Just make sure you’re relaxed when you learn it. Dude.
Have you ever heard the concept of outliers? It's when you look at data and there's a handful of numbers outside the generality of the core data. That's what your tagging me in. Compare those to nearly every TW to have ever taken place and plot it on a graph, mismatches do happen, but those examples will be outliers compared to most core match up data. You seem mad that I'm telling you how the match up system is suppose to work, yes it could fail- it is just an algorithm and it does have limited choices, so you will get that, it's not shocking, but that's how the algorithm works. I never said it was perfect, but it's far more balanced than GAC. instead of GAC having occasional or maybe even frequent outliers, it's nearly every single match up. That's how it feels for lower level players, I'm glad you share the same frustration, but what shocks me is that you have somehow justified it when it comes to GAC, but not when it comes to TW.
I’m not mad.
I’m frustrated that you are broadcasting an erroneous view on how matchmaking works and dismissing evidence that you don’t understand it as “outliers”.
Yet you insist that matchmaking is based on GP within a tight margin. Even though the devs state that this is not the case.
That’s the frustration. That, and I always have a problem when people who are wrong think they’re smarter than me.
Your ego is hurting because you don't have experience working with algorithms don't you. I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm not wrong, it takes GP, record, and specific characters like GLs into account. GP being the most important as you wouldn't want a guild of 100 million versing one with 300 million.
Hahaha, it in no way takes GLs into account. You are losing ground here.
"This system accounts for bringing a small number of powerful players"
Does that sound like GLs? Or the idea of smaller number of powerful players is something random to you? I admit the GL specificity is speculation, but the same idea nonetheless. They account for specific players having a larger amount of power, with or without GL status it's the same idea
No, it's stating comparatively higher GP players.
CG have stated multiple times they will not take specific units into account in matchmaking, be it GAC or TW.
Just make sure you’re relaxed when you learn it. Dude.
Have you ever heard the concept of outliers? It's when you look at data and there's a handful of numbers outside the generality of the core data. That's what your tagging me in. Compare those to nearly every TW to have ever taken place and plot it on a graph, mismatches do happen, but those examples will be outliers compared to most core match up data. You seem mad that I'm telling you how the match up system is suppose to work, yes it could fail- it is just an algorithm and it does have limited choices, so you will get that, it's not shocking, but that's how the algorithm works. I never said it was perfect, but it's far more balanced than GAC. instead of GAC having occasional or maybe even frequent outliers, it's nearly every single match up. That's how it feels for lower level players, I'm glad you share the same frustration, but what shocks me is that you have somehow justified it when it comes to GAC, but not when it comes to TW.
I’m not mad.
I’m frustrated that you are broadcasting an erroneous view on how matchmaking works and dismissing evidence that you don’t understand it as “outliers”.
Yet you insist that matchmaking is based on GP within a tight margin. Even though the devs state that this is not the case.
That’s the frustration. That, and I always have a problem when people who are wrong think they’re smarter than me.
Your ego is hurting because you don't have experience working with algorithms don't you. I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm not wrong, it takes GP, record, and specific characters like GLs into account. GP being the most important as you wouldn't want a guild of 100 million versing one with 300 million.
Hahaha, it in no way takes GLs into account. You are losing ground here.
"This system accounts for bringing a small number of powerful players"
Does that sound like GLs? Or the idea of smaller number of powerful players is something random to you? I admit the GL specificity is speculation, but the same idea nonetheless. They account for specific players having a larger amount of power, with or without GL status it's the same idea
No, it's stating comparatively higher GP players.
CG have stated multiple times they will not take specific units into account in matchmaking, be it GAC or TW.
It's stating comparatively higher GP players? What is it that I just said to you? GL speculation was an admittance, but that players with large GP are taken into account. That's what I said, and your spitting it back to me like I said something else. "They account for specific 'players' [as in participats] having a large amount of power"
Just make sure you’re relaxed when you learn it. Dude.
