"I don’t see how this suggestion would ever create a scenario where an active account is in a tough luck situation."
It absolutely would. I would say I'm above average/well above average power/ability for my GP. I started in A3 and climbed to just hitting K3. However, since then I've fallen and climbed, fallen and climbed. Hitting a low of A3 (once) again and peak of K4 (twice)
Those well below average ability for the the GP are totally screwed by your system.
I really can't see why we can't deal with players that are falling because of inactivity and see where the land lies after that.
GP really isn't accurate in determining how well a player does in GAC. Especially the further they fall, and the less of their GP they can use.
Not following your logic which I assume is my failing. So guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
If this info is true:
"Iirc around 16k people started in kyber 1 in season 1. It’s less than 6k now." by @Drathuk916
Sorry but you can't explain away the change in sizes simply by quitters.
Not entirely clear what you’re taking exception too. First season had around 343k according to swgoh.gg. I forget the poster before Scott over there but you can find it yourself. So around 34kish fewer accounts are signing up each season. Kyber league has shrunk from 88k to under 50k. So yes obviously not all accounts that have quit were in kyber league. However I certainly believe more than half of the accounts that no longer signup were in kyber league. This still leaves a sizable amount of accounts to be demoted through inactive play but still signing up and to much much lesser extent poor players being pushed out of kyber.
I agree the squish has had an intended effect of pushing people out of kyber or more correctly making it more difficult for players from aurodium to play well enough to replace those playing badly enough in kyber who earn a demotion. But I don’t think it is larger than the effect of quitting players is having.
I didn't try to address you directly, but rather commented assuming your info is true. I assumed flat distribution of quitters from all leagues. You might be right that quitting top heavy might be more prominent. Still the end result is it has shrunk to %38 of it's initial size which is a pretty drastic change.
Gotcha. I was trying to clarify my opinion is all.
And to @PeachyPeachSWGOH yes, get to benchmarks that can be moved every six months or so and join but never participate get a better baseline reward. It’s no different than getting a meta team and ignoring squad arena in the past. Well sure it’s giving out more crystals but everyone is already getting more than they use to.
Under this change an 8 million account that joins but doesn’t really participate gets a total of 8960 crystals in 28 days or 320 a day average. Yeah that seems like a lot but that’s still around half of what a k1 active participant gets. You can change the reward structure too if you like. The actual crystal reward doesn’t matter to me. What matters is making it easier for younger/smaller accounts to plan a path forward to a reasonable daily income while lessening their frustration with severely unbalanced matches due to lack of active participation. I mean there is an 11 million gp account in carbonite 5 for deity’s sake. How is that fun?
Well, I don't know about you, if it's between the amount of work one has to do in order to stay in K1, or half of the reward for doing practically nothing? I'd pick the latter.
You would need to steepen the reward ladder by a lot in order to incentivize people to strive for higher divisions. Something tells me CG will not drastically increase K1 payouts so it's the lower Kyber payouts that must drop for the ladder to be steeper. That would then put a lower cap on all the lower league payouts.
And the real problem of a gp floor is not the rewards, actually. It's that it doesn't solve the problem fundamentally, because instead of 11 mil accounts in Carbonite 5, you would just have 7.9 mil ones in Carbonite 5, and the 11 mil ones are just going to hang around Kyber 5. They would still be slacking off, and frustrating other players, except they'd be doing it for much better rewards.
The benchmark would be for each league. 6 million couldn’t drop out of aurodium 4 million chromium 2 million bronzium. It’s the compromise position between the old system and the new system. Your skill ranking can get you into any league or division but your gp prevents you from dropping too far. This is all randomly picked numbers.
So...........I started the new GAC in A3 and I'm currently at 6.6 million. That would leave very little wiggle room with your interpretation. This all ties in ok with those that are competent. However, what about the players that are above average in GP, but not competent?
What happens to them. The players that legitimately played, but fell to Chromium or Bronzium? Under your system it's tough luck.
It's so freaking simple. Deal with those that aren't actively playing and falling and only them. Once that happens see how the land lies.
There's no need to totally go into a GP system; especially for players that didn't suggesting changes that didn't play/understand the old system.
Oh and @Lumiya what actually is your standpoint? Any post that is anti the current GAC, no matter the issue you like...........even mine.
There are issues, yes there are. However, tweaks are needed, not a total overhaul.........in my opinon.
First, you ignored my last sentence of “randomly picked numbers”. But at the same time there was some logic.
The above is from Scott over at swgoh.gg and the rows are in alphabetical order so audorium, bronzium carbonite, chromium, and kyber As you can see the randomly picked number is basically the average for each league gp wise. I also am suggesting a floor not a cap. Your 6.6 million account could still climb to kyber 1 but couldn’t drop below aurodium 5.
The logic is to group accounts that join but don’t attack in division 5 of their appropriate gp level league. If you’re active and in division 5 you should have an easy time climbing out as your opponent is far more likely to not participate.
I don’t see how this suggestion would ever create a scenario where an active account is in a tough luck situation. I also don’t see cg even considering it because it means more crystals and to them I think they believe that automatically means less money. This could very likely be true, but I think player retention both from active and non active joiners would be higher and therefore a wider pool of people who might spend.
I like the posts I agree with, as simple as that. Unlike some here I don't have a problem agreeing with people/liking their comments even if we might disagree on other topics. 😉
When I comment I write what I think and also why I think so, so it shouldn't be too difficult to see where I stand on this topic because you have read my comments.
