"
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.
That's only partially true. In the grand schema of the things yes. But if a player has more GP, it means also a larger roster. While that does not necessarily mean they have direct advantage on defense, it could mean a lot for offense if it comes to a slugfest type of match. Some good defense teams might stop 1, 2 or 3 attacks. But they can't hold forever. That does have an effect on the board placement. I for example have a much smaller roster compared to the players I fight. For me it can be a tough decision which teams (apart from GLs) I keep for offense. My opponents usually don't have such problem.
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.
My logic is not supposed to take away all the other possibilities because there are more points than just what I wrote that affect the players. I only stayed on topic here and didn't want to list everything else.
One other big point I think affects players is less participation while still signing up. These players automatically are lower than they would be, if they don't always attack or just do the bare minimum.
The graphs provided show that the percentage of the shrinking number of sign ups is not proportional to the shrinking of divisions/falling down of players.
Of course there is a guarantee. If your SR was high enough before the squish that you could at least afford 1 loss, you wouldn't drop. If the squish now takes away points and even a win is not enough to stay in your division, you will need 2 wins only to get where you were before the squish otherwise at least one to get back. If this happens regularly before a new season starts it means you will need more and more wins to stay where you were which is impossible in a 50/50 system and we see the effects in the graphs.
People fall down, face smaller accounts which in turn then also fall down and so on. I don't know if you have seen my comments in the other GAC post where I provided images of my last 2 GACs. Not only can you see there that both times I lost points before the new season but also, that I lost more rounds than I won eventhough I already fell from A3, where I was for a longer time, to A4. The reason for that is because I faced bigger accounts that belong in Kyber. And this season it continues. My opponents are all again bigger than me with at least 1 GL more. I lost my first round, won the second but only because my opponent stopped attacking after they cleared one zone and the opponent I now face has over 7M GP and 3 GLs against my 4.6M with 1 GL.
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.
I’m not going quote so we don’t keep nesting the quotes, but if the intent is to disprove CG’s statement about skill squish, we have to start by assuming it is true. We can’t prove something is false by assuming from the start it is false.
This leads to plausible explanation. Basically, is there any plausible way the events could have happened if CG’s statement is in fact true? The answer is yes - because it is entirely possible for it to be two separate events that appear to be linked.
Skill squish can lower your rating. Simultaneously, an adjustment of the skill rating cutoff could place your account in a position where it could or even does drop into a new division or league. There is no proof of a connection between these two events; we can’t assume that because both are tied to skill rating, that means they are linked.
Since we are assuming that the statements from CG are true, then cause of the drop must be the skill rating cutoff adjustment, since the squish can’t change your division or your rank within a division. This means that the cause of the drop is directly linked to what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment. In order to say the cause of the drop was skill squish then, we have to show that skill squish is what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment.
And currently my opinion is that the skill rating cutoff adjustment, if it was made, was because of overpopulation, which unfortunately also can’t be linked to skill squish. If there was data that showed skill squish actually moving a player, then all the other evidence is already in place. But none of it works without showing squish movement, or showing that it is impossible for anything else to have caused the movement.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
I’m not going quote so we don’t keep nesting the quotes, but if the intent is to disprove CG’s statement about skill squish, we have to start by assuming it is true. We can’t prove something is false by assuming from the start it is false.
This leads to plausible explanation. Basically, is there any plausible way the events could have happened if CG’s statement is in fact true? The answer is yes - because it is entirely possible for it to be two separate events that appear to be linked.
Skill squish can lower your rating. Simultaneously, an adjustment of the skill rating cutoff could place your account in a position where it could or even does drop into a new division or league. There is no proof of a connection between these two events; we can’t assume that because both are tied to skill rating, that means they are linked.
Since we are assuming that the statements from CG are true, then cause of the drop must be the skill rating cutoff adjustment, since the squish can’t change your division or your rank within a division. This means that the cause of the drop is directly linked to what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment. In order to say the cause of the drop was skill squish then, we have to show that skill squish is what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment.