Have you ever heard the concept of outliers? It's when you look at data and there's a handful of numbers outside the generality of the core data. That's what your tagging me in. Compare those to nearly every TW to have ever taken place and plot it on a graph, mismatches do happen, but those examples will be outliers compared to most core match up data. You seem mad that I'm telling you how the match up system is suppose to work, yes it could fail- it is just an algorithm and it does have limited choices, so you will get that, it's not shocking, but that's how the algorithm works. I never said it was perfect, but it's far more balanced than GAC. instead of GAC having occasional or maybe even frequent outliers, it's nearly every single match up. That's how it feels for lower level players, I'm glad you share the same frustration, but what shocks me is that you have somehow justified it when it comes to GAC, but not when it comes to TW.
I’m not mad.
I’m frustrated that you are broadcasting an erroneous view on how matchmaking works and dismissing evidence that you don’t understand it as “outliers”.
Yet you insist that matchmaking is based on GP within a tight margin. Even though the devs state that this is not the case.
That’s the frustration. That, and I always have a problem when people who are wrong think they’re smarter than me.
Your ego is hurting because you don't have experience working with algorithms don't you. I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm not wrong, it takes GP, record, and specific characters like GLs into account. GP being the most important as you wouldn't want a guild of 100 million versing one with 300 million.
Hahaha, it in no way takes GLs into account. You are losing ground here.
"This system accounts for bringing a small number of powerful players"
Does that sound like GLs? Or the idea of smaller number of powerful players is something random to you? I admit the GL specificity is speculation, but the same idea nonetheless. They account for specific players having a larger amount of power, with or without GL status it's the same idea
No, it's stating comparatively higher GP players.
CG have stated multiple times they will not take specific units into account in matchmaking, be it GAC or TW.
It's stating comparatively higher GP players? What is it that I just said to you? GL speculation was an admittance, but that players with large GP are taken into account. That's what I said, and your spitting it back to me like I said something else. "They account for specific 'players' [as in participats] having a large amount of power"
Yes, you have since adjusted your statement. My issue was you initially stating your "specific characters" assumption as fact.
Just make sure you’re relaxed when you learn it. Dude.
Have you ever heard the concept of outliers? It's when you look at data and there's a handful of numbers outside the generality of the core data. That's what your tagging me in. Compare those to nearly every TW to have ever taken place and plot it on a graph, mismatches do happen, but those examples will be outliers compared to most core match up data. You seem mad that I'm telling you how the match up system is suppose to work, yes it could fail- it is just an algorithm and it does have limited choices, so you will get that, it's not shocking, but that's how the algorithm works. I never said it was perfect, but it's far more balanced than GAC. instead of GAC having occasional or maybe even frequent outliers, it's nearly every single match up. That's how it feels for lower level players, I'm glad you share the same frustration, but what shocks me is that you have somehow justified it when it comes to GAC, but not when it comes to TW.
I’m not mad.
I’m frustrated that you are broadcasting an erroneous view on how matchmaking works and dismissing evidence that you don’t understand it as “outliers”.
Yet you insist that matchmaking is based on GP within a tight margin. Even though the devs state that this is not the case.
That’s the frustration. That, and I always have a problem when people who are wrong think they’re smarter than me.
Your ego is hurting because you don't have experience working with algorithms don't you. I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm not wrong, it takes GP, record, and specific characters like GLs into account. GP being the most important as you wouldn't want a guild of 100 million versing one with 300 million.
Hahaha, it in no way takes GLs into account. You are losing ground here.
"This system accounts for bringing a small number of powerful players"
Does that sound like GLs? Or the idea of smaller number of powerful players is something random to you? I admit the GL specificity is speculation, but the same idea nonetheless. They account for specific players having a larger amount of power, with or without GL status it's the same idea
No, it's stating comparatively higher GP players.
CG have stated multiple times they will not take specific units into account in matchmaking, be it GAC or TW.
