A non shard-swapping shuffle followed by removal of the names is the only “fair” solution.
You don’t want to penalize 20 people for collusion but instead will penalize the majority of players in each shard by doing nothing about the collusion stopping them from attaining the top payouts.
Why even bother to create variety in the meta? The collusion is destroying any real competition in the top spots so you may as well just keep a single team meta. In fact, you may as well change the payouts to the exact same thing for all of the top 20 spots. (Make it easier on the colluders already! They have such a hard life.)
As a professional gamer, I can’t understand your logic of ignoring the collusion. It is definitely “outside the box” thinking and as a “paying” customer, I’m thinking I won’t give anymore to this game until something is done.
The only language these big companies understand is money so, that’s the language I’ll speak.
While I can see how this may seem fair, how does someone going from 100 to 18000 sound fair? if you are saying that there are 20 people per shard cooperating, you would be shuffling 20k people. I think that would upset a lot more and probably make people quit too.
I also dont think that would really solve the problem, slight variation in team order, and a simple callout of position and we all know who we are again.
@Kyno , respectfully, then what do you propose as a reasonable, workable solution? You've shot down every possible suggestion on this and every other related thread I've seen, so I'm curious how you would create a more level playing field...If you could.
@snarzenal nails it by noting that the wants and interests of the top 20 shouldn't trump that of the other 19,980.
snarzenal nails it by noting that the wants and interests of the top 20 shouldn't trump that of the other 19,980.
Please explain to me how putting someone who has made it to the top 100 back out to 500. as most likely F2P person they would most likely quit as this would be the same climb they made to get there in the first place.
I am not saying that the top 20 should trump anyone, but to move everyone around on a shard punishes everyone and could end up with leaving inactive people in the top. its hard to know without knowing more details about shards. like how many actives they have, sure you could limit this to active players only. so now the person at 100 only ends up at 5000 at worst.
I dont have a good solution, but it should punish people, making things more difficult on anyone to "mix it up" may be ok, but only if it actually works. if in the end we end up back here, that will cause more harm than good.
also, i'm not the one who makes any decisions, the more ideas that end up here are the more likely solutions to the issue on hand. I'm just trying to point out that not every "solution" is really fair or viable.
It's an arena. 1 thing and only 1 thing should determine your rank: Your performance in battles. I don't see how anything could justify a re—shuffling of a shard. That would be against the whole purpose of an arena tournament.
I crossed the line and I apologize. I’ll try again.
What I was attempting to say was, upon reflection is, I think Kyno is correct. There isn’t much that can realistically be done without a complete overhaul of the system. It is what it is and what it is is pretty good when compared to some other games I’ve played.
I’m not a super competitive player by any means with this game and I usually hover around 100 because I’m not interested in the time commitment to maintaining a top placing in arena. If I was however, it seems to me that the groups working together are inclusive rather than exclusive so my advice would be to be friendly with them and see what happens.
If this seems like a complete about face, it is. I gave it some more thought. Thing is, I rather like what we have and I’m not interested in changing it so, it’s not a real pressing issuse for me.
Another potential fix could be to remove any choice of who you attack. For example, if you are at rank 8 you are assigned a person to attack randomly from 3-5. If you fail you draw a different person in that range. If you fail again you get the final person. If you fail again the process repeats.
I do kind of likes this because it does 2 things. First off it significantly penalizes people who try to collude. If you want to skip over people you will sometimes have have to burn a battle to do it.
Second it means you have to be able to beat all teams in order to climb the ladder. You can’t just have a half baked NS team and climb up into the top 5 by picking on CLS teams that you happen to counter. Or doing the same with an Imperial Trooper squad against NS. It’s gives a significant advantage to those who have enough flexibility in their roster to be able to take on anyone.
So first part is Arena is not end game content anymore. TW is.
Why do shards have collusion in them? Well because payout time is at a really kitten time which is normally dinner time for families so a lot of people would rather not have to sit online for an entire hour during that period.
Currently you are not even in Top 50. Is it really about the fact there is a shard chat or that you arent strong enough to be a top 5 person as it is? I am part of that shard chat and we do not target you at all. The only times you are hit by anyone in it is because you are in the way for their climb which is very rarely. Now if it was Altaey or Gallifrey then you would have reasons to complain.
I mean some people saying what is best for 20 shouldnt be ahead of 19980 others but most of those others couldn't get #1 without anyone attacking them so that isn't really a valid point.
Also the game thrives on people communicating with eachother. It would have died without the community of guilds and shard chats have built another community which keeps the game going.
Another potential fix could be to remove any choice of who you attack. For example, if you are at rank 8 you are assigned a person to attack randomly from 3-5. If you fail you draw a different person in that range. If you fail again you get the final person. If you fail again the process repeats.
I do kind of likes this because it does 2 things. First off it significantly penalizes people who try to collude. If you want to skip over people you will sometimes have have to burn a battle to do it.
Second it means you have to be able to beat all teams in order to climb the ladder. You can’t just have a half baked NS team and climb up into the top 5 by picking on CLS teams that you happen to counter. Or doing the same with an Imperial Trooper squad against NS. It’s gives a significant advantage to those who have enough flexibility in their roster to be able to take on anyone.