And currently my opinion is that the skill rating cutoff adjustment, if it was made, was because of overpopulation, which unfortunately also can’t be linked to skill squish. If there was data that showed skill squish actually moving a player, then all the other evidence is already in place. But none of it works without showing squish movement, or showing that it is impossible for anything else to have caused the movement.
But the proof is already there. If one gets squished and gets demoted eventhough they won a fight, that is a direct effect of the squish and nothing else. The SR gets changed from the outside, not because you lost and/or played bad, but because a force from outside did so. You had no influence over it what so ever.
You then win a fight but because you lost points to the squish and not your play, you get demoted. I don't know how else one can see this but as a direct outcome of the squish that took points away from you and caused you to drop eventhough you won. So there already is the proof that what CG said is not totally correct.
One could now argue they only said the squish will not change your position, which technically could be considered true, but only because they relay the effect to after your first fight. So in the end it influences your position just not immediately. I would not directly call it a lie, but it is also not the whole truth. To be honest, at least to me personally, it is not about wether they lied or not. I don't care about that aspect. There is no use in pointing fingers if one tries to give constructive feedback and tries to give a reason why something is not ideal and have a good discussion about it. What I do care about is the player experience and what effects it has on it. And if you point fingers all you do is make the other party feel like they have to defend themselves instead if trying to find a solution or an explanation. That's why I didn't talk about wether I think CG lied or not in my comments before, because it is not relevant, and stayed purely on the topic and what effects it has.
And that's why I also would like to stay on that topic instead of trying to define semantics. I only did so now in this comment because I didn't want to ignore the points you made. 🙂
"
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.
That's only partially true. In the grand schema of the things yes. But if a player has more GP, it means also a larger roster. While that does not necessarily mean they have direct advantage on defense, it could mean a lot for offense if it comes to a slugfest type of match. Some good defense teams might stop 1, 2 or 3 attacks. But they can't hold forever. That does have an effect on the board placement. I for example have a much smaller roster compared to the players I fight. For me it can be a tough decision which teams (apart from GLs) I keep for offense. My opponents usually don't have such problem.
Absolutely also my experience. I have some teams on defence that get a lot of holds but if my opponent can give it 3 or more tries because they have enough teams left and in the end clears, where as I can not do the same because I have less teams, it definitely makes or breaks a round.
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.
Where's the Squish? At the end of October?
The drop between November 4th and 12th, it was on the 8th.
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.
While we have no data, the possible amount of population that are still active but that doesn't even sign up for gac is exaggerated. I know many players that's not interested in gac overall or doesn't wanna play it actively after datacrons. I know no player that plays the game otherwise but doesn't sign up for gac and do one match on auto to get another batch of free no effort rewards. If they exist, I doubt they are still in k1-k2 territory as I haven't seen a no-showup match if they had a glimpse of a chance to win. They've at least done a few matches, see that it became impossible to win point-wise and gave up...which I also do.
Anyways, imo the unknown territory that exists outside of gac signups lends no explanatory power the severe shift in distributions in higher leagues. In order for this hypothesis to be true, there should be a huge amount of top-only players that are still active but simply doesn't sign-up for gac, while there should be next no change in behaviour in lower leagues. Not plausible...for me.
The much simpler explanation cg is deliberately shrinking the top end matches with what we individually observe and the visible portion of the data as well.
I’m not going quote so we don’t keep nesting the quotes, but if the intent is to disprove CG’s statement about skill squish, we have to start by assuming it is true. We can’t prove something is false by assuming from the start it is false.
This leads to plausible explanation. Basically, is there any plausible way the events could have happened if CG’s statement is in fact true? The answer is yes - because it is entirely possible for it to be two separate events that appear to be linked.
Skill squish can lower your rating. Simultaneously, an adjustment of the skill rating cutoff could place your account in a position where it could or even does drop into a new division or league. There is no proof of a connection between these two events; we can’t assume that because both are tied to skill rating, that means they are linked.
