Why are there so many people in aurodium with 5 GLs

Replies

  • KDC99X wrote: »
    Sure, but many times negative opinions are louder because they are also in the majority. In every sphere of the community, from here, to in-game, to every content creator out there and the endless comments on their videos, I see most people overwhelmingly expressing dissatisfaction. Heck even in this thread, if we were to take a vote, there's a great deal more people saying they're unhappy with the current system than happy.

    That doesn't mean nothing, and to dismiss it out-of-hand just seem an odd stance to take.
    1) by this rationale, every restaurant, hotel I ever check reviews for must suck, because the majority of them are complaints.

    2) please consider putting your quote UNDER the post you are quoting instead of above. It’s very annoying having to delete quotes from your posts when replying to you so that we are quoting your words, not the person you quoted’s words.

    Why would you look at reviews at all for restaurants/hotels if that's your position? Wouldn't a positive review also be worthless? To that end, shouldn't any review on any topic ever be dismissed?
  • KDC99X wrote: »
    If you refuse to change your opinion in the face of contradictory evidence, then it’s an emotionally-held position.
    LOL

  • Devian
    663 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    Range1974 wrote: »
    maybe they don't like GAC but sign up for the rewards then lose each round
    These are already at chromium. You can't gain points at GA, if you won't win. But you'll lose points and fall
  • TVF wrote: »
    Dawnsinger wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Dawnsinger wrote: »
    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.

    I’m in k2. My personal experience is I don’t care cause I’m getting more crystals than I need to progress at the rate I desire. That said I feel the squish is too punishing in k2. You need to average around 5.2 wins per season to maintain your rating. I’d lower that to somewhere between 4.7-5 wins. I’m 19-11 over my past 30 matches and gained around 130-150 rating points that’s too low.

    Finally, I’m not entirely clear why you feel it’s easy to climb so I must be missing something. It looks like the three middle leagues have shrunk by at least 12 percent while carbonite has grown by over 33%.


    The squish definitely makes it tough to stay in high K2 or K1 at all, and it makes life tough for Aurodium players. But for most of the population the squish makes it a good chunk easier to climb by constantly pushing them up.

    Yeah definitely. I used to be a K1 regular a while ago, but due to the constant squish it got impossible for me to stay there, let alone climb. So I've been a K2 regular for quite some time now. I did reach K1 again a few times, but only for like 1 week before dropping back to K2. As @Drathuk916 pointed out above, it's really tough for people in my rank, since we have to win more than we lose just to STAY where we are. So in order to climb we need to do significantly better. My peak rating used to be ~3750, but nowadays this would be impossible for me to reach. I fluctuate between 3400 and 3500 these days. And it's not that I'm suddenly performing worse than before, but the squish keeps dragging me down and keeps changing the "landscape" of the ranks. Back when I was at my peak 3750, I was like rank 5000 in the world (not 100% sure, but it shouldn't be far off. I will check it when I have some time because I believe I still have the screenshots). Someone at 3750 rating TODAY is probably like what, top 800? If anyone is at around 3750, please let me know what rank you are, I'm curious. So in short, the same SR is basically worth "more" nowadays in these divisions than it was back then, because of the squish.

    I got back to 3719 before the most recent squish and I was like #995.

    Ok thanks, so my top 800 guess for 3750 isn't too far off.
  • Dawnsinger wrote: »
    Awesome, (well those matchups aren’t awesome, but I appreciate the data). So I’m curious, for you personally if there was some form of banding so your matchups were made of opponents that only had 2 or less GLs, would it be more tempting to spend to expand your roster? Or would the high GP/low GL accounts be demoralizing as well? Just curious which parts of those matchups feel most unfair for folks like you that are punching above their weight class.

    Dawnsinger wrote: »
    I definitely think that GAC could encourage/reward roster growth more if they found a way to adjust matchmaking so that the lower leagues didn’t have such massive mismatches. If a significant portion your matches are coming down to whether your opponent bothers or not and it’s a gap of 3 or 4 GLs and several million GP, that’s not really a huge incentive to grow your roster.

    I am curious how prevalent that actually is though. I see the complaint that “most of matches I have no chance to win” a lot. But in the handful of times I’ve seen someone’s actual matches, it’s been a couple matches a season where they were against unbeatable opponents (say 3+ GLs), and a bunch of matches where just having an extra GL would have given them a much better shot. If you’ve reached a point where you’re mostly matched against opponents with 2 more GLs than you, then growing your roster by one more GL definitely will give you a much better chance to win, which is what CG wants.