It's stating comparatively higher GP players? What is it that I just said to you? GL speculation was an admittance, but that players with large GP are taken into account. That's what I said, and your spitting it back to me like I said something else. "They account for specific 'players' [as in participats] having a large amount of power"
Yes, you have since adjusted your statement. My issue was you initially stating your "specific characters" assumption as fact.
My confidence in the factually of my statement resided behind the idea that they've stated to account for players that wield a lot power when matching TW guilds. Whether or not my claim was correct doesnt change the idea that although not based on specific characters, but rather players that have a lot of power comparatively to others, is the same principle.
This is a personal favourite. All 50 of us signed up. 46 of their guild signed up.
But - as you say - TW is matched on GP.
Go ahead, do the math. Theyve also shared that when they updated it that it does have a record attached to each guild now, so it perhaps placed guilds with the greatest likelihood of winning with a uniquely unfair match up as the the other options were taken. The issue will always stem from the fact that your data is coming from guilds at the very top having an issue pairing against guilds with the same GP. If you pulled your sample size from the very bottom or middle ~200 million GP your argument would have validity.
This is the very definition of pigeon chess.
- You assert that TW is matched on active GP
- you present as evidence the reward brackets, insisting that guilds are matched within these
- When presented with evidence of matchups that transcend the reward brackets, sometimes more than one bracket apart, you decry these as “outliers”
- you then challenge me to “do the math(s) on every TW that has ever existed”, which is a classic deflection technique - placing unfulfillable demands upon those trying to disprove your assertion, considering yourself to be correct until these unfulfillable demands are met
- you completely ignore the game developers own description of the factors that affect matchmaking, and continue to insist that your understanding of it is correct.
So, well done to you. Consider this a victory. TW is matched by GP. Apart from when it isn’t.
Hopefully you take comfort from this triumph - except, you can’t be comforted, can you?
1) algorithms are quite tricky and can make very aggressive unilateral decisions unexpectedly
2) it was a rhetorical challenge that tried to shine light on the perspective of the data you've been giving me, (relatively small in the grand scheme of every TW in history)
3) I cited the developers actions, you interpreted it incorrectly.
4) I'm sorry you can't accept the very nature of how algorithms work, it's funny you mention chess, as most chess algorithms actually fail to beat grand masters in chess occasionally because they're inherently flawed.
5) tell me the algorithm doesn't take GP into account at all then. Not even a single thing to measure about GP, tell me where the developers said they don't take GP into account specifically.
5) tell me where they do?
Those GP brackets suggest more than you think. If they didn't account for GP you'd see ridiculous examples of a 10 million gp guild with a 8 game with streak versing a 290 million guild with an 8 game win streak. It's very simple to understand that GP matters, not only in the base logic in itself, but that they literally said in the post that they'll "account more accurately the power of the guild" per se. Which suggests that not only are they doing that now, but they were before. I'm sorry dude
This is a personal favourite. All 50 of us signed up. 46 of their guild signed up.
But - as you say - TW is matched on GP.
Go ahead, do the math. Theyve also shared that when they updated it that it does have a record attached to each guild now, so it perhaps placed guilds with the greatest likelihood of winning with a uniquely unfair match up as the the other options were taken. The issue will always stem from the fact that your data is coming from guilds at the very top having an issue pairing against guilds with the same GP. If you pulled your sample size from the very bottom or middle ~200 million GP your argument would have validity.
This is the very definition of pigeon chess.
- You assert that TW is matched on active GP
- you present as evidence the reward brackets, insisting that guilds are matched within these
- When presented with evidence of matchups that transcend the reward brackets, sometimes more than one bracket apart, you decry these as “outliers”
- you then challenge me to “do the math(s) on every TW that has ever existed”, which is a classic deflection technique - placing unfulfillable demands upon those trying to disprove your assertion, considering yourself to be correct until these unfulfillable demands are met
- you completely ignore the game developers own description of the factors that affect matchmaking, and continue to insist that your understanding of it is correct.