Since we are assuming that the statements from CG are true, then cause of the drop must be the skill rating cutoff adjustment, since the squish can’t change your division or your rank within a division. This means that the cause of the drop is directly linked to what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment. In order to say the cause of the drop was skill squish then, we have to show that skill squish is what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment.
And currently my opinion is that the skill rating cutoff adjustment, if it was made, was because of overpopulation, which unfortunately also can’t be linked to skill squish. If there was data that showed skill squish actually moving a player, then all the other evidence is already in place. But none of it works without showing squish movement, or showing that it is impossible for anything else to have caused the movement.
But the proof is already there. If one gets squished and gets demoted eventhough they won a fight, that is a direct effect of the squish and nothing else. The SR gets changed from the outside, not because you lost and/or played bad, but because a force from outside did so. You had no influence over it what so ever.
You then win a fight but because you lost points to the squish and not your play, you get demoted. I don't know how else one can see this but as a direct outcome of the squish that took points away from you and caused you to drop eventhough you won. So there already is the proof that what CG said is not totally correct.
One could now argue they only said the squish will not change your position, which technically could be considered true, but only because they relay the effect to after your first fight. So in the end it influences your position just not immediately. I would not directly call it a lie, but it is also not the whole truth. To be honest, at least to me personally, it is not about wether they lied or not. I don't care about that aspect. There is no use in pointing fingers if one tries to give constructive feedback and tries to give a reason why something is not ideal and have a good discussion about it. What I do care about is the player experience and what effects it has on it. And if you point fingers all you do is make the other party feel like they have to defend themselves instead if trying to find a solution or an explanation. That's why I didn't talk about wether I think CG lied or not in my comments before, because it is not relevant, and stayed purely on the topic and what effects it has.
And that's why I also would like to stay on that topic instead of trying to define semantics. I only did so now in this comment because I didn't want to ignore the points you made. 🙂
okay, I’ll back out after this, but in a nutshell:
If CG needs 50 players to move from division 1 to division 2, it doesn’t matter where your skill rating is. If you are unlucky player number 50 from the bottom, the line gets moved to where you are. If you were 200 points above the cutoff, and skill squish drops you 100 points, the line gets moved up 100 points to move the players.
If you were 200 points above the line, and there was no skill squish, the line gets moved up 200 points; just enough to move 50 players. The factor that causes the division drop is not linked to the skill squish. It’s not semantics it’s just logic.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
Yes, we understand that the squish is to keep Kyber 1 10% of all of kyber. Also, based on the data Kyber as whole is shrinking faster than other divisions. If the system is left without any adjustments, I fully believe Kyber will continue to shrink faster then the overall gac population and continue to make it more difficult to get from say arodium into kyber perpetuating the cycle.
2 seasons ago ended with a score of 3864 and started next season 89 points lower at 3775. Last season ended at 3804 and starting this season at 3724.
That's 2 wins per season being taken away when it's a struggle to go 5 and 4.
Curious if others are seeing this in Kyber 1.
Well, I'm nothing special, I'm in kyber 3 or 4, dépending in the season, but Ive won my last two and both said no change, which would've made sense given the old system , but now there no logical reason that I could win two rounds and have no change on my rating.
2 seasons ago ended with a score of 3864 and started next season 89 points lower at 3775. Last season ended at 3804 and starting this season at 3724.
That's 2 wins per season being taken away when it's a struggle to go 5 and 4.
Curious if others are seeing this in Kyber 1.
Well, I'm nothing special, I'm in kyber 3 or 4, dépending in the season, but Ive won my last two and both said no change, which would've made sense given the old system , but now there no logical reason that I could win two rounds and have no change on my rating.
No change refers to your division, not your rating.
okay, I’ll back out after this, but in a nutshell:
If CG needs 50 players to move from division 1 to division 2, it doesn’t matter where your skill rating is. If you are unlucky player number 50 from the bottom, the line gets moved to where you are. If you were 200 points above the cutoff, and skill squish drops you 100 points, the line gets moved up 100 points to move the players.
