Why are there so many people in aurodium with 5 GLs

Replies

  • Options
    Just won 67 to 65, that's the GAC I love, especially 3v3
  • KDC99X
    762 posts Member
    Options
    Ughhh — so why do I never get the benefit of such matches??!? :D

    Of course, I generally prefer well matched and engaged opponents, but it would be a nice change of pace every once in awhile..lol.

    I just think it’s bull when people throw that argument out as the default dismissal, when players complain about the “matchmaking” (I know it’s just SR now) and being matched against hopelessly outsized opponents. My current opponent has 6 GLs, I have 1 (although you could count Malgus and even Starkiller as GLs in certain contexts), so if they play seriously at all, I have no chance of winning. And it has universally been my experience in these kind of matchups, that they play seriously.

    Soooo… where do I sign up to fight you, instead??? 😂
    scuba wrote: »
    KDC99X wrote: »
    That's never been my experience. I'd really like to know where these mythical unicorn players are who sign up but don't play.

    Literally almost every single opponent I've ever been against, save maybe less than five, has always done their best to beat me. And the ones who didn't, just didn't play at all (which as stated, has a very rare occurrence in my GAC history).
    Range1974 wrote: »
    maybe they don't like GAC but sign up for the rewards then lose each round

    Hi... I am mostly one of these
    I just lost a match with only scoring 10 points. I had a 2 mil GP advantage over opponent and a 7 to 4 gl advantage.
    I find GA boring. I typically only do battles till I lose one battle if I even go that far.
    My have changed one defense team since we where able to set and forget them.
    So yes they do exist.

  • Options
    The way GAC is structured, the changes cg had made etc. Have made GAC just a hot mess of garbage. I purposefully drop, it’s more fun over powering people than trying to struggle for rank.
    Blame CG, their rules.
    Dred Zeppelin aka DrZeppersTTV Come visit DrZeppers on twitch
  • KDC99X
    762 posts Member
    Options
    Lame
  • Whatelse73
    2261 posts Member
    Options
    Because datacrons have made people who used to LOVE GAC hate it. Datacrons are the primary reason for winning and those 5 GL rosters have become totally useless unless you have datacrons to match. Since the decision-maker at CG who implemented datacrons is so egotistical about keeping them in place, you're going to keep having to face excessive amounts of GL's.

    I'd bet that if datacrons were removed from the game, a lot of those 5 GL rosters would be fighting to climb again.

    Reminder: Datacrons are burning hot garbage, in a dumpster on fire, in a landfill on fire. Making rosters useless since 2022!
  • KDC99X
    762 posts Member
    Options
    I do think this is a good place to reiterate: there should be some element of matchmaking in GAC.

    GAC would be a lot more fun, if the system took into account your roster composition, and then paired you against opponents within a distributed range of similar roster compositions and similar skill ranges.

    And I can hear the counter argument already, regarding incentivizing spending…

    Actually, I believe this would encourage more spending and engagement than the current system. Right now, as evidenced by a lot of comments in this thread and the community at large, a lot of people
    are just completely demoralized by the current system and give up completely. How does that actually encourage spending? They don’t see any point in spending because it’s not fun, or the amount they’d have to spend to be competitive is outrageous. But if you’re competing against opponents with similar skills using similar tool sets (not identical rosters, that would be boring: there would have to be a weighing system developed that accounts for roster composition/zetas/omicrons/datacrons/etc), and if the matches don’t feel like a foregone conclusion, and you feel that your skill and strategy vs your opponent’s has some degree of impact on the outcome of the battle, I think the community at large would be way more engaged. And that encourages the recurring spending to continually try and get that slight competitive edge over your opponent.

    Being matched up against juggernauts does not encourage that, in either direction. How many people are actually going to drop thousands of dollars to come up to that level? Conversely, the larger accounts can just drop down and smash smaller accounts without having to spend any more or worry about serious competition. I mean clearly there are some who will spend at that level, but not most of us. Instead however, with a more engaged player base, we would all be incentivized to continually spend on crystals, gear, mods, etc., in smaller amounts that add up over time, and actually feel like we’re making tangible progress, and being rewarded for it if we’re skillful. The whales and krakens will still do what they do anyway, but the community at large would be more invested.
  • Obi_six_Kenobi
    370 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    Options
    KDC99X wrote: »
    I do think this is a good place to reiterate: there should be some element of matchmaking in GAC.

