I really dislike the suggestions of a handicap for larger rosters or a division floor based on GP.
My favorite suggestion I've seen in this thread is to provide an opt out option. Players who choose this can get rewards that scale to their GP and equate to 33% win rate in whatever GAC division is deemed appropriate for their GP.
People who don't want to play and opt out will get more crystals than they get now but less than if they actually participated. And they won't ruin the experience for those early- and mid-game players trying to climb the ranks.
So if I make K1 once, and my GP is enough for me to stay there, I'd be incentivized to opt out until I develop my roster to the point where I'm sure I'll do better than 33%. In fact I'd opt out until I am sure I can make it into the next reward tier, within K1, higher than 33%, otherwise it just wouldn't be worth the effort.
You "making K1 once" would be irrelevant to my suggestion. But yes, there may be people bad enough at GAC that they'd be better off not participating.
K1 is just one example. It is relevant and applicable to all divisions because you said "33% win rate in whatever GAC division is deemed appropriate for their GP."
I'm not talking about actually bad players, but people who don't do better than your reward threshold (e.g. 33%), not necessarily because they are bad. It could even be that they have done so well that they are catapulted into a division they don't belong, roster wise. The point is, if there is an opt out option that comes with better rewards, they would take it for the better rewards and less work.
So that shows the fundamental flaw of any opt out scheme - it has to pay out better than the rewards for joining and doing the bare minimum, otherwise people would just not opt out. But then it has to be not so much better that people who would have otherwise participated are incentivized to just opt out. That's a tricky line to draw. And it has to be done not just once, but every time after a season, based on the latest data. Would CG want to do this? Would we trust CG to do this right? I doubt both.
I'm at 8.8 and in K2, the more this goes on the further I will drop as I don't really care. CG keeps punishing me and making me play this game mode to stay relevant. It has had the adverse effect on what they had wished for me to do.
What part of the game do you like? If you don't want to play the main competitive part of the game, in what part of the game are you becoming irrelevant?
There has been plenty to do before GA was created. Plenty of things to do after as well.
After crystals went to GA I stopped all spending. I will slowly start to fall to the bottom of this game and it will then be the end for me.
But what is it you dislike about GAC? Did you find arena a more compelling way to get rewards? I'm just trying to understand the people who dislike GAC considering it offers the most use of our rosters that we work hard to build.
I just don't care for it. People said that SA was so repetitive but GA is like SA on crack. It is the same teams over and over again but instead of doing a battle or two a day for SA you have to do dozens. I just don't care for the game mode at all.
Why wasn't Cobb Vanth shards a reward for the Krayt Dragon raid? Why wasn't Endor Gear Luke shards a reward for the Speeder Bike raid?
I really dislike the suggestions of a handicap for larger rosters or a division floor based on GP.
My favorite suggestion I've seen in this thread is to provide an opt out option. Players who choose this can get rewards that scale to their GP and equate to 33% win rate in whatever GAC division is deemed appropriate for their GP.
People who don't want to play and opt out will get more crystals than they get now but less than if they actually participated. And they won't ruin the experience for those early- and mid-game players trying to climb the ranks.
Nah that sounds awful and would kill activity more. No play, should mean no or very poor rewards. The opt out is there, do not sign up. If they sign up and only available to attack once fine. But I would rather see incentives like an extra 50 crystals for 3 attacks at the end of the season to encourage players to attack.
The suggestions to protect lower levels are not necessarily reward motivated, we enjoy the mode and want to play it genuinely.
We either give the people not participating an incentive to stay out, or they will keep ruining the fun for everyone else. That's kind of it.
In fairness, we would also need to know how often this happens and how often it doesn’t. For example, I handle problem orders at work, and it’s really easy to see 70+ problems a day and think there’s been a calamity, but when you take a step back and see that over 5000 orders had no problems that day, it’s less pressing.
We always hear a few people with outrageous mismatches each round of GAC, but how often is that and how often is everything working just fine? We don’t have that information, so we have to look at the 70+ orders and see a calamity because we can’t see the 5000 orders that indicate a system that’s broadly working.
Well it (large accounts rarely playing and falling into Carbonite) is a problem that'll get worse as more fall and continue to fall until they reach the bottom. So figures now won't really relay the potential of this problem.
Do we look at it now and think 'Oh it's not that much of a problem, and wait until it's a bigger problem that is affecting new players to GAC on a larger scale?'
I'm at 8.8 and in K2, the more this goes on the further I will drop as I don't really care. CG keeps punishing me and making me play this game mode to stay relevant. It has had the adverse effect on what they had wished for me to do.
What part of the game do you like? If you don't want to play the main competitive part of the game, in what part of the game are you becoming irrelevant?
There has been plenty to do before GA was created. Plenty of things to do after as well.
After crystals went to GA I stopped all spending. I will slowly start to fall to the bottom of this game and it will then be the end for me.
But what is it you dislike about GAC? Did you find arena a more compelling way to get rewards? I'm just trying to understand the people who dislike GAC considering it offers the most use of our rosters that we work hard to build.
I just don't care for it. People said that SA was so repetitive but GA is like SA on crack. It is the same teams over and over again but instead of doing a battle or two a day for SA you have to do dozens. I just don't care for the game mode at all.
Replies
So if I make K1 once, and my GP is enough for me to stay there, I'd be incentivized to opt out until I develop my roster to the point where I'm sure I'll do better than 33%. In fact I'd opt out until I am sure I can make it into the next reward tier, within K1, higher than 33%, otherwise it just wouldn't be worth the effort.
K1 is just one example. It is relevant and applicable to all divisions because you said "33% win rate in whatever GAC division is deemed appropriate for their GP."
I'm not talking about actually bad players, but people who don't do better than your reward threshold (e.g. 33%), not necessarily because they are bad. It could even be that they have done so well that they are catapulted into a division they don't belong, roster wise. The point is, if there is an opt out option that comes with better rewards, they would take it for the better rewards and less work.
So that shows the fundamental flaw of any opt out scheme - it has to pay out better than the rewards for joining and doing the bare minimum, otherwise people would just not opt out. But then it has to be not so much better that people who would have otherwise participated are incentivized to just opt out. That's a tricky line to draw. And it has to be done not just once, but every time after a season, based on the latest data. Would CG want to do this? Would we trust CG to do this right? I doubt both.
I just don't care for it. People said that SA was so repetitive but GA is like SA on crack. It is the same teams over and over again but instead of doing a battle or two a day for SA you have to do dozens. I just don't care for the game mode at all.
Nah that sounds awful and would kill activity more. No play, should mean no or very poor rewards. The opt out is there, do not sign up. If they sign up and only available to attack once fine. But I would rather see incentives like an extra 50 crystals for 3 attacks at the end of the season to encourage players to attack.
The suggestions to protect lower levels are not necessarily reward motivated, we enjoy the mode and want to play it genuinely.
In fairness, we would also need to know how often this happens and how often it doesn’t. For example, I handle problem orders at work, and it’s really easy to see 70+ problems a day and think there’s been a calamity, but when you take a step back and see that over 5000 orders had no problems that day, it’s less pressing.
We always hear a few people with outrageous mismatches each round of GAC, but how often is that and how often is everything working just fine? We don’t have that information, so we have to look at the 70+ orders and see a calamity because we can’t see the 5000 orders that indicate a system that’s broadly working.
Do we look at it now and think 'Oh it's not that much of a problem, and wait until it's a bigger problem that is affecting new players to GAC on a larger scale?'
Isn't everything better on crack?