So this would mean the people not in shard chats will struggle even more to get top 10 because they often have to hit specific teams to be able to jump up the ranks.
I'm not sure how moving someone who can reach 1 on a shard to 1000 will not cause them to quit.
This also negates the advantage that some pay for. We are matched by when we started which is a very fair matching method.
The proposed system punishes those who are winning and would reward players who take breaks, are less competitive, and maybe just less skilled at the game in general. I'm not sure this is a solution.
He is proposing moving all the really good players into shards with similar players, basically.
Most competitive sports are done like that, and many e-Sports too. The idea being that good players move up and play against other similarly skilled players, rather than having them always sitting on players who are still developing.
I would be ok with this.... I haven't top 20'd for squad yet, but I am for fleet.
There is coding design aspect which is the difficulty in “moving” players which is why when people talk about server merges it’s inaccurate as the system is not currently able to do these and the resources to just do this would be extreme.
So ideas that focus on non moves is more able to be looked at , if this helps focus discussions moving forward.
AFAIK, all of us and our leaderboards are just entries in a DB, and I cant think of any DB structure that would prevent them from moving us... Maybe something with the way they handle the indexes/keys, but that isn't that hard to account for.
I'm not sure how moving someone who can reach 1 on a shard to 1000 will not cause them to quit.
This also negates the advantage that some pay for. We are matched by when we started which is a very fair matching method.
The proposed system punishes those who are winning and would reward players who take breaks, are less competitive, and maybe just less skilled at the game in general. I'm not sure this is a solution.
He is proposing moving all the really good players into shards with similar players, basically.
Most competitive sports are done like that, and many e-Sports too. The idea being that good players move up and play against other similarly skilled players, rather than having them always sitting on players who are still developing.
I would be ok with this.... I haven't top 20'd for squad yet, but I am for fleet.
Only way it work for people to be moved to a new shard if they were good would be that the stronger shard has a higher crystal payout where bottom of it is higher than current #1. Otherwise you are penalising the people that have spent to get stronger teams and if its a shard of 1000 that normally get #1 and now 976 of those cant get number one it will cause the whales to quit and bye bye goes the game.
On the flip side if the crystal rewards are a lot better then the whales wouldnt need to spend as much so bye bye goes the game.
Only option would be to lower the current rewards on arena and then everyone else is punished. It would work pretty badly.
This really is about his lack of a competitive team not about collusion. Come on you are still using ST han and your mods suck. I am in your shard i have only seen you in the top 5 once or twice because defense doesn’t hold with the terrible AI but your team to the guys that have the meta toons and 268 speed mod team are easy pickings. Get your roster up compete like we have for two years then come talk about changing the system. Right now you sound like a child that didn’t get a trophy even though you came in last place.
Perhaps the simple fix that would impact about 1 person and nobody else is for you to join the chat group of your shard? Looks like a few of them are right here on this forum, so it's easy to get in touch.
What you call "collusion" is just the fact that in Arena, there is usually no "top" team that deserves to be #1. There are many that can happily beat each other any time they want (that's Tier 1), and are more or less out of reach of the ones that are below (Tier 2). Each team in a Tier "deserves" the same daily rewards, and that's exactly what they do.
If your team is Tier 1 and doesn't get to the top spots because the others block you, then yes, that's collusion.
42 Average Rank <---from SWGOH.GG
Once at 18th and once at 19th. The group has 3 at your payout time and well over half the group have already had payouts and asleep by the time its yours, in fact only 13 would still be awake so not really sure where the issue is stopping you getting to top 20 daily.
It's an arena. 1 thing and only 1 thing should determine your rank: Your performance in battles. I don't see how anything could justify a re—shuffling of a shard. That would be against the whole purpose of an arena tournament.
Tournaments end. This one doesn't. I've shown my competition to break into the top 300 (100k+ power, g12 teams) and other folks said that is what their top 50 look like. Same is the case with ships.
Just my two cents, but if the tournament style is what is being aimed for, then have it for a specified period of time (6 months, 12 months) and then do a random reshuffle.
So what's the answer? Currently I am competitive, can beat every team but locked out of decent payouts because of anti-competitive gangs. How is this not going to make me quit? I pay.
I'm not sure how moving someone who can reach 1 on a shard to 1000 will not cause them to quit.
This also negates the advantage that some pay for. We are matched by when we started which is a very fair matching method.
The proposed system punishes those who are winning and would reward players who take breaks, are less competitive, and maybe just less skilled at the game in general. I'm not sure this is a solution.
He is proposing moving all the really good players into shards with similar players, basically.
Most competitive sports are done like that, and many e-Sports too. The idea being that good players move up and play against other similarly skilled players, rather than having them always sitting on players who are still developing.
I would be ok with this.... I haven't top 20'd for squad yet, but I am for fleet.
Correct, but in the effort of fairness and to reward people who play and pay, we are grouped by starting time, which is fair in and of itself. To impose a switch to committed players rewarding players who have taken break and forcing players to play against players who have been playing longer, doesn't sound fair.
