New player? Check out the new player index

Replies

• 1659 posts Member
Options
No_Try wrote: »
Liath wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
Liath wrote: »
I refused to answer the question on the other thread (and stopped reading it) out of anger, but it occurs to me here that your focus on farming gear for energy might go a ways towards explaining our differing perspectives.

I almost never farm gear for energy (aside from what I get incidentally while farming for shards) so a calculation based on that does little to affect my view of the required investment.

Not really. I was just looking for a reliable metric to base the study on. Consider any metric you want as long as it's quantifiable. Resource costs and GP gains by using them will not correlate...not even if you consider your error threshold %100.

I doubt there is a quantifiable method that would make universal sense for my playing style honestly. It would have to consider, for example, how likely the pieces are to drop as rewards from raids, events, TB/TW, etc.

Mk1 gels and mk5 syringes: close to zero.
Most of the g11 pieces: many times higher.

Your style should be irrelevant as we are looking for a universal approach. That's the whole premise of fairness.

All factors you listed can be considered, each are existant in the game as rng rolls, thus can be converted into statistical numbers. i.e. over 50 rancies you go into we can come up with an average number of gear you will be gaining. That's why I keep repeating neither of the two approaches are mathematically easy.

But then I don't like the resources approach and prefer stats approach which is ingame/experienced effectiveness of something (as a result of all resources used for it wherever they may come from). Outcome fairness.

Anyway, do you have a claim (even intuitively) that current GP calculation is accurate? Are the GP gained by each gear tier accurate comparatively? (GP calculation has many more problems, gear tier comparisons was the easiest the illustrate, that's why I made my case on it)

I think gp calculation is more accurate than we think it is, based on the stat growth as gp increases and now seeing all the evidence in-game that our "tables" are totally off.
It looks right, when you just look at what's in-game and not using those obviously flawed charts.
• 312 posts Member
edited January 2019
Options
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
Admitting you’re being matched against opponents with inferior rosters and winning. Admitting the playerbase has adopted a Paper NS Zombie approach to the game via withholding resources for an advantage—not just on one character but across the entire roster.

The developers have stated that TW and Arena are essentially funny irrelevant game modes. Grand Arena will be “the arena for purely competitive play.”

People are requesting more precision in their match making algorithm for more fair matchups in the purely competitive arena. If you’re arguing against that you’re just being annoying and trolling.

I admit that i have never sandbagged in any way. I admit that with that said, i won every single ga round to date, most of them extremely easily because of weak my opponents’ rosters were compared to mine.
I admit i think that sandbagging is useless, replacing strong opponents with different strong opponents, that no proof has been showed (shown?) that it was positive, in fact that it was doing anything at all.
People are not asking for fair matchups they are asking for 50/50 matchups, very different things. People can disagree with you without being trolls, because even though you don’t seem to realize it, you are not a god and do not possess the Only Truth.

What would you consider as a proof? I have 1.28M worth of fluff, that has no effect to how I get matched whatsoever?

Anyone with less fluff (where all are on a spectrum of it mostly and a minority with none of it) than me automatically is advantageous because of it. Whether they made good use of that difference between us is another topic, fairness implies equal chances, not equal outcomes. With a few exceptions nothing in the fluffy portion of my roster gets used, same as my opponents still locked g1 lvl1 toons. Those exceptions are toons that are on my back catalogue waiting for their priority turn (such as Holdo).

@TVF is 800K GP lower than me, if I had %60 less fluff I would be able to get matched by him which would be a nasty stomping he has no chance to win with any amount strategy.

Now you can put the blame on me for having developed as such in the past. I do not accept that blame. Neither am I blaming who went the lean way for various reasong. To me the full blame is on CG for not thinking it throughly.

Going from the moment where GA is introduced, the tides are shifting. Baggers over non-baggers will slowly but surely gain advantage as their bagging will allow to fit in more maxed toons in their GP range. i.e. consider 2 opponents with purely same rosters at the beginning of GA. One kept building up fluff, the other one bagged 100k GP in the duration. That's one full built team which can directly convert to outcome. Well that's not fully accurate as they'll comparative GP ranges will slide in the duration, but hope you get the idea. 100K GP fluff isn't equal to maxed 100K GP for the most obvious reasons.