    GAC would be a lot more fun, if the system took into account your roster composition, and then paired you against opponents within a distributed range of similar roster compositions and similar skill ranges.

    And I can hear the counter argument already, regarding incentivizing spending…

    Actually, I believe this would encourage more spending and engagement than the current system. Right now, as evidenced by a lot of comments in this thread and the community at large, a lot of people
    are just completely demoralized by the current system and give up completely. How does that actually encourage spending? They don’t see any point in spending because it’s not fun, or the amount they’d have to spend to be competitive is outrageous. But if you’re competing against opponents with similar skills using similar tool sets (not identical rosters, that would be boring: there would have to be a weighing system developed that accounts for roster composition/zetas/omicrons/datacrons/etc), and if the matches don’t feel like a foregone conclusion, and you feel that your skill and strategy vs your opponent’s has some degree of impact on the outcome of the battle, I think the community at large would be way more engaged. And that encourages the recurring spending to continually try and get that slight competitive edge over your opponent.

    Being matched up against juggernauts does not encourage that, in either direction. How many people are actually going to drop thousands of dollars to come up to that level? Conversely, the larger accounts can just drop down and smash smaller accounts without having to spend any more or worry about serious competition. I mean clearly there are some who will spend at that level, but not most of us. Instead however, with a more engaged player base, we would all be incentivized to continually spend on crystals, gear, mods, etc., in smaller amounts that add up over time, and actually feel like we’re making tangible progress, and being rewarded for it if we’re skillful. The whales and krakens will still do what they do anyway, but the community at large would be more invested.

    I couldn’t agree more. Well said. Maybe some conglomeration of the current rank system with what you are saying. Rather than the 7 closest rank neighbors, you get matched with the 7 closest rank neighbors within some skill tolerance.

    The challenge is that CG doesn’t want to incentivize artificially keeping your roster at a lower GP in order to get better matchups. So the skill type rating would need to not incentivize low GP. Maybe only look at the #of GL’s, relics, gear 12s, omicrons, and zetas. Then it doesn’t matter if you 7 star your CUP to increase your GP, or leave him I started to try and lower your GP to get better matches.

    Edit: sorry for the imprecise terminology. I know players already have a skill rating, but when I say skill level above I meant it as some sort of new system that can be used to to generate more competitive/fun matchups.
  • KDC99X
    762 posts Member
    Options
    Good point regarding artificially deflating GP, that would definitely need to be addressed for this proposal to gain legs.

    I wonder if just having the skill rating involved would do most of that? You’d still drop down by losing and therefore get worse rewards, so it wouldn’t really give much benefit to try and stay low. But as you said some attention would have to be given to the weighting system as well - so for instance, a low GP hyper efficiency account won’t get matched up against a low GP account that’s just a poorly built roster. Eliminating those kind of matchups would largely eliminate the incentive.

    That being said, I can’t underestimate the ability of certain sectors in this community to “game the system”. But I still think it could be done and perhaps most importantly, should be done.
  • Joebo720
    656 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    Options
    It's only going to get worse in the lower brackets. K1 has been steadily shrinking. Which in turn will turn to K2 shrinking so on and so forth. Big rosters will be fall into the lower brackets. As long as they leave the squish in place at the beginning of every round it is inevitable.
  • Options
    Joebo720 wrote: »
    It's only going to get worse in the lower brackets. K1 has been steadily shrinking. Which in turn will turn to K2 shrinking so on and so forth. Big rosters will be fall into the lower brackets. As long as they leave the squish in place at the beginning of every round it is inevitable.