    I’d love to see some rosters where most of the matches are against truly unbeatable rosters though. The kind of rosters were adding another GL still wouldn’t have given you any chance. I’ve heard about it a bunch but never really seen it in action.

    That's fair. Here is my swgoh GAC History https://swgoh.gg/p/297932863/gac-history/

    I currently have 3.1 GP and no GLs. Here are my last 9 opponents' GP and # of GLs which I know isn't a complete picture but gives you an idea.

    1) 7.5 GP, 4 GLs
    2) 6.7 GP, 2 GLs
    3) 7.9 GP, 2 GLs
    4) 6.8 GP, 1 GL
    5) 4.3 GP, 1 GL
    6) 7.5 GP, 1 GL
    7) 8.4 GP, 5 GLs
    8) 4.1 GP, 1 GL
    9) 7.9 GP, 1 GL

    Of these matches, the only ones where I felt like what I did mattered was #5 and #8. I agree that having 1 additional GL would have helped in some of these matches, but not all. It isn't just the GL difference, but having enough full relic squads to fill out defense and still have good offensive squads which generally comes down to GP.

    Still, I do tend to win about half of my matches which keeps me settled between chromium 1 and 2. Of the 9 matches above I won 4. #s 5 and 8 were genuinely fun matchups where my opponent showed up and I was able to get the win. But I also won #s 2 and 9 because my opponent didn't try. I lost battles 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 because my opponent showed up. For me, the current system doesn't create a lot of fun matchups.

    I know this comment wasn't directed to me, nor is it a realistic scenario since I'm F2P. But hypothetically (if we only look at GAC), it would not be tempting for me at all to spend to expand my roster. I'm at 8.4M and my opponents are usually between 9.5 and 10M, with more GLs, more teams in general, more relics, more datacrons. Basically more of everything. There is no incentive for me to spend and get to 9.5M myself. Because then I'd just face 10.5-11M people, and it would be the same thing as before, just on a different scale. The only thing that would change is that I would be K1 instead of K2, which means slightly more crystals over the course of the month. But that's definitely not enough to make it tempting to spend. Not sure how others in a similar position view this, but this is at least my opinion.

  • I know this comment wasn't directed to me, nor is it a realistic scenario since I'm F2P. But hypothetically (if we only look at GAC), it would not be tempting for me at all to spend to expand my roster. I'm at 8.4M and my opponents are usually between 9.5 and 10M, with more GLs, more teams in general, more relics, more datacrons. Basically more of everything. There is no incentive for me to spend and get to 9.5M myself. Because then I'd just face 10.5-11M people, and it would be the same thing as before, just on a different scale. The only thing that would change is that I would be K1 instead of K2, which means slightly more crystals over the course of the month. But that's definitely not enough to make it tempting to spend. Not sure how others in a similar position view this, but this is at least my opinion.

    Agree completely. Not only I don’t want to spend $ for GAC, I don’t spend much resources or time in GAC since the format change. I don’t put GAC omicron until I got all useful TW omicron first, and I don’t spend time research opponents anymore and simply reuse defense again and again. In the long run, the GAC win rate will be 50% for most players except the very few at the top of K1. If not because of shrinking K1, I would probably stay in K1 forever anyway. With squishing of K1, I do see the day that will come when I drop to K2 from K1. Hopefully CG readjust K1 band to ensure it is still 20% of Kyber. :)
  • My alt account is in aurodium 1 with 4 GL and zero datacrons. It isn't really a factor down in that level.

    Yes zero datacrons. What was the point of getting scythe if inquisitors are years away for most accounts. No incentive to try for medium accounts
  • TVF
    36442 posts Member
    sloweagle wrote: »

    I know this comment wasn't directed to me, nor is it a realistic scenario since I'm F2P. But hypothetically (if we only look at GAC), it would not be tempting for me at all to spend to expand my roster. I'm at 8.4M and my opponents are usually between 9.5 and 10M, with more GLs, more teams in general, more relics, more datacrons. Basically more of everything. There is no incentive for me to spend and get to 9.5M myself. Because then I'd just face 10.5-11M people, and it would be the same thing as before, just on a different scale. The only thing that would change is that I would be K1 instead of K2, which means slightly more crystals over the course of the month. But that's definitely not enough to make it tempting to spend. Not sure how others in a similar position view this, but this is at least my opinion.