If you were 200 points above the line, and there was no skill squish, the line gets moved up 200 points; just enough to move 50 players. The factor that causes the division drop is not linked to the skill squish. It’s not semantics it’s just logic.
This makes the most sense to me. The squish isn't what determines ones Division. It's where they redraw the Division lines each season. The redraw can happen before or after the squish with the same resulting Divisions and the same percentage of players in each.
I forget the numbers, but each match-up has a decreasing number of Skill Rating points up for grabs. First is like 43, 2nd is 42, third is 41, and so on until the end up the season. I believe the squish only really serves to obviate the need to change these Rewards every time. This could certainly mean the number of wins/losses to move Divisions may vary from Season to Season, causing some confusion among the players.
Does it make sense? If there is a set amount in Kyber and everybody starts with a set amount of Skill Points, surely we should be trading skill points and all things should remain Status Quo?
I can see it making sense for Div 4/5.
Where at the end/start of the season all those in division 1 (in the league lower) move up to the league above. This amount of players need to go down to maintain the status quo.
If that is more than the players in Division 5, then the bottom of division 4 needs to be squished out of the league. This shouldn't affect Kybers 1-3 in anyway, right?
Not if numbers were being maintained anyway.......
I think things could be a lot simpler. The only positive I see with this exact current system is it helps to maintain a variety of opponents. If things were more stable, we'd be playing the same people a lot more (unless you're top of K1 of course) ...........which is possibly a very important reason why we're having so much flux.
Personally I'd like to see zero division changes until the end of the week and zero difference between a division and league change. The amount going up and down being set and being transparent, so you know where you stand.
Minor gripes though, I'm pretty happy with what we have.
Wasn’t the original question is K1 shrinking…it is. Which mean less crystals being handed out every payout time. Yes it is only 20 crystals per day per person for the folks squished down (using K1 to K2 as an example) but as a whole CG has a crystal target in mind for the entire population. They have been adjusting accordingly.
I'm sure someone in CG is happy because a smaller number of players competing means they are paying out less crystals. It makes sense to someone in CG with zero common sense that only counts revenue, not reality.
"
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.
That's only partially true. In the grand schema of the things yes. But if a player has more GP, it means also a larger roster. While that does not necessarily mean they have direct advantage on defense, it could mean a lot for offense if it comes to a slugfest type of match. Some good defense teams might stop 1, 2 or 3 attacks. But they can't hold forever. That does have an effect on the board placement. I for example have a much smaller roster compared to the players I fight. For me it can be a tough decision which teams (apart from GLs) I keep for offense. My opponents usually don't have such problem.
Don't get me wrong. There's no way having more GP is a handicap in a match up, right? It'll never be a disadvantage. GP is relevant in GAC. However, that was taken care of with our starting divisions. If you're competent at your GP, a large GP mismatch in your favour shouldn't be relevant.
However, if 2 players are meeting with a large GP disparity in a lower starting division; GP is also't probably not going to be a good indicator of true GAC power. Either the higher GP player has fallen leagues, whilst still playing every GAC and can't use as much GP (ok yes your scenario will play at times, but that's what makes it a contest), or they're not playing actively and they win depending on which way the winds blowing today.
Wasn’t the original question is K1 shrinking…it is. Which mean less crystals being handed out every payout time. Yes it is only 20 crystals per day per person for the folks squished down (using K1 to K2 as an example) but as a whole CG has a crystal target in mind for the entire population. They have been adjusting accordingly.
The whole of Kyber has shrunk significantly. So that's a lot more crystals going missing.
I'm sure someone in CG is happy because a smaller number of players competing means they are paying out less crystals. It makes sense to someone in CG with zero common sense that only counts revenue, not reality.
I'm earning thousands more per month than when crystals are in arena. If I get squished to K2 I will still be earning more. I guess among all the other dumb things CG does they've also been paying out way too many crystals to me and will continue to do so. Greedy and at the same time incompetent at being greedy!