    The data the great folks at SWGOH.GG put out says otherwise. The squish from the past 6 months is not causing lower divisions to shrink, K3 to grow a good bit, and K2 to grow very slightly. Unless they change the shape of the squish again, it’s not going cause anyone to fall out of Kyber, it’s just going to mean a bunch of folks that used to get K1 rewards will get K2 rewards instead. I believe K4 is shrinking too, but that’s because it’s getting pulled up into K3.
  • Options
    I am in Aurodium three with 4 closing in on 5 GLs as well as Executor and Profundity. The reality for me is that I am busy with life and don't always have time to play GAC. I don't care much about it. So if I have time to play, I generally smash my opponent. If I don't, I may either do one or two battles or sometimes none at all. This often leaves me finishing a round 1-2 or 2-1 or sometimes even 0-3. I drop, but it leaves OP in the situation where if they have the unfortunate luck of coming up against me when I have time to play, they will stand no chance.

    The difference in rewards is too minimal for me to care and honestly since the introduction of datacrons, it soured me on the competitive aspect of the game, so I play GAC when I have time and when I don't, I could care less.
  • TVF
    36861 posts Member
    Options
    Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    I am in Aurodium three with 4 closing in on 5 GLs as well as Executor and Profundity. The reality for me is that I am busy with life and don't always have time to play GAC. I don't care much about it. So if I have time to play, I generally smash my opponent. If I don't, I may either do one or two battles or sometimes none at all. This often leaves me finishing a round 1-2 or 2-1 or sometimes even 0-3. I drop, but it leaves OP in the situation where if they have the unfortunate luck of coming up against me when I have time to play, they will stand no chance.

    The difference in rewards is too minimal for me to care and honestly since the introduction of datacrons, it soured me on the competitive aspect of the game, so I play GAC when I have time and when I don't, I could care less.

    DCs shouldn't be a factor in Aurodium 3 afaik.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Options
    Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    I am in Aurodium three with 4 closing in on 5 GLs as well as Executor and Profundity. The reality for me is that I am busy with life and don't always have time to play GAC. I don't care much about it. So if I have time to play, I generally smash my opponent. If I don't, I may either do one or two battles or sometimes none at all. This often leaves me finishing a round 1-2 or 2-1 or sometimes even 0-3. I drop, but it leaves OP in the situation where if they have the unfortunate luck of coming up against me when I have time to play, they will stand no chance.

    The difference in rewards is too minimal for me to care and honestly since the introduction of datacrons, it soured me on the competitive aspect of the game, so I play GAC when I have time and when I don't, I could care less.

    You are completely welcome to have that opinion, I just wish that there was a way for people like you to be paired against others that have a similar play style. I’m in chromium 1 and have faced many opponents like you. If you show up I lose, if you don’t I win. But neither of these is fun. It doesn’t matter if I play smart, have focused farming, use intelligent mods, make good team comps. All of that is thrown out the window. I don’t really care as much about winning as I do about having some fun. I have 3M gp with no GLs and my current GAC opponent has 7.5M gp with 4 GLs. I understand how the current skill rating works and feel that it need improvement
  • Options

    You are completely welcome to have that opinion, I just wish that there was a way for people like you to be paired against others that have a similar play style. I’m in chromium 1 and have faced many opponents like you. If you show up I lose, if you don’t I win. But neither of these is fun. It doesn’t matter if I play smart, have focused farming, use intelligent mods, make good team comps. All of that is thrown out the window. I don’t really care as much about winning as I do about having some fun. I have 3M gp with no GLs and my current GAC opponent has 7.5M gp with 4 GLs. I understand how the current skill rating works and feel that it need improvement

    I 100% agree, the structure and design is massively flawed and not fun. Not for you and not for me, it's not competitive in any way, the only determinant is whether I decide to win or not. Because it's been designed as a ladder system, the assumption clearly from CG is that players only care about winning and losing, the reality is many players only want to have competitive matches regardless of whether they win or not.

    I personally can't (and don't feel motivated to) play consistently and competitively, so inevitably I get bumped down the road to a place where the skill is irrelevant and it becomes a place where really it becomes only I decide to win or not win. This especially sucks for those who are on the receiving end of this.
    TVF wrote: »

    DCs shouldn't be a factor in Aurodium 3 afaik.

    They are not, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

  • KDC99X
    762 posts Member
    Options
    I appreciate the honesty of sharing your experience!

    Yeah it would be nice if they would take a serious stab at fixing this. Some people may prefer it to the old system, some may not, but I don’t really see anyone actually enjoying it as-is.