It is a many layered topic but to try to keep it short: The system as it is may be good in theory but not so much in reality. As I stated before on another thread a while ago, a system like this does not work well in a game like this without some kind of filters. I am not saying to go back completely to the old system, but as we can see there needs to be more than just the skill rating, which brings me to another point. The SR gets artificially influenced from the outside after every season. That destroys every self regulation the system might have on top of the other "problems".
But before this post gets too long, I already mentioned all my points with the reasons for why I think so in more detail throughout the various posts that have been made here over the time.
Out if fear my comment disappears if I edit: my comments was supposed to be an answer to @harvestmouse, don't know why it quoted the last post when I actually clicked quote ob harvestmouse's comment. 😉
"I don’t see how this suggestion would ever create a scenario where an active account is in a tough luck situation."
It absolutely would. I would say I'm above average/well above average power/ability for my GP. I started in A3 and climbed to just hitting K3. However, since then I've fallen and climbed, fallen and climbed. Hitting a low of A3 (once) again and peak of K4 (twice)
Those well below average ability for the the GP are totally screwed by your system.
I really can't see why we can't deal with players that are falling because of inactivity and see where the land lies after that.
GP really isn't accurate in determining how well a player does in GAC. Especially the further they fall, and the less of their GP they can use.
Not following your logic which I assume is my failing. So guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
Well.......which part? There are a lot of topics on 'GAC matches are unfair', it might be worth looking at them. It might give a broader picture.
However, the bottom line is: I played the majority of my GAC under GP, and now for 9 months under the new skill rating GAC. Although I won more under the old system, I prefer the new system and feel it is fairer..........apart from the inactive player problem.
If this info is true:
"Iirc around 16k people started in kyber 1 in season 1. It’s less than 6k now." by @Drathuk916
Sorry but you can't explain away the change in sizes simply by quitters.
Not entirely clear what you’re taking exception too. First season had around 343k according to swgoh.gg. I forget the poster before Scott over there but you can find it yourself. So around 34kish fewer accounts are signing up each season. Kyber league has shrunk from 88k to under 50k. So yes obviously not all accounts that have quit were in kyber league. However I certainly believe more than half of the accounts that no longer signup were in kyber league. This still leaves a sizable amount of accounts to be demoted through inactive play but still signing up and to much much lesser extent poor players being pushed out of kyber.
I agree the squish has had an intended effect of pushing people out of kyber or more correctly making it more difficult for players from aurodium to play well enough to replace those playing badly enough in kyber who earn a demotion. But I don’t think it is larger than the effect of quitting players is having.
I didn't try to address you directly, but rather commented assuming your info is true. I assumed flat distribution of quitters from all leagues. You might be right that quitting top heavy might be more prominent. Still the end result is it has shrunk to %38 of it's initial size which is a pretty drastic change.
Gotcha. I was trying to clarify my opinion is all.
And to @PeachyPeachSWGOH yes, get to benchmarks that can be moved every six months or so and join but never participate get a better baseline reward. It’s no different than getting a meta team and ignoring squad arena in the past. Well sure it’s giving out more crystals but everyone is already getting more than they use to.
Under this change an 8 million account that joins but doesn’t really participate gets a total of 8960 crystals in 28 days or 320 a day average. Yeah that seems like a lot but that’s still around half of what a k1 active participant gets. You can change the reward structure too if you like. The actual crystal reward doesn’t matter to me. What matters is making it easier for younger/smaller accounts to plan a path forward to a reasonable daily income while lessening their frustration with severely unbalanced matches due to lack of active participation. I mean there is an 11 million gp account in carbonite 5 for deity’s sake. How is that fun?
Well, I don't know about you, if it's between the amount of work one has to do in order to stay in K1, or half of the reward for doing practically nothing? I'd pick the latter.
You would need to steepen the reward ladder by a lot in order to incentivize people to strive for higher divisions. Something tells me CG will not drastically increase K1 payouts so it's the lower Kyber payouts that must drop for the ladder to be steeper. That would then put a lower cap on all the lower league payouts.
And the real problem of a gp floor is not the rewards, actually. It's that it doesn't solve the problem fundamentally, because instead of 11 mil accounts in Carbonite 5, you would just have 7.9 mil ones in Carbonite 5, and the 11 mil ones are just going to hang around Kyber 5. They would still be slacking off, and frustrating other players, except they'd be doing it for much better rewards.
The benchmark would be for each league. 6 million couldn’t drop out of aurodium 4 million chromium 2 million bronzium. It’s the compromise position between the old system and the new system. Your skill ranking can get you into any league or division but your gp prevents you from dropping too far. This is all randomly picked numbers.
So...........I started the new GAC in A3 and I'm currently at 6.6 million. That would leave very little wiggle room with your interpretation. This all ties in ok with those that are competent. However, what about the players that are above average in GP, but not competent?
What happens to them. The players that legitimately played, but fell to Chromium or Bronzium? Under your system it's tough luck.
It's so freaking simple. Deal with those that aren't actively playing and falling and only them. Once that happens see how the land lies.
There's no need to totally go into a GP system; especially for players that didn't suggesting changes that didn't play/understand the old system.
Oh and @Lumiya what actually is your standpoint? Any post that is anti the current GAC, no matter the issue you like...........even mine.
There are issues, yes there are. However, tweaks are needed, not a total overhaul.........in my opinon.
First, you ignored my last sentence of “randomly picked numbers”. But at the same time there was some logic.