    Agree completely. Not only I don’t want to spend $ for GAC

    I thought you were proudly f2p.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Ghost666
    327 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    I just got to Auridium4...promoted last season. Never saw a 5 GLs player, but my actual bracket has 5 players with 3 GLs.
    I have only one GL...i expect i will lose and go back down in league. The difference is i am going to fight and i actually like it this way...it is way fairer than before, I was winning more BEFORE actually...but was not fun.
    BTW...i THINK i have better rewards now...not sure as i dont really keep track...
  • Antario
    996 posts Member
    Anyone nowadays who is still in Kyber1 has theoretically a better win-rate than 50% because of the squish.
  • TVF wrote: »
    sloweagle wrote: »

    I know this comment wasn't directed to me, nor is it a realistic scenario since I'm F2P. But hypothetically (if we only look at GAC), it would not be tempting for me at all to spend to expand my roster. I'm at 8.4M and my opponents are usually between 9.5 and 10M, with more GLs, more teams in general, more relics, more datacrons. Basically more of everything. There is no incentive for me to spend and get to 9.5M myself. Because then I'd just face 10.5-11M people, and it would be the same thing as before, just on a different scale. The only thing that would change is that I would be K1 instead of K2, which means slightly more crystals over the course of the month. But that's definitely not enough to make it tempting to spend. Not sure how others in a similar position view this, but this is at least my opinion.

    Agree completely. Not only I don’t want to spend $ for GAC

    I thought you were proudly f2p.

    F2P in the past would proudly invest in GAC roster. Not anymore since the new GAC format. New GAC format means GAC roster development is low priority as it doesn’t bring in more crystals as before. 😂
  • TVF
    36442 posts Member
    sloweagle wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    sloweagle wrote: »

    I know this comment wasn't directed to me, nor is it a realistic scenario since I'm F2P. But hypothetically (if we only look at GAC), it would not be tempting for me at all to spend to expand my roster. I'm at 8.4M and my opponents are usually between 9.5 and 10M, with more GLs, more teams in general, more relics, more datacrons. Basically more of everything. There is no incentive for me to spend and get to 9.5M myself. Because then I'd just face 10.5-11M people, and it would be the same thing as before, just on a different scale. The only thing that would change is that I would be K1 instead of K2, which means slightly more crystals over the course of the month. But that's definitely not enough to make it tempting to spend. Not sure how others in a similar position view this, but this is at least my opinion.

    Agree completely. Not only I don’t want to spend $ for GAC

    I thought you were proudly f2p.

    F2P in the past would proudly invest in GAC roster. Not anymore since the new GAC format. New GAC format means GAC roster development is low priority as it doesn’t bring in more crystals as before. 😂

    You said $
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF
    36442 posts Member
    Also it brings in more crystals now, what are you even talking about
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • sloweagle wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    sloweagle wrote: »

    I know this comment wasn't directed to me, nor is it a realistic scenario since I'm F2P. But hypothetically (if we only look at GAC), it would not be tempting for me at all to spend to expand my roster. I'm at 8.4M and my opponents are usually between 9.5 and 10M, with more GLs, more teams in general, more relics, more datacrons. Basically more of everything. There is no incentive for me to spend and get to 9.5M myself. Because then I'd just face 10.5-11M people, and it would be the same thing as before, just on a different scale. The only thing that would change is that I would be K1 instead of K2, which means slightly more crystals over the course of the month. But that's definitely not enough to make it tempting to spend. Not sure how others in a similar position view this, but this is at least my opinion.

    Agree completely. Not only I don’t want to spend $ for GAC

    I thought you were proudly f2p.

    F2P in the past would proudly invest in GAC roster. Not anymore since the new GAC format. New GAC format means GAC roster development is low priority as it doesn’t bring in more crystals as before. 😂

    Moving up the ladder up to Kyber improves significantly your crystal income. But I agree than once your spot in Kyber is secured, going the tw route with your guildmates could be the smart thing to do, as matchmaking in tw doesn’t seem to prevent winning streaks.
  • scuba
    14006 posts Member
    I think some are missing another point.
    "Skill" does have something to do with it, but so does your roster depth. I mean you really expect to earn the same rewards as the top players in K1? There is a ceiling your are going to hit based on your roster that no amount of "skill" will overcome.