I'm sure someone in CG is happy because a smaller number of players competing means they are paying out less crystals. It makes sense to someone in CG with zero common sense that only counts revenue, not reality.
I'm earning thousands more per month than when crystals are in arena. If I get squished to K2 I will still be earning more. I guess among all the other dumb things CG does they've also been paying out way too many crystals to me and will continue to do so. Greedy and at the same time incompetent at being greedy!
That is probably why they are slowly shrinking crystal income….you are looking backwards in a narrow view of your situation. Maybe they thought players will spend more crystal income on datacrons which are temporary…and they are not so crystals out in the wild are too high? Who knows…but why would they shrink other than to lower overall crystal income?
I'm sure someone in CG is happy because a smaller number of players competing means they are paying out less crystals. It makes sense to someone in CG with zero common sense that only counts revenue, not reality.
I'm earning thousands more per month than when crystals are in arena. If I get squished to K2 I will still be earning more. I guess among all the other dumb things CG does they've also been paying out way too many crystals to me and will continue to do so. Greedy and at the same time incompetent at being greedy!
That is probably why they are slowly shrinking crystal income….you are looking backwards in a narrow view of your situation. Maybe they thought players will spend more crystal income on datacrons which are temporary…and they are not so crystals out in the wild are too high? Who knows…but why would they shrink other than to lower overall crystal income?
What percentage of players are earning less crystals now, than before? A small percentage that could obtain top 5? 3? aren't. However, there are 1000+ players in each shard so..........the majority are better off. I'm way better off, I know that!
This is what they maybe are counting on. Even if people get less and less crystals when they get pushed down, they surely won't say anything. After all, they get more than before. But the question is, is it still right to compare the income to befoee the changes? Even if people get more than before it is also a fact they get less when they get demoted. Just because it is more than before, is it not legitimate to take the new income after the changes as a measurement for as the new basis? When is the time to have the income after the changes as the normal on which it is measured when people start to get less?
People should also not forget, there are more leagues than just Kyber. Lower Leagues/divisions pay out less crystals. Just take my situation for example. I found my right spot in A3, now I got squished/pushed down and even in A4 it continues. Soon I might find myself in A5 and then get relegated to Chromium at the end. If that should happen, there is already a huge difference if you count the daily crystals over time I will and already get less and the end of season rewards.
And to be honest, leaving the crystals aside for a moment, just in general I don't find it funny to get pushed down so far just because they do what they do for whatever reason and there is nothing I can do. As I stated previously, my roster even grew significantly in a short amount of time and I won 3 more good teams and that is not enough to at least keep me in my position? That's just not right and doesn't leave me with a good feeling and kind of dreading what might come in the future.
Replies
That's only partially true. In the grand schema of the things yes. But if a player has more GP, it means also a larger roster. While that does not necessarily mean they have direct advantage on defense, it could mean a lot for offense if it comes to a slugfest type of match. Some good defense teams might stop 1, 2 or 3 attacks. But they can't hold forever. That does have an effect on the board placement. I for example have a much smaller roster compared to the players I fight. For me it can be a tough decision which teams (apart from GLs) I keep for offense. My opponents usually don't have such problem.
My logic is not supposed to take away all the other possibilities because there are more points than just what I wrote that affect the players. I only stayed on topic here and didn't want to list everything else.
One other big point I think affects players is less participation while still signing up. These players automatically are lower than they would be, if they don't always attack or just do the bare minimum.
The graphs provided show that the percentage of the shrinking number of sign ups is not proportional to the shrinking of divisions/falling down of players.
Of course there is a guarantee. If your SR was high enough before the squish that you could at least afford 1 loss, you wouldn't drop. If the squish now takes away points and even a win is not enough to stay in your division, you will need 2 wins only to get where you were before the squish otherwise at least one to get back. If this happens regularly before a new season starts it means you will need more and more wins to stay where you were which is impossible in a 50/50 system and we see the effects in the graphs.