The above is from Scott over at swgoh.gg and the rows are in alphabetical order so audorium, bronzium carbonite, chromium, and kyber As you can see the randomly picked number is basically the average for each league gp wise. I also am suggesting a floor not a cap. Your 6.6 million account could still climb to kyber 1 but couldn’t drop below aurodium 5.
The logic is to group accounts that join but don’t attack in division 5 of their appropriate gp level league. If you’re active and in division 5 you should have an easy time climbing out as your opponent is far more likely to not participate.
I don’t see how this suggestion would ever create a scenario where an active account is in a tough luck situation. I also don’t see cg even considering it because it means more crystals and to them I think they believe that automatically means less money. This could very likely be true, but I think player retention both from active and non active joiners would be higher and therefore a wider pool of people who might spend.
I like the posts I agree with, as simple as that. Unlike some here I don't have a problem agreeing with people/liking their comments even if we might disagree on other topics. 😉
Well you seem to like any post that is anti the current system, no matter what the complaint is or how logical the solution. It feels like you're pushing for GAC anarchy or a shake up, no matter what.
However, that's a very good point. Liking posts that you think are good, no matter what. I applaud that.
If this info is true:
"Iirc around 16k people started in kyber 1 in season 1. It’s less than 6k now." by @Drathuk916
Sorry but you can't explain away the change in sizes simply by quitters.
Not entirely clear what you’re taking exception too. First season had around 343k according to swgoh.gg. I forget the poster before Scott over there but you can find it yourself. So around 34kish fewer accounts are signing up each season. Kyber league has shrunk from 88k to under 50k. So yes obviously not all accounts that have quit were in kyber league. However I certainly believe more than half of the accounts that no longer signup were in kyber league. This still leaves a sizable amount of accounts to be demoted through inactive play but still signing up and to much much lesser extent poor players being pushed out of kyber.
I agree the squish has had an intended effect of pushing people out of kyber or more correctly making it more difficult for players from aurodium to play well enough to replace those playing badly enough in kyber who earn a demotion. But I don’t think it is larger than the effect of quitting players is having.
I didn't try to address you directly, but rather commented assuming your info is true. I assumed flat distribution of quitters from all leagues. You might be right that quitting top heavy might be more prominent. Still the end result is it has shrunk to %38 of it's initial size which is a pretty drastic change.
Gotcha. I was trying to clarify my opinion is all.
And to @PeachyPeachSWGOH yes, get to benchmarks that can be moved every six months or so and join but never participate get a better baseline reward. It’s no different than getting a meta team and ignoring squad arena in the past. Well sure it’s giving out more crystals but everyone is already getting more than they use to.
Under this change an 8 million account that joins but doesn’t really participate gets a total of 8960 crystals in 28 days or 320 a day average. Yeah that seems like a lot but that’s still around half of what a k1 active participant gets. You can change the reward structure too if you like. The actual crystal reward doesn’t matter to me. What matters is making it easier for younger/smaller accounts to plan a path forward to a reasonable daily income while lessening their frustration with severely unbalanced matches due to lack of active participation. I mean there is an 11 million gp account in carbonite 5 for deity’s sake. How is that fun?
Well, I don't know about you, if it's between the amount of work one has to do in order to stay in K1, or half of the reward for doing practically nothing? I'd pick the latter.
You would need to steepen the reward ladder by a lot in order to incentivize people to strive for higher divisions. Something tells me CG will not drastically increase K1 payouts so it's the lower Kyber payouts that must drop for the ladder to be steeper. That would then put a lower cap on all the lower league payouts.
And the real problem of a gp floor is not the rewards, actually. It's that it doesn't solve the problem fundamentally, because instead of 11 mil accounts in Carbonite 5, you would just have 7.9 mil ones in Carbonite 5, and the 11 mil ones are just going to hang around Kyber 5. They would still be slacking off, and frustrating other players, except they'd be doing it for much better rewards.
The benchmark would be for each league. 6 million couldn’t drop out of aurodium 4 million chromium 2 million bronzium. It’s the compromise position between the old system and the new system. Your skill ranking can get you into any league or division but your gp prevents you from dropping too far. This is all randomly picked numbers.
So...........I started the new GAC in A3 and I'm currently at 6.6 million. That would leave very little wiggle room with your interpretation. This all ties in ok with those that are competent. However, what about the players that are above average in GP, but not competent?
What happens to them. The players that legitimately played, but fell to Chromium or Bronzium? Under your system it's tough luck.
It's so freaking simple. Deal with those that aren't actively playing and falling and only them. Once that happens see how the land lies.
There's no need to totally go into a GP system; especially for players that didn't suggesting changes that didn't play/understand the old system.
Oh and @Lumiya what actually is your standpoint? Any post that is anti the current GAC, no matter the issue you like...........even mine.
There are issues, yes there are. However, tweaks are needed, not a total overhaul.........in my opinon.
First, you ignored my last sentence of “randomly picked numbers”. But at the same time there was some logic.
The above is from Scott over at swgoh.gg and the rows are in alphabetical order so audorium, bronzium carbonite, chromium, and kyber As you can see the randomly picked number is basically the average for each league gp wise. I also am suggesting a floor not a cap. Your 6.6 million account could still climb to kyber 1 but couldn’t drop below aurodium 5.
The logic is to group accounts that join but don’t attack in division 5 of their appropriate gp level league. If you’re active and in division 5 you should have an easy time climbing out as your opponent is far more likely to not participate.
I don’t see how this suggestion would ever create a scenario where an active account is in a tough luck situation. I also don’t see cg even considering it because it means more crystals and to them I think they believe that automatically means less money. This could very likely be true, but I think player retention both from active and non active joiners would be higher and therefore a wider pool of people who might spend.