    And as a side note I have been hovering around A2 for awhile, and while DCs are not a major factor (I tend to have the most but my roster is not built up enough to fully use them on all my squads), there’s usually 2-3 that show up on my opponent’s side of the board per match, so it’s not a major contribution, but they do make an appearance and can definitely shift a match.
  • Screerider
    1508 posts Member
    Options
    I don't want roster to be considered. I like it as-is.
  • Options
    I think is because kyber is like a fixed % of the best on swgoh, if less players are playing the game that number shrinks, in conclusion the game is losing too many players.
  • KDC99X
    762 posts Member
    Options
    Why is that?

    Or more specifically, what would be the negative outcomes you would want to avoid in such a schema?
    Screerider wrote: »
    I don't want roster to be considered. I like it as-is.

  • TVF
    36861 posts Member
    Options
    Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    DCs shouldn't be a factor in Aurodium 3 afaik.

    They are not, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

    You're the one that said you've soured on PVP because of datacrons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Options
    I think is because kyber is like a fixed % of the best on swgoh, if less players are playing the game that number shrinks, in conclusion the game is losing too many players.

    The size of Kyber has not changed since this summer it’s been right around 49000 players for months, and the total number players across all of GAC has has barely changed the last 3 months. No shrinking in either direction and the game is replacing active players as quickly as it loses them.
  • Gawejn
    1162 posts Member
    Options
    Chromium 2, 1gl 4 mil. Average difference in gp is 3,4mil per oponent. My second account is 6,3mil aurodium 2 and difference in gp is like 1,5mil. I have nothing against aurodium account but it seems wrong in chromium. Yes i can win sometimes but if i need 3 gls or more for chromium is just not fun
  • rickertron
    349 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    Options


    I enjoy GAC
    Post edited by rickertron on
  • Options
    That's because I am in K3 with 3 GLs and I am pushing them down for you. You're welcome!
  • Options
    KDC99X wrote: »
    Why is that?

    Or more specifically, what would be the negative outcomes you would want to avoid in such a schema?
    Screerider wrote: »
    I don't want roster to be considered. I like it as-is.
    The most notable negative outcome is being penalized for improving your roster. Yay, I unlocked a GL, and now I'm facing people with another GL than those I was previously facing. It's a zero-sum game. Why bother?

    Also, I just don't think there's a way to quantify a roster in any meaningful way. What's a GL worth? A An Omicron? A Zeta? A Datacron? Each Relic Level? It's a fools errand. Better to have them be "quantified" by whether it helps you win or not, which is what the current system does.

  • Options
    Dawnsinger wrote: »
    I think is because kyber is like a fixed % of the best on swgoh, if less players are playing the game that number shrinks, in conclusion the game is losing too many players.

    The size of Kyber has not changed since this summer it’s been right around 49000 players for months, and the total number players across all of GAC has has barely changed the last 3 months. No shrinking in either direction and the game is replacing active players as quickly as it loses them.
    So March 1st we have this
    gexy9sy98ll0.jpeg

    October 12 we have thisnpvcusipf6s9.jpeg

    Sure kyber has remained roughly the same but every other league is vastly different. Blame the squish, don’t blame the squish doesn’t matter to me. However I don’t think everything is working as intended
  • Options
    Screerider wrote: »
    KDC99X wrote: »
    Why is that?

    Or more specifically, what would be the negative outcomes you would want to avoid in such a schema?
    Screerider wrote: »
    I don't want roster to be considered. I like it as-is.
    The most notable negative outcome is being penalized for improving your roster. Yay, I unlocked a GL, and now I'm facing people with another GL than those I was previously facing. It's a zero-sum game. Why bother?

    Also, I just don't think there's a way to quantify a roster in any meaningful way. What's a GL worth? A An Omicron? A Zeta? A Datacron? Each Relic Level? It's a fools errand. Better to have them be "quantified" by whether it helps you win or not, which is what the current system does.

    Except the current system doesn’t do this. I regularly play against opponents where nothing I do will help me “win or not”. On average this happens for me with every 2 out of 3 GAC opponents.

  • Options
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Dawnsinger wrote: »
    I think is because kyber is like a fixed % of the best on swgoh, if less players are playing the game that number shrinks, in conclusion the game is losing too many players.

