
    2. Please don't make R9 required for the next set of GLs it gates the availability to the very top players which impacts the power creep etc.

    But today is a good day!

  • Acymetric
    220 posts Member
    edited September 29
    Kyno wrote: »
    LumiB wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Things to keep in mind:

    This is the first phase of addressing the gear economy, not the final phase.
    The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.

    Being less secretive about the full plan might help...

    If the MM algorithm were known to the public, then the concern is it would be easier to exploit. So, we're not gonna elaborate on it more than a high-level view.

    Of course. I was reacting more to the part about the gear economy.

    This is a multi-step plan, part of which depends on monitoring how these initial changes will impact the overall economy, and stated we will provide more details as we get closer to implementing the next phase.

    It's not an attempt to be secretive. It's more of a prudent message addressing the overhaul of a complex in-game economy system. Shooting from the hip or providing details on things that could still be in flux wouldn't benefit anyone. Crumb and I said as much as we could about the plan for now and will def say more as soon as we can.

    The question I had from the announcement is, is phase 1 coming all at once in one update? It’s unclear if the “over the next few months” (paraphrasing) meant phase 1 over the next few months or if it meant all the phases over the next few months.

    From the details we have, yes phase 1 will be in a single update.

    Other phases will be spread out over a period of time.

    Scratch that, I misread.
  • @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI can you comment on if there was any change to the minimum time before guilds can be rematched? Currently at the very top you know when it's your turn to face a top 5 guild due to the minimum time before rematches can occur (for them mainly)

    And with the gap between the top 3-6ish and the rest of the top 20-30 who have to face them it would be wonderful if part of this change was to make these matchups less frequent (let those top dogs face each other more!)
  • It's fun because at some point they mentioned relic 9 would benefit tanks. How much and up to which degree will tanks be benefited from it? Maybe in the update notes we get to have some explanation?
    RyanFitz
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    I think for the sake of argument we need to separate the game from the community. These changes seem to be good for the game but are a kick in the teeth to each of the guilds in the 200-300 million range. Sad.

    With gear changes coming, those guilds in that range will be able to build into the place they want to be, and most guilds in those ranges are benefiting from the CRancor changes.

    Can you specify the bad parts for them?

    Your fundamental misunderstanding of the very game you moderate absolutely amazes me. These gear changes aren't anywhere near significant enough to bring mid tier guilds up to CPit level, at least not any time soon - by any measure whatsoever.

    Gating just about anything in a collection game behind end game guilds only is already a reasonably disgusting move to begin with. This is a multiplayer game. MP games are meant to encourage play with friends. CG has done nothing but encourage me (and thousands of others) to leave a guild because I (we) am completely and utterly shut out of any upcoming meta. That is a resounding issue for many. I shouldn't be forced to leave company I like because of CG's incompetence. The community is one of the prime reasons players play. People like people.

    Continuing to gate like this is going to cause many to quit. Why this is such a difficult concept for CG and co. to grasp is beyond me. SWGOH has already flopped to the lowest level in years with the nerfs and conquest changes. Many have quit. Many will continue to quit.

    We are all well aware next to no one working for CG play the very game they work on. It would be decent of you all to at least make it appear as if you're aware of the issues.

    You have two major issues with relic 8 - aeromagnifiers being gated behind end guilds, and impulse detectors requiring such an unbelievable amount of high end materials that those who even do have access to magnifiers are a complete wash and wasting away with said magnifiers. So CG's idea is "oh hey, let's continue to gate magnifiers, flatten out the rewards in CPit, leave them inaccessible every well else still (especially due to the conquest changes), and impulse detectors... nah who cares about those. Oh yeah and here's relic 9, another gear level that is even further gated behind even deeper end game guilds."

    At this point it's absolutely comical the decisions CG has made this year. It's one of the single biggest troll jobs in gaming history. Oh but hey you're giving players a couple dozen extra stun guns a week. That totally solves gearing issues.

    At least I can thank CG for working on the matchmaking with TW. That is definitely something that has been needed.. Naturally they haven't gotten around to fixing GAC's hilariously broken matchmaking but I'll reserve judgment there as I do believe that will happen sooner or later.

    Tl;dr CG has done next to nothing to help mid tier guilds and their players, in any way shape or form. They've encouraged us to quit the game. Crap is still disgustingly gated to end game guilds oknly. We get a few more stun guns. TW matchmaking is getting a fix.

    Wow, solid stuff here.

    Ever time a guild event is added or changed this happens. This is not a goal set out to be a "kick in the teeth" as some put it. It is a natural by product of a system where development is a goal.

    This is the first time we have seen a change like this that could have an issue of players moving guilds accompanied by the tools players need to develop their rosters more. Yes this is not going to be "enough", from your perspective, but the game still has a pace and that is kept to help respect the investment of time and $$ players have put in.

    Yes end game materials are going to be hard to get and be important choices on where to use them.

    If you think changes to the gear economy dont help, then nothing will.
  • Boser wrote: »
    @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI can you comment on if there was any change to the minimum time before guilds can be rematched? Currently at the very top you know when it's your turn to face a top 5 guild due to the minimum time before rematches can occur (for them mainly)

    And with the gap between the top 3-6ish and the rest of the top 20-30 who have to face them it would be wonderful if part of this change was to make these matchups less frequent (let those top dogs face each other more!)

    Rematches SHOULD be less frequent under the new system. Guild GP will be less of a factor than it currently is, and win/loss streaks are added into consideration.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Rewards are always used to incentives players to play. They want players to always be striving to be a part of every game mode, and develop in "every way". If you dont think being competitive is fun, it is not likely they can change a competitive game mode to be fun for everyone.