I like the posts I agree with, as simple as that. Unlike some here I don't have a problem agreeing with people/liking their comments even if we might disagree on other topics. 😉
Well you seem to like any post that is anti the current system, no matter what the complaint is or how logical the solution. It feels like you're pushing for GAC anarchy or a shake up, no matter what.
However, that's a very good point. Liking posts that you think are good, no matter what. I applaud that.
You don't know me so you don't know why I like them. It has nothing to do with anarchy or whatever. Lol to that. Like I said, I like posts I agree with.
I said somewhere here a while ago, we are here on the official forums so if there is any place where ideas or feedback can be given, it is here. No matter if I or anyone else here agree/s or disagree/s with what somebody posts, it is the place for everyone to try to be heard. And if there is a topic where there are a number of comments/posts that show that it is not just one person that sees a problem, then it is also good for CG to see that - again, no matter if anyone personally here agrees or disagrees. I see no problem in having a civilized discussion if one disagrees, I just don't like that some here seem to try to drown out everything that that they disagree with (I don't mean you) so I also think it's a good gesture to show my support by liking a comment I agree with, so the commenter sees, they are not alone. 🙂
"I don’t see how this suggestion would ever create a scenario where an active account is in a tough luck situation."
It absolutely would. I would say I'm above average/well above average power/ability for my GP. I started in A3 and climbed to just hitting K3. However, since then I've fallen and climbed, fallen and climbed. Hitting a low of A3 (once) again and peak of K4 (twice)
Those well below average ability for the the GP are totally screwed by your system.
I really can't see why we can't deal with players that are falling because of inactivity and see where the land lies after that.
GP really isn't accurate in determining how well a player does in GAC. Especially the further they fall, and the less of their GP they can use.
Not following your logic which I assume is my failing. So guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
Well.......which part? There are a lot of topics on 'GAC matches are unfair', it might be worth looking at them. It might give a broader picture.
However, the bottom line is: I played the majority of my GAC under GP, and now for 9 months under the new skill rating GAC. Although I won more under the old system, I prefer the new system and feel it is fairer..........apart from the inactive player problem.
I don’t see how an active participant gets screwed by not being allowed to fall further. My logic is division 5 gets filled with joiners who are inactive, bad players, and some though not all of the recently promoted from the lower league who have less gp. So a bad players possible opponents are limited to these players. Not really seeing how that screws them. Sure a subset will be better players with less gp like you in kyber but I would suspect inactive joiners to be a large portion of each d5. Though even if I’m completely wrong this subset of players is more than made up for by average and some above average players no longer having to face accounts with greater than a 2 million advantage.
My logic is division 5 gets filled with joiners who are inactive, bad players, and some though not all of the recently promoted from the lower league who have less gp.
Ahhhhhhhhh ok, I'm seeing your logic. Hmmmmmmmmm interesting.
I don't think it works however.
Firstly, what is the difference between the very best and the very worst player of say..........4 million GP?
Player A follows a strict and super successful farming guide, learns and farms mods well and strictly doesn't touch any toon that isn't necessary or extremely potent in GAC.
Player B plays as much, but doesn't understand or follow any guidelines. Doesn't even try the journey guides (and these players do exist). Doesn't even put mods on their toons.
I would say the GAC power difference between the 2 is what.......Player A has 3 times the GAC power of player B? Even though they're at the same GP. Actually the power level is possibly infinite as a GAC match up would quite likely be a clean sweep in favour of player A.
This is the most extreme difference of 2 players of the same GP of course. However, it's a case.
So in your scenario what happens to the player ****? They basically are forced to play, players of their own ability (ok), players much better than them that are coming up (no ok), and inactive players (not ok for anybody). I have no idea what the percentages of each would be, but 2/3rds of the group types wouldn't give them a good match up. Where as dropping to a lower league and playing average players of a lower GP does give them a better match up. Also bear in mind the lower the account drops, the less of their GP they can use. Therefore the less GP has an influence on the match up.
Lastly, if you can't drop out of a league due being of a certain GP. What happens to the league player numbers balance? GAC is actually shrinking in size, so the reality is nobody would be able to go up in league. Or eventually the top leagues would be massively top heavy.
but I would suspect inactive joiners to be a large portion of each d5.
Anybody that gets drawn vs a player that is inactive shouldn't happen. Whether that's our 'Player B' or a new player entering the league. This is screwing over 'Player B'. They deserve a proper match up just like anybody. We need...........CG need to find a way to deal with the inactive that doesn't affect any actives. I really feel you do this, they system is going to be much much smoother.
Though even if I’m completely wrong this subset of players is more than made up for by average and some above average players no longer having to face accounts with greater than a 2 million advantage.
But the thing is we see match ups of players with 4.........5 million disadvantages winning. Possibly it's not pretty, using underman and roster stretching tactics. However, they're happening all the time. Is it as fun as an even GP match up though? I don't think so, but winning is these situations is a big buzz. Just look at Ahnaldt101's F2P account. He's winning 50% of his match ups vs rosters twice the size.
Fairness of match up, the GP argument really doesn't stand (if the 2 players that meet are equally active). Whether it's as fun to play as a big GP underdog..............well that's another point. I'd rather that though, than to go back to GP being any sort of factor in match making at all.
If they are still trying to keep up with that goal, the conclusion would be that the overall GAC population has been shrinking.