    The size of Kyber has not changed since this summer it’s been right around 49000 players for months, and the total number players across all of GAC has has barely changed the last 3 months. No shrinking in either direction and the game is replacing active players as quickly as it loses them.
    So March 1st we have this
    gexy9sy98ll0.jpeg

    October 12 we have thisnpvcusipf6s9.jpeg

    Sure kyber has remained roughly the same but every other league is vastly different. Blame the squish, don’t blame the squish doesn’t matter to me. However I don’t think everything is working as intended

    I didn’t say it had no impact on the other leaguesz. The squish has a huge effect on the other leagues. It’s constantly pushing large numbers of players from Carbonite into Bronzium, from Bronzium into Chromium and a smaller number from Chromium into Aurodium. The squish for Aurodium has consistently been pulling players from Aurodium back down into Chromium. No clue why they push up from Chromium and then back down from Aurodium, but that’s what’s happening.

    They have to have that upward push for the first three leagues though, because all new players start in Carbonite, and most people that quit are quitting from high leagues, and even with that upward push Carbonite keeps growing as more people join. But the numbers you posted pretty clearly demonstrate your original statement that Kyber is shrinking because it’s a % of a shrinking overall players base is not a good theory, since neither of those two things is has changed notably in 6 months.
  • Drathuk916
    651 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    Options
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    The squish is the answer. Instead of audorium being players ranked in the 60-80 percentile, as cg has said their goal is, it contains players in the 68-84 percentile.

    So that’s my original quote. To expand on it, cg stated in the beginning that their goal was to have 5 leagues evenly balanced in population. The individual division were targeted to be split at 10/25/30/25/10. The overall population has been relatively stable at 300-310k for a while which means if cg was meeting its stated goal each league should look like 6000/15000/18000/15000/6000.

    Now no league comes close to looking like that and it mainly has to do with the squish artificially forcing players towards division three. It’s true kyber has somewhat stabilized and you do have to play your way out of kyber vs being squished out. However, without spending too much time studying the math, it feels like the squish has made movement between leagues far more difficult than it should be. My gut instinct seems to be supported by the shrinking to almost disappearing entirely of the populations in division 1 and 5 in any league not just kyber.

    Finally, cg has obviously decided that current trends are okay and not worth adjusting but my original reaction to the gac reward structure in December of 2021 has mainly been borne out. Upward mobility is an issue and not fair to mid and lower game players
  • Options
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    The squish is the answer. Instead of audorium being players ranked in the 60-80 percentile, as cg has said their goal is, it contains players in the 68-84 percentile.

    So that’s my original quote. To expand on it, cg stated in the beginning that their goal was to have 5 leagues evenly balanced in population. The individual division were targeted to be split at 10/25/30/25/10. The overall population has been relatively stable at 300-310k for a while which means if cg was meeting its stated goal each league should look like 6000/15000/18000/15000/6000.

    Now no league comes close to looking like that and it mainly has to do with the squish artificially forcing players towards division three. It’s true kyber has somewhat stabilized and you do have to play your way out of kyber vs being squished out. However, without spending too much time studying the math, it feels like the squish has made movement between leagues far more difficult than it should be. My gut instinct seems to be supported by the shrinking to almost disappearing entirely of the populations in division 1 and 5 in any league not just kyber.

    My apologies. I assumed you were the guy I replied to, I didn’t realize you were using my post to talk about a totally new (but admittedly interesting) topic.

    There definitely don’t appear to be using the squish to hone in on their initial targets for the size of each division. It is being used almost exclusively to shift players up from Carbonite and into the other leagues until you get to Aurodium. Without it the size of Bronzium would be absolutely mammoth. If anything they’re not being anyway near aggressive enough with the squish as evidence by the fact that Carbonite has grown so big it’s shifted all the leagues away from their stated targets. There just are too many people entering Carbonite every month and they aren’t shifting them out fast enough to keep up.

    If you do the math you’ll see it’s actually made it much easier to move up the leagues with the exception of Aurodium the past 6 months, but if you’re in Aurodium I can see why your gut would say it’s harder.
Sign In or Register to comment.