People fall down, face smaller accounts which in turn then also fall down and so on. I don't know if you have seen my comments in the other GAC post where I provided images of my last 2 GACs. Not only can you see there that both times I lost points before the new season but also, that I lost more rounds than I won eventhough I already fell from A3, where I was for a longer time, to A4. The reason for that is because I faced bigger accounts that belong in Kyber. And this season it continues. My opponents are all again bigger than me with at least 1 GL more. I lost my first round, won the second but only because my opponent stopped attacking after they cleared one zone and the opponent I now face has over 7M GP and 3 GLs against my 4.6M with 1 GL.
Where's the Squish? At the end of October?
This leads to plausible explanation. Basically, is there any plausible way the events could have happened if CG’s statement is in fact true? The answer is yes - because it is entirely possible for it to be two separate events that appear to be linked.
Skill squish can lower your rating. Simultaneously, an adjustment of the skill rating cutoff could place your account in a position where it could or even does drop into a new division or league. There is no proof of a connection between these two events; we can’t assume that because both are tied to skill rating, that means they are linked.
Since we are assuming that the statements from CG are true, then cause of the drop must be the skill rating cutoff adjustment, since the squish can’t change your division or your rank within a division. This means that the cause of the drop is directly linked to what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment. In order to say the cause of the drop was skill squish then, we have to show that skill squish is what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment.
And currently my opinion is that the skill rating cutoff adjustment, if it was made, was because of overpopulation, which unfortunately also can’t be linked to skill squish. If there was data that showed skill squish actually moving a player, then all the other evidence is already in place. But none of it works without showing squish movement, or showing that it is impossible for anything else to have caused the movement.
But the proof is already there. If one gets squished and gets demoted eventhough they won a fight, that is a direct effect of the squish and nothing else. The SR gets changed from the outside, not because you lost and/or played bad, but because a force from outside did so. You had no influence over it what so ever.
You then win a fight but because you lost points to the squish and not your play, you get demoted. I don't know how else one can see this but as a direct outcome of the squish that took points away from you and caused you to drop eventhough you won. So there already is the proof that what CG said is not totally correct.
One could now argue they only said the squish will not change your position, which technically could be considered true, but only because they relay the effect to after your first fight. So in the end it influences your position just not immediately. I would not directly call it a lie, but it is also not the whole truth. To be honest, at least to me personally, it is not about wether they lied or not. I don't care about that aspect. There is no use in pointing fingers if one tries to give constructive feedback and tries to give a reason why something is not ideal and have a good discussion about it. What I do care about is the player experience and what effects it has on it. And if you point fingers all you do is make the other party feel like they have to defend themselves instead if trying to find a solution or an explanation. That's why I didn't talk about wether I think CG lied or not in my comments before, because it is not relevant, and stayed purely on the topic and what effects it has.
And that's why I also would like to stay on that topic instead of trying to define semantics. I only did so now in this comment because I didn't want to ignore the points you made. 🙂
Absolutely also my experience. I have some teams on defence that get a lot of holds but if my opponent can give it 3 or more tries because they have enough teams left and in the end clears, where as I can not do the same because I have less teams, it definitely makes or breaks a round.
The drop between November 4th and 12th, it was on the 8th.
This is the squish.
Anyways, imo the unknown territory that exists outside of gac signups lends no explanatory power the severe shift in distributions in higher leagues. In order for this hypothesis to be true, there should be a huge amount of top-only players that are still active but simply doesn't sign-up for gac, while there should be next no change in behaviour in lower leagues. Not plausible...for me.
The much simpler explanation cg is deliberately shrinking the top end matches with what we individually observe and the visible portion of the data as well.
okay, I’ll back out after this, but in a nutshell:
If CG needs 50 players to move from division 1 to division 2, it doesn’t matter where your skill rating is. If you are unlucky player number 50 from the bottom, the line gets moved to where you are. If you were 200 points above the cutoff, and skill squish drops you 100 points, the line gets moved up 100 points to move the players.
If you were 200 points above the line, and there was no skill squish, the line gets moved up 200 points; just enough to move 50 players. The factor that causes the division drop is not linked to the skill squish. It’s not semantics it’s just logic.