    Good or bad this was one of the issues I saw about crystal movement out of squad arena. Squad arena roster depth didn't matter, just if you had the time and the single team needed to get the same rewards as someone with a larger roster.
  • "Skill Squish" is definitely NOT the reason there are players with 4-5+ GLs in Aurodium or lower, only the following possibilities:
    • Doesn't care about GAC
    • Is generally bad at PvP content
    • Account inactivity

    In all cases above they are a casual player and nothing wrong with that. If you have 4-5 GLs you should easily stick in Kyber 4 with minimal effort. Just setting all your GLs on the front wall will generally get you a better than 50% win record.

    I have 6M GP and 2 GLs and I am honestly terrible at GAC, and am firmly in Kyber 3 now. 90%+ of the players I go up against have at least a 2 GL advantage on me
  • "Skill Squish" is definitely NOT the reason there are players with 4-5+ GLs in Aurodium or lower, only the following possibilities:
    • Doesn't care about GAC
    • Is generally bad at PvP content
    • Account inactivity

    What category does "I have a strange rate on opponents with the same GLs as me, but with extra 2 million GP in meta toons" belong to?
  • Dawnsinger wrote: »
    Awesome, (well those matchups aren’t awesome, but I appreciate the data). So I’m curious, for you personally if there was some form of banding so your matchups were made of opponents that only had 2 or less GLs, would it be more tempting to spend to expand your roster? Or would the high GP/low GL accounts be demoralizing as well? Just curious which parts of those matchups feel most unfair for folks like you that are punching above their weight class.

    Dawnsinger wrote: »
    I definitely think that GAC could encourage/reward roster growth more if they found a way to adjust matchmaking so that the lower leagues didn’t have such massive mismatches. If a significant portion your matches are coming down to whether your opponent bothers or not and it’s a gap of 3 or 4 GLs and several million GP, that’s not really a huge incentive to grow your roster.

    I am curious how prevalent that actually is though. I see the complaint that “most of matches I have no chance to win” a lot. But in the handful of times I’ve seen someone’s actual matches, it’s been a couple matches a season where they were against unbeatable opponents (say 3+ GLs), and a bunch of matches where just having an extra GL would have given them a much better shot. If you’ve reached a point where you’re mostly matched against opponents with 2 more GLs than you, then growing your roster by one more GL definitely will give you a much better chance to win, which is what CG wants.

    I’d love to see some rosters where most of the matches are against truly unbeatable rosters though. The kind of rosters were adding another GL still wouldn’t have given you any chance. I’ve heard about it a bunch but never really seen it in action.

    That's fair. Here is my swgoh GAC History https://swgoh.gg/p/297932863/gac-history/

    I currently have 3.1 GP and no GLs. Here are my last 9 opponents' GP and # of GLs which I know isn't a complete picture but gives you an idea.

    1) 7.5 GP, 4 GLs
    2) 6.7 GP, 2 GLs
    3) 7.9 GP, 2 GLs
    4) 6.8 GP, 1 GL
    5) 4.3 GP, 1 GL
    6) 7.5 GP, 1 GL
    7) 8.4 GP, 5 GLs
    8) 4.1 GP, 1 GL
    9) 7.9 GP, 1 GL

    Of these matches, the only ones where I felt like what I did mattered was #5 and #8. I agree that having 1 additional GL would have helped in some of these matches, but not all. It isn't just the GL difference, but having enough full relic squads to fill out defense and still have good offensive squads which generally comes down to GP.

    Still, I do tend to win about half of my matches which keeps me settled between chromium 1 and 2. Of the 9 matches above I won 4. #s 5 and 8 were genuinely fun matchups where my opponent showed up and I was able to get the win. But I also won #s 2 and 9 because my opponent didn't try. I lost battles 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 because my opponent showed up. For me, the current system doesn't create a lot of fun matchups.

    Hey dawnsinger, I thought I responded to this but couldn’t find my response, sorry. Also is your name a reference to the Stormlight Archive? I love that series!