Those aren't sizes by count, they're distributions. And as many others have already mentioned, Kyber (K1, in particular) was over-saturated with the initial GP rankings. So of course the head count in divisions will need to change to achieve the desired distribution.
Aren't the distributions percentages of head counts? What's the difference between "sizes by count" and "distributions?"
As for Kyber being over-saturated initially, I have always assumed that they picked the initial GP thresholds so that the population would be approximately evenly spread across the leagues.
If my goal is to keep 10% of X in a group, then the size of the group will be tied to X and won't necessarily be constant. Also, if my initial state is way out of alignment, I will have to adjust the size of the group to get to my desired %. I could do this all at once, but the shock might be too great. So maybe I take my time and spread it out over time.
I don't think we disagree, then. The Q&A I quoted - "evenly distributed", and "10/25/30/25/10" - is obviously talking about percentages. Nobody is talking about fixed numbers, I don't think.
You thought wrong :P
Maybe you meant evenly distributed. But strictly as written, your comment contradicted the quote you were sharing, which I found confusing.
I see where the confusion came from. Sure, I should have said "keep the league/division sizes constant in relation to each other". We have been always talking about ratios and relative sizes.
One chart you’re missing is “gac numbers by league before ‘join’”, during the off week.
In some ways, “people who join GAC” is a better estimate anyway, at least if you want to home in on the engaged player base.
Nah, i was trying to find a reason to the kyber shrinking. I wonder if there is a shrinkage in Kyber because we have a shrinkage of engagement in Kyber (which could be a result of datacrons) and not a voluntary shrinkage. Inactive players still receive daily crystal, so if there is a simple 20% per league objective, it might consider the entire population and not only the active population.
One chart you’re missing is “gac numbers by league before ‘join’”, during the off week.
In some ways, “people who join GAC” is a better estimate anyway, at least if you want to home in on the engaged player base.
Nah, i was trying to find a reason to the kyber shrinking. I wonder if there is a shrinkage in Kyber because we have a shrinkage of engagement in Kyber (which could be a result of datacrons) and not a voluntary shrinkage. Inactive players still receive daily crystal, so if there is a simple 20% per league objective, it might consider the entire population and not only the active population.
Nope, peoples skill ratings are dropping even though they have winning records, because of squish. It is 100% a manufactured situation.
If you follow it from month 1, it is actually the opposite problem - they started out dividing up by GP evenly into leagues. Then the top players mostly kept playing GAC, but the middle dropped out. So kyber was too big as a percentage of active GAC.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players. Which makes some amount of sense, but because they didn’t communicate anything about it, it is perceived as a punishment by the active players.
This is exacerbated by whatever they are doing to kyber 1, which….. makes no sense to anyone. We kind of assumed it would stop at 10% of kyber and kyber at 20%, but it didn’t.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
If you don’t have any data to the contrary trust the data we have collected.
The most telling point is looking at the skill rating of actual players, which has gone down even though they have winning records. Mhann of Mhanndalorian Bot has data for hundreds of players, including his own.
The players currently filling kyber2 are the exact same players who were fighting it out in div 1 before they changed the size on us. The kyber1 players aren’t gone, we are all just in kyber2. And the bottom 5k old kyber2 players are in kyber3. And the old kyber5 players are in aurodium.
I really appreciate all the discussion. I think understand why it is happening, I'm just curious if it's intentional or just lack of understanding of how the skill rating squish is influencing division sizes.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
If you don’t have any data to the contrary trust the data we have collected.
I never said your data shouldn’t be trusted. I said an additional data is needed.
I really appreciate all the discussion. I think understand why it is happening, I'm just curious if it's intentional or just lack of understanding of how the skill rating squish is influencing division sizes.
Is it Squish? The whole of Kyber is shrinking, therefore K1 is being kept proportionate to the rest of Kyber.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
If you don’t have any data to the contrary trust the data we have collected.
The most telling point is looking at the skill rating of actual players, which has gone down even though they have winning records. Mhann of Mhanndalorian Bot has data for hundreds of players, including his own.
The players currently filling kyber2 are the exact same players who were fighting it out in div 1 before they changed the size on us. The kyber1 players aren’t gone, we are all just in kyber2. And the bottom 5k old kyber2 players are in kyber3. And the old kyber5 players are in aurodium.
Exactly and it creates a huge domino effect. Kyber players squished/falling down which in turn pushes everyone else also down.
Total control of crystal flow and less and less crystals going to the players.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
This "drop of engagement=drop of league size" doesn't make the least sense to me. In a system that's designed to keep ratios(not numbers) constant, drop of engagement of some would automatically get replaced by comer-uppers.
Similarly "maybe it's adjusted on the totality of active population" doesn't make least amount of sense either. Why would a pvp system within a game take account who doesn't sign up for that system? Pretty weak arguments.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
This "drop of engagement=drop of league size" doesn't make the least sense to me. In a system that's designed to keep ratios(not numbers) constant, drop of engagement of some would automatically get replaced by comer-uppers.
Not really sure what people are arguing. CG has asserted that the size of each league is dependent upon the total population, assuming they are referring to GAC signups. They have also asserted that the size of each division is dependent upon the size of the league. And lastly, they have asserted that skill squish does not affect league ranking.
If you are trying to prove that squish does affect league ranking, wouldn’t you just need a set of examples that show that squish demoted a player, and not any other factor? Or is that not the argument people are making?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
This "drop of engagement=drop of league size" doesn't make the least sense to me. In a system that's designed to keep ratios(not numbers) constant, drop of engagement of some would automatically get replaced by comer-uppers.