Replies
While I can see how this may seem fair, how does someone going from 100 to 18000 sound fair? if you are saying that there are 20 people per shard cooperating, you would be shuffling 20k people. I think that would upset a lot more and probably make people quit too.
I also dont think that would really solve the problem, slight variation in team order, and a simple callout of position and we all know who we are again.
@snarzenal nails it by noting that the wants and interests of the top 20 shouldn't trump that of the other 19,980.
Please explain to me how putting someone who has made it to the top 100 back out to 500. as most likely F2P person they would most likely quit as this would be the same climb they made to get there in the first place.
I am not saying that the top 20 should trump anyone, but to move everyone around on a shard punishes everyone and could end up with leaving inactive people in the top. its hard to know without knowing more details about shards. like how many actives they have, sure you could limit this to active players only. so now the person at 100 only ends up at 5000 at worst.
I dont have a good solution, but it should punish people, making things more difficult on anyone to "mix it up" may be ok, but only if it actually works. if in the end we end up back here, that will cause more harm than good.
also, i'm not the one who makes any decisions, the more ideas that end up here are the more likely solutions to the issue on hand. I'm just trying to point out that not every "solution" is really fair or viable.
What I was attempting to say was, upon reflection is, I think Kyno is correct. There isn’t much that can realistically be done without a complete overhaul of the system. It is what it is and what it is is pretty good when compared to some other games I’ve played.
I’m not a super competitive player by any means with this game and I usually hover around 100 because I’m not interested in the time commitment to maintaining a top placing in arena. If I was however, it seems to me that the groups working together are inclusive rather than exclusive so my advice would be to be friendly with them and see what happens.
If this seems like a complete about face, it is. I gave it some more thought. Thing is, I rather like what we have and I’m not interested in changing it so, it’s not a real pressing issuse for me.
I do kind of likes this because it does 2 things. First off it significantly penalizes people who try to collude. If you want to skip over people you will sometimes have have to burn a battle to do it.
Second it means you have to be able to beat all teams in order to climb the ladder. You can’t just have a half baked NS team and climb up into the top 5 by picking on CLS teams that you happen to counter. Or doing the same with an Imperial Trooper squad against NS. It’s gives a significant advantage to those who have enough flexibility in their roster to be able to take on anyone.
Why do shards have collusion in them? Well because payout time is at a really kitten time which is normally dinner time for families so a lot of people would rather not have to sit online for an entire hour during that period.
Currently you are not even in Top 50. Is it really about the fact there is a shard chat or that you arent strong enough to be a top 5 person as it is? I am part of that shard chat and we do not target you at all. The only times you are hit by anyone in it is because you are in the way for their climb which is very rarely. Now if it was Altaey or Gallifrey then you would have reasons to complain.
I mean some people saying what is best for 20 shouldnt be ahead of 19980 others but most of those others couldn't get #1 without anyone attacking them so that isn't really a valid point.
Also the game thrives on people communicating with eachother. It would have died without the community of guilds and shard chats have built another community which keeps the game going.
So this would mean the people not in shard chats will struggle even more to get top 10 because they often have to hit specific teams to be able to jump up the ranks.
He is proposing moving all the really good players into shards with similar players, basically.
Most competitive sports are done like that, and many e-Sports too. The idea being that good players move up and play against other similarly skilled players, rather than having them always sitting on players who are still developing.
I would be ok with this.... I haven't top 20'd for squad yet, but I am for fleet.
AFAIK, all of us and our leaderboards are just entries in a DB, and I cant think of any DB structure that would prevent them from moving us... Maybe something with the way they handle the indexes/keys, but that isn't that hard to account for.
Only way it work for people to be moved to a new shard if they were good would be that the stronger shard has a higher crystal payout where bottom of it is higher than current #1. Otherwise you are penalising the people that have spent to get stronger teams and if its a shard of 1000 that normally get #1 and now 976 of those cant get number one it will cause the whales to quit and bye bye goes the game.
On the flip side if the crystal rewards are a lot better then the whales wouldnt need to spend as much so bye bye goes the game.
Only option would be to lower the current rewards on arena and then everyone else is punished. It would work pretty badly.
What you call "collusion" is just the fact that in Arena, there is usually no "top" team that deserves to be #1. There are many that can happily beat each other any time they want (that's Tier 1), and are more or less out of reach of the ones that are below (Tier 2). Each team in a Tier "deserves" the same daily rewards, and that's exactly what they do.
If your team is Tier 1 and doesn't get to the top spots because the others block you, then yes, that's collusion.
Once at 18th and once at 19th. The group has 3 at your payout time and well over half the group have already had payouts and asleep by the time its yours, in fact only 13 would still be awake so not really sure where the issue is stopping you getting to top 20 daily.
Just my two cents, but if the tournament style is what is being aimed for, then have it for a specified period of time (6 months, 12 months) and then do a random reshuffle.
Did you attempt to join the discord?
Correct, but in the effort of fairness and to reward people who play and pay, we are grouped by starting time, which is fair in and of itself. To impose a switch to committed players rewarding players who have taken break and forcing players to play against players who have been playing longer, doesn't sound fair.