Well, I'm nothing special, I'm in kyber 3 or 4, dépending in the season, but Ive won my last two and both said no change, which would've made sense given the old system , but now there no logical reason that I could win two rounds and have no change on my rating.
This makes the most sense to me. The squish isn't what determines ones Division. It's where they redraw the Division lines each season. The redraw can happen before or after the squish with the same resulting Divisions and the same percentage of players in each.
I forget the numbers, but each match-up has a decreasing number of Skill Rating points up for grabs. First is like 43, 2nd is 42, third is 41, and so on until the end up the season. I believe the squish only really serves to obviate the need to change these Rewards every time. This could certainly mean the number of wins/losses to move Divisions may vary from Season to Season, causing some confusion among the players.
I can see it making sense for Div 4/5.
Where at the end/start of the season all those in division 1 (in the league lower) move up to the league above. This amount of players need to go down to maintain the status quo.
If that is more than the players in Division 5, then the bottom of division 4 needs to be squished out of the league. This shouldn't affect Kybers 1-3 in anyway, right?
Not if numbers were being maintained anyway.......
I think things could be a lot simpler. The only positive I see with this exact current system is it helps to maintain a variety of opponents. If things were more stable, we'd be playing the same people a lot more (unless you're top of K1 of course) ...........which is possibly a very important reason why we're having so much flux.
Personally I'd like to see zero division changes until the end of the week and zero difference between a division and league change. The amount going up and down being set and being transparent, so you know where you stand.
Minor gripes though, I'm pretty happy with what we have.
Don't get me wrong. There's no way having more GP is a handicap in a match up, right? It'll never be a disadvantage. GP is relevant in GAC. However, that was taken care of with our starting divisions. If you're competent at your GP, a large GP mismatch in your favour shouldn't be relevant.
However, if 2 players are meeting with a large GP disparity in a lower starting division; GP is also't probably not going to be a good indicator of true GAC power. Either the higher GP player has fallen leagues, whilst still playing every GAC and can't use as much GP (ok yes your scenario will play at times, but that's what makes it a contest), or they're not playing actively and they win depending on which way the winds blowing today.
The whole of Kyber has shrunk significantly. So that's a lot more crystals going missing.
I'm earning thousands more per month than when crystals are in arena. If I get squished to K2 I will still be earning more. I guess among all the other dumb things CG does they've also been paying out way too many crystals to me and will continue to do so. Greedy and at the same time incompetent at being greedy!
That is probably why they are slowly shrinking crystal income….you are looking backwards in a narrow view of your situation. Maybe they thought players will spend more crystal income on datacrons which are temporary…and they are not so crystals out in the wild are too high? Who knows…but why would they shrink other than to lower overall crystal income?
What percentage of players are earning less crystals now, than before? A small percentage that could obtain top 5? 3? aren't. However, there are 1000+ players in each shard so..........the majority are better off. I'm way better off, I know that!
People should also not forget, there are more leagues than just Kyber. Lower Leagues/divisions pay out less crystals. Just take my situation for example. I found my right spot in A3, now I got squished/pushed down and even in A4 it continues. Soon I might find myself in A5 and then get relegated to Chromium at the end. If that should happen, there is already a huge difference if you count the daily crystals over time I will and already get less and the end of season rewards.
And to be honest, leaving the crystals aside for a moment, just in general I don't find it funny to get pushed down so far just because they do what they do for whatever reason and there is nothing I can do. As I stated previously, my roster even grew significantly in a short amount of time and I won 3 more good teams and that is not enough to at least keep me in my position? That's just not right and doesn't leave me with a good feeling and kind of dreading what might come in the future.
It doesn't? Makes one wonder why datacrons didn't stay exactly as they are released then.
This talk isn't about DCs. Most talk here is pointless. Ask anyone.
Yeah, yours evidently is.
"This is what we're hearing..."
Do they really read and take in generally what's on the forums? I very much have my doubts about that.