Not really sure what people are arguing. CG has asserted that the size of each league is dependent upon the total population, assuming they are referring to GAC signups. They have also asserted that the size of each division is dependent upon the size of the league. And lastly, they have asserted that skill squish does not affect league ranking.
If you are trying to prove that squish does affect league ranking, wouldn’t you just need a set of examples that show that squish demoted a player, and not any other factor? Or is that not the argument people are making?
You can't go with the individual numbers or getting demoted yourself via the squish, but you can prove that the size/ratio of something is shrinking which Taliana already did. She's been keeping up the tabs on GAC forever btw, way before the new system.
The squish is to help CG control overall crystal income in its entirety (i.e. player base).
This is the part I don’t understand. If you are referring to the skill squish doing this, it would have to be affecting a player’s rank. It doesn’t track that CG would do this either, as they already have direct control over the overall crystal income and therefore no need to create a mechanism to control it indirectly. I might be missing something, but so far as I can see the league size dropping because the overall GAC population is dropping is the likely culprit, which matches the explanation CG gives for the setup.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
The squish is to help CG control overall crystal income in its entirety (i.e. player base).
This is the part I don’t understand. If you are referring to the skill squish doing this, it would have to be affecting a player’s rank. It doesn’t track that CG would do this either, as they already have direct control over the overall crystal income and therefore no need to create a mechanism to control it indirectly. I might be missing something, but so far as I can see the league size dropping because the overall GAC population is dropping is the likely culprit, which matches the explanation CG gives for the setup.
The change in overall joins is very slight while the change in distributions isn't.
Yes, I saw that. BTW, that’s awesome that you track all of that Taliana, thank you!
It is a good question, and I’m curious too. I could speculate but I would be making a lot of assumptions so there is a good chance I would be wrong. My first observation is that it looks like they are evening the distribution, but also protecting carbonite by affecting them less.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
This "drop of engagement=drop of league size" doesn't make the least sense to me. In a system that's designed to keep ratios(not numbers) constant, drop of engagement of some would automatically get replaced by comer-uppers.
So the last time I got relegated out of Kyber. I was then squished points to keep me out of A1 and put me into A2. So........ I would then need to promote myself to get promoted back to K5, instead of already being in a position to be promoted.
Maybe this leads to less coming up than going down?
The squish is to help CG control overall crystal income in its entirety (i.e. player base).
This is the part I don’t understand. If you are referring to the skill squish doing this, it would have to be affecting a player’s rank. It doesn’t track that CG would do this either, as they already have direct control over the overall crystal income and therefore no need to create a mechanism to control it indirectly. I might be missing something, but so far as I can see the league size dropping because the overall GAC population is dropping is the likely culprit, which matches the explanation CG gives for the setup.
It does indirectly affect their rank. If you get squished and have now less points than the minimum for the division you are in, you have to win or you get demoted, where as before it wouldn't have dropped you out of your division, or which also happens to players, even if you win you get demoted because you lost so many points with the squish that even a win is not enough to keep you where you were. I would say that very much affects a players and just because it only takes effect after the first fight it doesn't mean that it was not the squish that caused a player to get demoted.
This creates a downward spiral. You need more and more wins to get/stay where you were and in a system that is designed for 50/50 that will eventually lead to players falling.
Here's how I got squished out of k1 just recently. Not that I was trying to be there, I haven't managed to climb this much for a while. It's still the squish that did me in.
Similarly "maybe it's adjusted on the totality of active population" doesn't make least amount of sense either. Why would a pvp system within a game take account who doesn't sign up for that system? Pretty weak arguments.
Because crystals are given daily to everyone, active or inactive. Unless i’m mistaken, you only forfeit the win/loss/end of event rewards if you don’t join but still get the daily crystal income.
I’m not saying that’s how the system works. I’m saying it could be.
This "drop of engagement=drop of league size" doesn't make the least sense to me. In a system that's designed to keep ratios(not numbers) constant, drop of engagement of some would automatically get replaced by comer-uppers.
Let’s say during the off week we have a total a 100 players, 20 in each league, perfect 20%. Everyone join but 5 players in Kyber. The ‘after join’ graph will show that 15/95 ‘joined’ players are register in kyber, so less than 20%.
I’m not saying that it is happening for sure as i have no idea. I’m saying it’s a possibility and some data to dismiss it completely would be awesome.
The squish is to help CG control overall crystal income in its entirety (i.e. player base).
This is the part I don’t understand. If you are referring to the skill squish doing this, it would have to be affecting a player’s rank. It doesn’t track that CG would do this either, as they already have direct control over the overall crystal income and therefore no need to create a mechanism to control it indirectly. I might be missing something, but so far as I can see the league size dropping because the overall GAC population is dropping is the likely culprit, which matches the explanation CG gives for the setup.
It does indirectly affect their rank. If you get squished and have now less points than the minimum for the division you are in, you have to win or you get demoted, where as before it wouldn't have dropped you out of your division, or which also happens to players, even if you win you get demoted because you lost so many points with the squish that even a win is not enough to keep you where you were. I would say that very much affects a players and just because it only takes effect after the first fight it doesn't mean that it was not the squish that caused a player to get demoted.
This creates a downward spiral. You need more and more wins to get/stay where you were and in a system that is designed for 50/50 that will eventually lead to players falling.
I disagree with the logic, but only because it doesn’t eliminate all other possible explanations for the change. While I understand where you are coming from about the squish and the skill cutoffs, there’s no guarantee that if you had lost that match without being squished that you wouldn’t have dropped.