So, well done to you. Consider this a victory. TW is matched by GP. Apart from when it isn’t.
Hopefully you take comfort from this triumph - except, you can’t be comforted, can you?
1) algorithms are quite tricky and can make very aggressive unilateral decisions unexpectedly
2) it was a rhetorical challenge that tried to shine light on the perspective of the data you've been giving me, (relatively small in the grand scheme of every TW in history)
3) I cited the developers actions, you interpreted it incorrectly.
4) I'm sorry you can't accept the very nature of how algorithms work, it's funny you mention chess, as most chess algorithms actually fail to beat grand masters in chess occasionally because they're inherently flawed.
5) tell me the algorithm doesn't take GP into account at all then. Not even a single thing to measure about GP, tell me where the developers said they don't take GP into account specifically.
5) tell me where they do?
Those GP brackets suggest more than you think. If they didn't account for GP you'd see ridiculous examples of a 10 million gp guild with a 8 game with streak versing a 290 million guild with an 8 game win streak. It's very simple to understand that GP matters, not only in the base logic in itself, but that they literally said in the post that they'll "account more accurately the power of the guild" per se. Which suggests that not only are they doing that now, but they were before. I'm sorry dude
No need to apologise - you can’t back up your claim. It’s ok.
Stay mad your wrong
GAC should match based off the same algorithm that TW uses, separated more strictly by divisions as the sample size for players is easier to dissect than groups of 50 or less players
Bit bored of this now. I'll leave some tips for sounding smart before I go.
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Bit bored of this now. I'll leave some tips for sounding smart before I go.
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Sounds like your struggling to argue the developers quotes in front of me
So you resort to ad hominem. How smart of you
Bit bored of this now. I'll leave some tips for sounding smart before I go.
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Sounds like your struggling to argue the developers quotes in front of me
So you resort to ad hominem. How smart of you
Bit bored of this now. I'll leave some tips for sounding smart before I go.
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Sounds like your struggling to argue the developers quotes in front of me
So you resort to ad hominem. How smart of you
You did it again.
Oh no grammar! I must argue grammar because I didn't win the argument!
The GP argument in the first place also repositions your stances against players with more GP. Everyone says it's fine until it affects them personally. Crazy how hypocrisies work like that. Regardless of the algorithm "argument" the sole idea that a guild struggles versing another with higher GP goes against every argument the past 8 pages stood for. Show me how many guilds with more active gp often lose against lower gp guilds? I'm sure your answer might be a little lopsided- it's almost like GP matters.. unless the rewards benefit you personally. You bit your own tongue
Bit bored of this now. I'll leave some tips for sounding smart before I go.
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Sounds like your struggling to argue the developers quotes in front of me
So you resort to ad hominem. How smart of you
You did it again.
Oh no grammar! I must argue grammar because I didn't win the argument!
I was never arguing one way or the other so I’m not sure what argument I was trying to win. Both the new system and the old had/have issues and I said earlier that there is likely no way for them to devise a system that is going to be acceptable or fair to everyone. I definitely had more “unfair” matchups in the previous system and they were usually in my favour and in the new system I seem to be doing just fine with more even matchups that are far more interesting.
In the long run, far more people are getting more rewards in the new system than the old and to most I would guess that is far more important to them. If placing on some artificially created leaderboard is more important to you, then sorry, but this change is not going to give you that.
Given that people have been complaining about matchmaking since the day GAC started, I am happy to check back in a couple of years when they look into it again to see if they take your advice into account. But take some friendly advice, this is not the hill to die on.
Bit bored of this now. I'll leave some tips for sounding smart before I go.
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Sounds like your struggling to argue the developers quotes in front of me
So you resort to ad hominem. How smart of you
You did it again.
Oh no grammar! I must argue grammar because I didn't win the argument!