    Anyways, I think the banding should include, amongst other things, both number of GL’s, roster size. GL’s aren’t everything, I can generally have a shot if my opponent has one or two more than me, but their GP is close-ish to mine, but if their GP is double mine I feel like I don’t have a shot even if they only have one or two more GL’s than me. I feel like I simply won’t have enough relic or close to relic teams to field both offense and defense. If you look at the matches I put above, I won against +1GL and +1.5 GP, but I don’t feel like a have a chance against the + 1 GL and 2x GP.
  • Regarding the original topic, the reason there are folks with 4-5 GLs in Aurodium and in some cases Chromium is because some of those players don't like GAC, particularly 3v3, so they may take a break from it, claim the free rewards for a single attack, then climb back up in 5v5 against favourable matchups.
  • I_JnK_I wrote: »
    "Skill Squish" is definitely NOT the reason there are players with 4-5+ GLs in Aurodium or lower, only the following possibilities:
    • Doesn't care about GAC
    • Is generally bad at PvP content
    • Account inactivity

    What category does "I have a strange rate on opponents with the same GLs as me, but with extra 2 million GP in meta toons" belong to?

    Probably the "Is generally bad at PvP content" then. Really if you have an equal number of GLs, then even with less GP / teams you should be able to win. Just need to work on your defensive strategy a bit more, make sure your fleets are up to snuff, or put some effort into datacrons.

    Work on your off-meta counters to GLs...if you have 4-5 GLs already then you probably have toons that can counter the other persons and you can afford to set more on defense. Datacrons can really make the difference in Kyber 5 up to Kyber 3 for more casual players as most people don't really use them heavily.

    Kyber 2 and Kyber 1 are complete different stories
  • MaruMaru
    3338 posts Member
    I_JnK_I wrote: »
    "Skill Squish" is definitely NOT the reason there are players with 4-5+ GLs in Aurodium or lower, only the following possibilities:
    • Doesn't care about GAC
    • Is generally bad at PvP content
    • Account inactivity

    What category does "I have a strange rate on opponents with the same GLs as me, but with extra 2 million GP in meta toons" belong to?

    All of them. If they are the majority population at your skill point, then you are the one punching up by having extra success than the ones around you or despite them.

    If this was a rare occasion you get'em, then those would be the ones that has fallen so far, their rosters are beyond most of their opponents. But there would be others like you they are punching down and you'd be matching with those too.
  • Regarding the original topic, the reason there are folks with 4-5 GLs in Aurodium and in some cases Chromium is because some of those players don't like GAC, particularly 3v3, so they may take a break from it, claim the free rewards for a single attack, then climb back up in 5v5 against favourable matchups.

    I'm in Kyber 2 at the moment, but looking at some opponents' GAC history in the past I've seen a few that just pass on 3v3 for the most part. Just don't take the time and go down in rating. My current opponent has all GLs at R9 plus 10 more at R9 and 11M GP. He has had 0 points in both weeks of 3v3 so far. Didn't even bother to do one attack. Only joined.
  • There must be some ppl like me.
    Once i have a char ready at relic level, have a team and modded, i rarely change things for whatever the reason. So i will always have same defence team, same mods regardless my opponents.
    Besides i have a very fat roster filled with useless chars at relic lvl just because i like them.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    I_JnK_I wrote: »
    "Skill Squish" is definitely NOT the reason there are players with 4-5+ GLs in Aurodium or lower, only the following possibilities:
    • Doesn't care about GAC
    • Is generally bad at PvP content
    • Account inactivity

    What category does "I have a strange rate on opponents with the same GLs as me, but with extra 2 million GP in meta toons" belong to?

    All of them. If they are the majority population at your skill point, then you are the one punching up by having extra success than the ones around you or despite them.

    I refuse to believe im punching up at A3
  • MaruMaru
    3338 posts Member
    I_JnK_I wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    I_JnK_I wrote: »
    "Skill Squish" is definitely NOT the reason there are players with 4-5+ GLs in Aurodium or lower, only the following possibilities:
    • Doesn't care about GAC
    • Is generally bad at PvP content
    • Account inactivity

    What category does "I have a strange rate on opponents with the same GLs as me, but with extra 2 million GP in meta toons" belong to?

    All of them. If they are the majority population at your skill point, then you are the one punching up by having extra success than the ones around you or despite them.

    I refuse to believe im punching up at A3

    I dunno, I dunno the situation over there and if one really most frequently gets matched with rosters significantly stronger than them.

    But if most of the rosters around your skill point is as such, then that's the natural flow of roster strength in that region. If this was a less frequent occasion, then it would be some rosters capable of being better than that skill tanking down by choice where they feel comfortable.