In my opinion, it still all ties back to the population shrinking and league/division size changes. My wild guess about the graph changes is that CG was tweaking the skill rating cutoffs for the leagues, but left Carbonite/Bronzium alone, in an effort to normalize the leagues. This still can’t be tied directly back to skill squish, because skill squish would have to move players between divisions in order to be able to create an effect like overpopulation.
Basically, we need to push more people to sign up for GAC. More people means larger division/league sizes; people move up instead of dropping down. Spiral averted.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
Replies
Not following your logic which I assume is my failing. So guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
I like the posts I agree with, as simple as that. Unlike some here I don't have a problem agreeing with people/liking their comments even if we might disagree on other topics. 😉
When I comment I write what I think and also why I think so, so it shouldn't be too difficult to see where I stand on this topic because you have read my comments.
It is a many layered topic but to try to keep it short: The system as it is may be good in theory but not so much in reality. As I stated before on another thread a while ago, a system like this does not work well in a game like this without some kind of filters. I am not saying to go back completely to the old system, but as we can see there needs to be more than just the skill rating, which brings me to another point. The SR gets artificially influenced from the outside after every season. That destroys every self regulation the system might have on top of the other "problems".
But before this post gets too long, I already mentioned all my points with the reasons for why I think so in more detail throughout the various posts that have been made here over the time.
Well.......which part? There are a lot of topics on 'GAC matches are unfair', it might be worth looking at them. It might give a broader picture.
However, the bottom line is: I played the majority of my GAC under GP, and now for 9 months under the new skill rating GAC. Although I won more under the old system, I prefer the new system and feel it is fairer..........apart from the inactive player problem.
Well you seem to like any post that is anti the current system, no matter what the complaint is or how logical the solution. It feels like you're pushing for GAC anarchy or a shake up, no matter what.
However, that's a very good point. Liking posts that you think are good, no matter what. I applaud that.
You don't know me so you don't know why I like them. It has nothing to do with anarchy or whatever. Lol to that. Like I said, I like posts I agree with.
I said somewhere here a while ago, we are here on the official forums so if there is any place where ideas or feedback can be given, it is here. No matter if I or anyone else here agree/s or disagree/s with what somebody posts, it is the place for everyone to try to be heard. And if there is a topic where there are a number of comments/posts that show that it is not just one person that sees a problem, then it is also good for CG to see that - again, no matter if anyone personally here agrees or disagrees. I see no problem in having a civilized discussion if one disagrees, I just don't like that some here seem to try to drown out everything that that they disagree with (I don't mean you) so I also think it's a good gesture to show my support by liking a comment I agree with, so the commenter sees, they are not alone. 🙂
I don’t see how an active participant gets screwed by not being allowed to fall further. My logic is division 5 gets filled with joiners who are inactive, bad players, and some though not all of the recently promoted from the lower league who have less gp. So a bad players possible opponents are limited to these players. Not really seeing how that screws them. Sure a subset will be better players with less gp like you in kyber but I would suspect inactive joiners to be a large portion of each d5. Though even if I’m completely wrong this subset of players is more than made up for by average and some above average players no longer having to face accounts with greater than a 2 million advantage.
Ahhhhhhhhh ok, I'm seeing your logic. Hmmmmmmmmm interesting.
I don't think it works however.
Firstly, what is the difference between the very best and the very worst player of say..........4 million GP?
Player A follows a strict and super successful farming guide, learns and farms mods well and strictly doesn't touch any toon that isn't necessary or extremely potent in GAC.
Player B plays as much, but doesn't understand or follow any guidelines. Doesn't even try the journey guides (and these players do exist). Doesn't even put mods on their toons.
I would say the GAC power difference between the 2 is what.......Player A has 3 times the GAC power of player B? Even though they're at the same GP. Actually the power level is possibly infinite as a GAC match up would quite likely be a clean sweep in favour of player A.
This is the most extreme difference of 2 players of the same GP of course. However, it's a case.
So in your scenario what happens to the player ****? They basically are forced to play, players of their own ability (ok), players much better than them that are coming up (no ok), and inactive players (not ok for anybody). I have no idea what the percentages of each would be, but 2/3rds of the group types wouldn't give them a good match up. Where as dropping to a lower league and playing average players of a lower GP does give them a better match up. Also bear in mind the lower the account drops, the less of their GP they can use. Therefore the less GP has an influence on the match up.
Lastly, if you can't drop out of a league due being of a certain GP. What happens to the league player numbers balance? GAC is actually shrinking in size, so the reality is nobody would be able to go up in league. Or eventually the top leagues would be massively top heavy.
Anybody that gets drawn vs a player that is inactive shouldn't happen. Whether that's our 'Player B' or a new player entering the league. This is screwing over 'Player B'. They deserve a proper match up just like anybody. We need...........CG need to find a way to deal with the inactive that doesn't affect any actives. I really feel you do this, they system is going to be much much smoother.
But the thing is we see match ups of players with 4.........5 million disadvantages winning. Possibly it's not pretty, using underman and roster stretching tactics. However, they're happening all the time. Is it as fun as an even GP match up though? I don't think so, but winning is these situations is a big buzz. Just look at Ahnaldt101's F2P account. He's winning 50% of his match ups vs rosters twice the size.
Fairness of match up, the GP argument really doesn't stand (if the 2 players that meet are equally active). Whether it's as fun to play as a big GP underdog..............well that's another point. I'd rather that though, than to go back to GP being any sort of factor in match making at all.