I was never arguing one way or the other so I’m not sure what argument I was trying to win. Both the new system and the old had/have issues and I said earlier that there is likely no way for them to devise a system that is going to be acceptable or fair to everyone. I definitely had more “unfair” matchups in the previous system and they were usually in my favour and in the new system I seem to be doing just fine with more even matchups that are far more interesting.
In the long run, far more people are getting more rewards in the new system than the old and to most I would guess that is far more important to them. If placing on some artificially created leaderboard is more important to you, then sorry, but this change is not going to give you that.
Given that people have been complaining about matchmaking since the day GAC started, I am happy to check back in a couple of years when they look into it again to see if they take your advice into account. But take some friendly advice, this is not the hill to die on.
I've never been completely against the new system and completely for the old system, but I am pointing out the up and downsides for both of them and seeking to combined both. That's the change I'm seeking, the only reason I argued so aggressively was because of how little people were listening to me and how many people were genuinely making fun of me, one of those members are now banned. Change never happens if no one pushes for it, so in the end if a dev sees this and understands my points- hopefully they're able to make change. Thanks for being genuine as not a lot of people have been to me here, but history shows that people who ask for change are usually met with great opposition and in many of those circumstances change could prevail. Maybe I'm a new hope, or maybe in the Empire striking back, either way I love star wars.
Bit bored of this now. I'll leave some tips for sounding smart before I go.
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Sounds like your struggling to argue the developers quotes in front of me
So you resort to ad hominem. How smart of you
You did it again.
Oh no grammar! I must argue grammar because I didn't win the argument!
I was never arguing one way or the other so I’m not sure what argument I was trying to win. Both the new system and the old had/have issues and I said earlier that there is likely no way for them to devise a system that is going to be acceptable or fair to everyone. I definitely had more “unfair” matchups in the previous system and they were usually in my favour and in the new system I seem to be doing just fine with more even matchups that are far more interesting.
In the long run, far more people are getting more rewards in the new system than the old and to most I would guess that is far more important to them. If placing on some artificially created leaderboard is more important to you, then sorry, but this change is not going to give you that.
Given that people have been complaining about matchmaking since the day GAC started, I am happy to check back in a couple of years when they look into it again to see if they take your advice into account. But take some friendly advice, this is not the hill to die on.
I've never been completely against the new system and completely for the old system, but I am pointing out the up and downsides for both of them and seeking to combined both. That's the change I'm seeking, the only reason I argued so aggressively was because of how little people were listening to me and how many people were genuinely making fun of me, one of those members are now banned. Change never happens if no one pushes for it, so in the end if a dev sees this and understands my points- hopefully they're able to make change. Thanks for being genuine as not a lot of people have been to me here, but history shows that people who ask for change are usually met with great opposition and in many of those circumstances change could prevail. Maybe I'm a new hope, or maybe in the Empire striking back, either way I love star wars.
This specific post and this while thread is tldr. However your first sentence was quite interesting. Upsides and downsides. Hills and stairs both have upsides and downsides depending on the direction you are facing. I like hills, stairs not so much feels like I am working out.
Also why have title a thread with the "change my mind" if you aren't really ready to have your mind changed. Do you like to type?
Matchmaking could be perfectly skill based if it matched closely by GP. I'm talking +/- 500k in GP, maybe +/-999k, like the old system, but if you lose you go down, if you win you go up. Divisions are separated by GP, 1 being the highest. That is literally the most balanced it could ever be right there ^^ not that hard to design either.
Welcome back to the old system, where players don’t have incentive to develop their roster if they already do very well in gac. Except now that gac gives you crystals, there’s even less incentive.
Why wouldn't there be incentive to grow GP? There's so many factors in this game that depend on GP growth. The rewards are and count be higher as you go through divisions, just because players are matched by GP margins doesn't means it's anti GP growth, it's literally balanced
With your system, if you built a roster that allows you to net 10 or 12 victories each gac, why would you change division ? Then you would be at the bottom of the gp spread and struggle to get victories, hurting your crystal revenue like a lot, even if you get more crystals per win/day.