    Overall, given your description, you seem to be playing better than your frequent opponents if you are able to hang around them with a worse roster.
  • Jacgul
    208 posts Member
    edited March 2023
    to4d7z8r8nq0.png
    upoqos8ylt7p.png
    63uru07dp652.png
    1rqwle0fa8li.png
    Here's a cool one, his over 5 mil account against my near 3 mil account. Now cue the "oh but he doesn't play, oh but 50%, oh but skill rating". Yeah, those are always great responses coming from people who don't have this problem. Yes, a good amount of people don't always attack, but they had to enter gac to be there. And I just got pushed from Carbonite 1 to 2.
    So how exactly am i ever supposed work up the ranks as I build if i get put up against accounts like this about once per 3 rounds? And the last two series, they did play. The upper leagues get smaller and we down at the bottom get more and more massive accounts that we have no chance of beating.
  • StarSon
    7368 posts Member
    Jacgul wrote: »
    to4d7z8r8nq0.png
    upoqos8ylt7p.png
    63uru07dp652.png
    1rqwle0fa8li.png
    Here's a cool one, his over 5 mil account against my near 3 mil account. Now cue the "oh but he doesn't play, oh but 50%, oh but skill rating". Yeah, those are always great responses coming from people who don't have this problem. Yes, a good amount of people don't always attack, but they had to enter gac to be there. And I just got pushed from Carbonite 1 to 2.
    So how exactly am i ever supposed work up the ranks as I build if i get put up against accounts like this about once per 3 rounds? And the last two series, they did play. The upper leagues get smaller and we down at the bottom get more and more massive accounts that we have no chance of beating.

    You aren't supposed to win all the time. The system's goal is to push a 50% win rate. So you climb the ranks like everyone else: win when you can. It really is that simple.
  • MaruMaru
    3338 posts Member
    Jacgul wrote: »
    to4d7z8r8nq0.png
    upoqos8ylt7p.png
    63uru07dp652.png
    1rqwle0fa8li.png
    Here's a cool one, his over 5 mil account against my near 3 mil account. Now cue the "oh but he doesn't play, oh but 50%, oh but skill rating". Yeah, those are always great responses coming from people who don't have this problem. Yes, a good amount of people don't always attack, but they had to enter gac to be there. And I just got pushed from Carbonite 1 to 2.
    So how exactly am i ever supposed work up the ranks as I build if i get put up against accounts like this about once per 3 rounds? And the last two series, they did play. The upper leagues get smaller and we down at the bottom get more and more massive accounts that we have no chance of beating.

    If you are playing in an average development speed that everyone has around you, you are not supposed to be able to push up (besides player retention from those higher than you). You are expected to pay more to get staying power at a higher point if you desire as such. Otherwise you'd be able to gradually move to kyber even if it takes many years. But you can't, because if I'm playing too by then I'd still have a much better roster by that future's standards.

    Naturally if you are playing more hard-core than average development speed (even as f2p) you'll be able to push upper more. I have yet to see a better explanation.
  • Jacgul
    208 posts Member
    StarSon wrote: »
    Jacgul wrote: »
    to4d7z8r8nq0.png
    upoqos8ylt7p.png
    63uru07dp652.png
    1rqwle0fa8li.png
    Here's a cool one, his over 5 mil account against my near 3 mil account. Now cue the "oh but he doesn't play, oh but 50%, oh but skill rating". Yeah, those are always great responses coming from people who don't have this problem. Yes, a good amount of people don't always attack, but they had to enter gac to be there. And I just got pushed from Carbonite 1 to 2.
    So how exactly am i ever supposed work up the ranks as I build if i get put up against accounts like this about once per 3 rounds? And the last two series, they did play. The upper leagues get smaller and we down at the bottom get more and more massive accounts that we have no chance of beating.

    You aren't supposed to win all the time. The system's goal is to push a 50% win rate. So you climb the ranks like everyone else: win when you can. It really is that simple.

    By definition, a 50% win rate will keep you in the exact same place. There is no "win all the time". Effectively you can never "win" at 50%. That is one step forward, one step back. No one climbs the ranks unless they're progressing faster than average for their placement. Even then however, shrinking upper leagues will make it difficult or impossible for them to progress, by and large.
Sign In or Register to comment.