    It's true that rewards incentive folks ... however, for example, the original version of Conquest was actually fun to play ... I l(and many others) ooked forward to and enjoyed that event, as it answered the call of providing something to play that was fun (even if I thought the rewards were a bit light for 2 weeks of game play). Now, I still play the new version because I am competitive and I want the rewards, but I don't actually enjoy the new game mode ... I (and many) find it to be a repetitive grind (but there's a whole thread for that, I'm just using this as an example of my point of playability).

    So, yes, you're right that rewards incentive players to play (I'm competitive, so I play the events and grind through them the best I can). However, you can make a game mode that provides rewards and is also fun ... while I see that the TW changes are going to incentive folks to play for rewards, I don't see that the game mode is going to be more enjoyable and that, at some level, is what starts to wear down a portion of the player base.

    To be fair, good matchmaking is one important part of making the mode more enjoyable and, if it works well, that will be a positive. However, even then, at some point the mode becomes stale as both sides will generally have the same walls of defense time after time, and expanding the number of teams/zones just makes more effort, not more fun.

    Thanks for taking the time to reply.
  • Boser wrote: »
    @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI can you comment on if there was any change to the minimum time before guilds can be rematched? Currently at the very top you know when it's your turn to face a top 5 guild due to the minimum time before rematches can occur (for them mainly)

    And with the gap between the top 3-6ish and the rest of the top 20-30 who have to face them it would be wonderful if part of this change was to make these matchups less frequent (let those top dogs face each other more!)

    Rematches SHOULD be less frequent under the new system. Guild GP will be less of a factor than it currently is, and win/loss streaks are added into consideration.

    The top 2-3 guilds end up basically playing the same X guilds as soon as the cooldown expires. (Because they are such outliers by every single metric)

    So are you saying that it's likely that additional guilds will be pulled up to face them? Easing the burden of having to face them? Currently it's like every 3-4 months we face the top. And we usually get pinged before matchmaking even happens from them because they know when they are due to face guilds with the cooldown expiring.
  • Is the update for R9 actually coming today?
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Gear economy changes? Oooooo this is my type of thread!

    Let’s break it down cause I know everyone including @Kyno is dying for my feedback 😂

    1) TW overhaul
    Very nice indeed. It’s been a long time coming and hopefully this makes matchmaking more fair. I like the additions for relic materials but think both winners and losers should get some in those top divisions. So a 2/1 split rather than 1/0 but I get it for the incentive to win. The relic 9 material though leads into….

    2.) Relic 9.
    Ok, this is still too soon. I think we should have the announced gear changes added in first. That being said, I have some questions for @CG_SBCrumb_MINI . Will the R9 mats require every previous material like R8 did? Or will we finally get the materials to be more exclusive for R9 and not require every little piece up until R9. If we need all the relic pieces still then it’s definitely too soon for R9. We need gear to come back to us for the other materials via scavenger or rework what gear pieces we can exchange in lower tiers for circuit boards, chromiums etc.

    3.) Gear Economy
    Daily challenges?? Wait…I recall a certain moderator saying that it was far more complex than that. Adding tiers for the core gear to make it easier to get to G12….by golly!!!! It’s genius! Sarcasm aside, I love this. It’s fair, it’s simple and they can tune the amount of salavge we get of core gear to be more manageable, yet not trivialized. I dig it.
    The changes to drop rates on hard nodes are nice but I think we should also up the normal nodes a bit. Speaking of the drop rate increases, how much are they going up by?
    The dedicated slots to the stores for core gear is lovely as well. Another amazing suggestion from the forums that I’m sure Crumb and Doja had to pound into the higher ups to implement as well.

    4.) Crancor flattening
    I’m neutral on this. I rarely crack top 10 but I feel like the flattening is just redistributing the aero’s more now rather than increasing them. Hopefully the quality of gear in the upper boxes is upped to account for the loss of R8 for those doing the most damage. This one is a bit….eh for me.

    when I read about gear economy changes, you are literally the FIRST person i thought of...i will say I'm extremely disappointed that you didn't make it on the first page, though. I haven't actually read your breakdown yet, just wanted to comment.
  • Rhydia wrote: »
    Overall I approve of this. Though I would like to see some of the heroic rancor gear added to a node.

    And if you can fix TW matchmaking why can’t you fix GAC? I’ve been matched against people with 5-6 to my 2 this entire season and likewise for previous seasons.
    Nothing wrong with GAC matchmaking.

    People with 16 r8 toons but only 2 GLs shouldn’t be looking for the matchmaking to save them.
  • the closeness of 1st and 2nd place rewards is what made this terrible, boring timesuck of a gamemode tolerable. WELP

    ps I guess we didn't have enough matchmaking complaints when the difference in winning and losing was 1 lil zeta? Is that it? What fun this will be!
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    I present The Sandbagger's Charter...

    2cuif7jnfao7.png

    And the sandbagger's motivation...

    skfqi3q05ewy.png

    So @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI , one of the best things about TW is that losing is not a big deal in terms of loot. Win-loss ratio is mostly a matter of pride.

    With these changes however you are pushing the higher GP guilds to try to sandbag, whether they want to or not, in order to not get left behind relic-wise and you are enabling them to do so. Both of those are bad.

    If I read the announcement correctly they have also tightened up the matches by number of sign-ups. If this is true, the sandbaggers will mainly end up facing one another. This means similar difficulty matches to a full sign-up, but worse rewards, thus disincentivizing sandbagging.

    Heck, even if you sandbag from 380 to 320 and get easy matches, you might still be worse off, as 2 wins will get you 4 R9 pieces while 1 win at full GP would be 6 R9 pieces (5+1).

    We'll find out soon enough, but I bet we won't see the kraken guilds with 35 sign-ups anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.