Also, as i said before, how is it fair to the players that played with the current rules and improved their roster because there were no reasons not to do it anymore ? With the system you’re proposing, i (and others) would have built my roster to optimize crystal revenue, for instance making sure i won’t gain enough gp to be in kyber, because competing in kyber against 10m rosters is harder than competing in aurodium where i can match top gp players.
Not saying the actual system is perfect, but it has the advantage of rewarding players who improve their roster without worrying about gp optimization. If the price to pay is that i won’t see the top of the ladder ever again because i’ll never catch up with the top of the spear, that’s ok for me, because i find it more laidback and fun. And this way, i can enjoy other aspects of the game improving my roster without hurting my gac rewards.
It’s not a contest of skill. If you want that, you need to give players the same roster or the same resources. It’s a ladder where the strongest players with the strongest rosters (obtained with money and/or time) are at the top and the weakest players with the weakest rosters at the bottom. You win, you go up, you lose, you go down. That’s it. Up to you to use all the resources at your disposal (money being one) if you want to compete. You probably won’t be able to ever reach top of the ladder if you start the game right now, that’s a given.
But you’re missing the point of the new system: it’s intuitive (improving your roster = getting stronger) and allows for interesting rounds once you’ll find your place in the ladder. But first, you need to give it some time so you’ll find your place in the ladder, and second, sometimes you’ll face players with strong rosters who are in lower divisions because usually they don’t play gac and will decide to play against you. Fortunately, it will be anecdotal enough to not matter.
Talent equals skill,
Talent doesn't change, only
Experience does?
That's the point. Experience verses Experience, that would be the old GAC where you end up versing opponents of equal experience, now it matched you up with people that have an absurd advantage, limiting how much skill you can truly maximize.
If it was skill based anyone could get to kyber, but they can't achieve kyber status without having a large roster, that's not skill, that's experience.
No, because GP growth is regulated and can't be learned. Anyone could upgrade abilities and characters, that isn't skill, that's experience. Look up what talent is, it's a synonymous to skill.
This isn't "skill based matchmaking" if you can't "out skill" your way to the top. The old GAC was skill based. That's why you'll see people with 3 million GP with kyber tags, because they beat equal opponents and proved their skill.
OP was proved wrong by page 4,
So switched to being wrong about Territory War.
His stance keeps getting inverted
He can't be comforted
Could he misunderstand any more?
Folks, this thread has gone through entirely too much trolling and toxicity to remain open.
If you're going to post a thread with the premise being, "Change my mind", please be sure you're open to having a discussion and considering opposing viewpoints on a topic, as is the entire point of a forum.
Similarly, whether or not anyone agrees with points being made by any other poster, posts should remain respectful and focused on the discussion rather than resorting to personal attacks.
Thanks to those that had offered some constructive thoughts and feedback on the topic.
Replies
No, it's stating comparatively higher GP players.
CG have stated multiple times they will not take specific units into account in matchmaking, be it GAC or TW.
It's stating comparatively higher GP players? What is it that I just said to you? GL speculation was an admittance, but that players with large GP are taken into account. That's what I said, and your spitting it back to me like I said something else. "They account for specific 'players' [as in participats] having a large amount of power"
Yes, you have since adjusted your statement. My issue was you initially stating your "specific characters" assumption as fact.
My confidence in the factually of my statement resided behind the idea that they've stated to account for players that wield a lot power when matching TW guilds. Whether or not my claim was correct doesnt change the idea that although not based on specific characters, but rather players that have a lot of power comparatively to others, is the same principle.
Those GP brackets suggest more than you think. If they didn't account for GP you'd see ridiculous examples of a 10 million gp guild with a 8 game with streak versing a 290 million guild with an 8 game win streak. It's very simple to understand that GP matters, not only in the base logic in itself, but that they literally said in the post that they'll "account more accurately the power of the guild" per se. Which suggests that not only are they doing that now, but they were before. I'm sorry dude
Ad hominem is one crazy argument to have
GAC should match based off the same algorithm that TW uses, separated more strictly by divisions as the sample size for players is easier to dissect than groups of 50 or less players
1) You've gotta nail those apostrophes.