I see where the confusion came from. Sure, I should have said "keep the league/division sizes constant in relation to each other". We have been always talking about ratios and relative sizes.
Nah, i was trying to find a reason to the kyber shrinking. I wonder if there is a shrinkage in Kyber because we have a shrinkage of engagement in Kyber (which could be a result of datacrons) and not a voluntary shrinkage. Inactive players still receive daily crystal, so if there is a simple 20% per league objective, it might consider the entire population and not only the active population.
Nope, peoples skill ratings are dropping even though they have winning records, because of squish. It is 100% a manufactured situation.
If you follow it from month 1, it is actually the opposite problem - they started out dividing up by GP evenly into leagues. Then the top players mostly kept playing GAC, but the middle dropped out. So kyber was too big as a percentage of active GAC.
So then they introduced squish to presumably force kyber back down to 20% of active players. Which makes some amount of sense, but because they didn’t communicate anything about it, it is perceived as a punishment by the active players.
This is exacerbated by whatever they are doing to kyber 1, which….. makes no sense to anyone. We kind of assumed it would stop at 10% of kyber and kyber at 20%, but it didn’t.
That's where I disagree. It might be 20% of players, not active players. Hence the need for a "join or not join" data. If it's 20% of players, the shrink that we can see in your graph could be a drop of engagement by Kyber players.
If you don’t have any data to the contrary trust the data we have collected.
The most telling point is looking at the skill rating of actual players, which has gone down even though they have winning records. Mhann of Mhanndalorian Bot has data for hundreds of players, including his own.
The players currently filling kyber2 are the exact same players who were fighting it out in div 1 before they changed the size on us. The kyber1 players aren’t gone, we are all just in kyber2. And the bottom 5k old kyber2 players are in kyber3. And the old kyber5 players are in aurodium.
Is it Squish? The whole of Kyber is shrinking, therefore K1 is being kept proportionate to the rest of Kyber.
Exactly and it creates a huge domino effect. Kyber players squished/falling down which in turn pushes everyone else also down.
Total control of crystal flow and less and less crystals going to the players.
This "drop of engagement=drop of league size" doesn't make the least sense to me. In a system that's designed to keep ratios(not numbers) constant, drop of engagement of some would automatically get replaced by comer-uppers.
Not really sure what people are arguing. CG has asserted that the size of each league is dependent upon the total population, assuming they are referring to GAC signups. They have also asserted that the size of each division is dependent upon the size of the league. And lastly, they have asserted that skill squish does not affect league ranking.
If you are trying to prove that squish does affect league ranking, wouldn’t you just need a set of examples that show that squish demoted a player, and not any other factor? Or is that not the argument people are making?
You can't go with the individual numbers or getting demoted yourself via the squish, but you can prove that the size/ratio of something is shrinking which Taliana already did. She's been keeping up the tabs on GAC forever btw, way before the new system.
This is the part I don’t understand. If you are referring to the skill squish doing this, it would have to be affecting a player’s rank. It doesn’t track that CG would do this either, as they already have direct control over the overall crystal income and therefore no need to create a mechanism to control it indirectly. I might be missing something, but so far as I can see the league size dropping because the overall GAC population is dropping is the likely culprit, which matches the explanation CG gives for the setup.
The change in overall joins is very slight while the change in distributions isn't.
It is a good question, and I’m curious too. I could speculate but I would be making a lot of assumptions so there is a good chance I would be wrong. My first observation is that it looks like they are evening the distribution, but also protecting carbonite by affecting them less.
So the last time I got relegated out of Kyber. I was then squished points to keep me out of A1 and put me into A2. So........ I would then need to promote myself to get promoted back to K5, instead of already being in a position to be promoted.
Maybe this leads to less coming up than going down?
It does indirectly affect their rank. If you get squished and have now less points than the minimum for the division you are in, you have to win or you get demoted, where as before it wouldn't have dropped you out of your division, or which also happens to players, even if you win you get demoted because you lost so many points with the squish that even a win is not enough to keep you where you were. I would say that very much affects a players and just because it only takes effect after the first fight it doesn't mean that it was not the squish that caused a player to get demoted.
This creates a downward spiral. You need more and more wins to get/stay where you were and in a system that is designed for 50/50 that will eventually lead to players falling.
Because crystals are given daily to everyone, active or inactive. Unless i’m mistaken, you only forfeit the win/loss/end of event rewards if you don’t join but still get the daily crystal income.
I’m not saying that’s how the system works. I’m saying it could be.
Let’s say during the off week we have a total a 100 players, 20 in each league, perfect 20%. Everyone join but 5 players in Kyber. The ‘after join’ graph will show that 15/95 ‘joined’ players are register in kyber, so less than 20%.
I’m not saying that it is happening for sure as i have no idea. I’m saying it’s a possibility and some data to dismiss it completely would be awesome.
I disagree with the logic, but only because it doesn’t eliminate all other possible explanations for the change. While I understand where you are coming from about the squish and the skill cutoffs, there’s no guarantee that if you had lost that match without being squished that you wouldn’t have dropped.
In my opinion, it still all ties back to the population shrinking and league/division size changes. My wild guess about the graph changes is that CG was tweaking the skill rating cutoffs for the leagues, but left Carbonite/Bronzium alone, in an effort to normalize the leagues. This still can’t be tied directly back to skill squish, because skill squish would have to move players between divisions in order to be able to create an effect like overpopulation.
Basically, we need to push more people to sign up for GAC. More people means larger division/league sizes; people move up instead of dropping down. Spiral averted.