2) 5% success rate on "your" vs "you're" isn't great.
3) "I can't get more right". My goodness.
Sounds like your struggling to argue the developers quotes in front of me
So you resort to ad hominem. How smart of you
You did it again.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
Oh no grammar! I must argue grammar because I didn't win the argument!
I was never arguing one way or the other so I’m not sure what argument I was trying to win. Both the new system and the old had/have issues and I said earlier that there is likely no way for them to devise a system that is going to be acceptable or fair to everyone. I definitely had more “unfair” matchups in the previous system and they were usually in my favour and in the new system I seem to be doing just fine with more even matchups that are far more interesting.
In the long run, far more people are getting more rewards in the new system than the old and to most I would guess that is far more important to them. If placing on some artificially created leaderboard is more important to you, then sorry, but this change is not going to give you that.
Given that people have been complaining about matchmaking since the day GAC started, I am happy to check back in a couple of years when they look into it again to see if they take your advice into account. But take some friendly advice, this is not the hill to die on.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
I've never been completely against the new system and completely for the old system, but I am pointing out the up and downsides for both of them and seeking to combined both. That's the change I'm seeking, the only reason I argued so aggressively was because of how little people were listening to me and how many people were genuinely making fun of me, one of those members are now banned. Change never happens if no one pushes for it, so in the end if a dev sees this and understands my points- hopefully they're able to make change. Thanks for being genuine as not a lot of people have been to me here, but history shows that people who ask for change are usually met with great opposition and in many of those circumstances change could prevail. Maybe I'm a new hope, or maybe in the Empire striking back, either way I love star wars.
This specific post and this while thread is tldr. However your first sentence was quite interesting. Upsides and downsides. Hills and stairs both have upsides and downsides depending on the direction you are facing. I like hills, stairs not so much feels like I am working out.
Also why have title a thread with the "change my mind" if you aren't really ready to have your mind changed. Do you like to type?
With your system, if you built a roster that allows you to net 10 or 12 victories each gac, why would you change division ? Then you would be at the bottom of the gp spread and struggle to get victories, hurting your crystal revenue like a lot, even if you get more crystals per win/day.
Also, as i said before, how is it fair to the players that played with the current rules and improved their roster because there were no reasons not to do it anymore ? With the system you’re proposing, i (and others) would have built my roster to optimize crystal revenue, for instance making sure i won’t gain enough gp to be in kyber, because competing in kyber against 10m rosters is harder than competing in aurodium where i can match top gp players.
Not saying the actual system is perfect, but it has the advantage of rewarding players who improve their roster without worrying about gp optimization. If the price to pay is that i won’t see the top of the ladder ever again because i’ll never catch up with the top of the spear, that’s ok for me, because i find it more laidback and fun. And this way, i can enjoy other aspects of the game improving my roster without hurting my gac rewards.
But you’re missing the point of the new system: it’s intuitive (improving your roster = getting stronger) and allows for interesting rounds once you’ll find your place in the ladder. But first, you need to give it some time so you’ll find your place in the ladder, and second, sometimes you’ll face players with strong rosters who are in lower divisions because usually they don’t play gac and will decide to play against you. Fortunately, it will be anecdotal enough to not matter.
So switched to being wrong about Territory War.
His stance keeps getting inverted
He can't be comforted
Could he misunderstand any more?
If you're going to post a thread with the premise being, "Change my mind", please be sure you're open to having a discussion and considering opposing viewpoints on a topic, as is the entire point of a forum.
Similarly, whether or not anyone agrees with points being made by any other poster, posts should remain respectful and focused on the discussion rather than resorting to personal attacks.
Thanks to those that had offered some constructive thoughts and feedback on the topic.