I think I illustrated pretty well a fair GP system would result in a fair matchmaking...which will not result by any means in a 50/50 match-up which are similar. To me it's purely related to lop sided aspects of GP calculation. Some argue gear etc. count checks in between people, I'm against that because of the 50/50 reason you mentioned. I don't want such similarity either.

I tried to answer that but it was starting to be a really long and complicated post and i wasn’t satisfied with it so i’ll just say that i think you are making things simpler than they are. I feel like you can’t base your reasoning on gp only but also on time (age of the account), and things get complicated when you do that.
Then again you could take that into account in the matchmaking and i feel like it would be both easiest and the safest way to make it « fair ».

Hmmm it's currently purely based on GP though, just trying to make GP better and fair in and off itself.

I don't see how -age of the account- should be an element in fairness. That looks like a slight case to me that you're implying matched accounts should have gone through same metas and same acquisition possibilities through their life of play. This would increase similarity and past meta(now defunct raid teams etc. too) toons in between them. And I think we both agree that shouldn't be the kind of fairness we want. I would love to get matched with a whale that started way after me, even barely a few months ago.

A fair GP calculation is sufficiently good enough for my sense of matchmaking fairness as it equates to -equal opportunity-. You get exactly what you paid for, either the amount of resources you used on a toon, or the stat effects you got from it directly correlates to GP gained by doing so. Then I have no grounds to **** about my g7s as I would getting the exact efficacy their GP worth provides.

I agree there may be other methods that I/we haven't thought of that are also simple. Diluting people over time with ranking them through all GAs is a good one. That's a fairness based on competetiveness. After all not all players are as interested in the mode at all.

It’s a very important element of fairness because ressources spent are directly correlated to time. In this game setting aside money you can only get a limited amount of ressources each day.
It’s important because it’s the origin of the current « unfairness » of the matchmaking : since fluff requires less ressources but awards same gp, a 3m lean roster cost more than a 3m fluffy roster, which means it takes more time to achieve in average, which means by fluffing you might get matched against players who got access to much more ressources than you in an « unfair » way : they played longer. Not better, not smarter, longer.

I disagree with those gp calculation changes because to me they don’t make it more fair just more equal, which again requires rewards tiers i don’t want, otherwise you have zero incentive of making your roster stronger since you’ll just meet someone stronger too with no gain on the line.
It’s important because as a newer player i don’t see how that’s fair for me to meet someone who played longer just because i managed to acquire ressources faster than others. Me going faster is supposed to be a good thing, and it ends up being neutral. If i’m more invested and play better than the people who started with me, i rank higher in arenas, i rank higher in raids, i complete more events thanks to smart ressource allocation, i end up just playing stronger older players in ga and having as hard a time as the others ? For no reward ?

There is also the problem of the value you assign to those gear tiers. You’ve said repeatedly that to you g8-9 should be basically worthless gp-wise since they’re worthless in ga. I very strongly disagree with that. It’s easy to see how stats are already more or less in line (Gannon started to show that a bit). G7-9 chars can be used in strong teams to take down strong teams (my g8 c3po works well against full g12 teams). It’s also important to note that stars give you access to game content (and rewards) which is hard to quantify but important. Overall defining the « use » or « efficacy » of a toon related to gp is not only very hard it’s also very subjective.

Again matchmaking based on w/l = rankings = reward tiers = arena. Not to say it’s impossible, i just personally much prefer the current format.

Sorry but Gannon hasn't illustrated anything since he hasn't isolated different aspects that runs into the stats and GP calculation and quantified them. He just provided some info to be able to do so. If stat gains based on various GP contributors turns out to correlate with GP gains, I'll retract my claim that current GP calculation is not fair already.

Please do illustrate how changing how GP is calculated by either of the approaches I proposed make the rosters equal. Nothing implies me of as such.

As a newer player you will be investing in vastly different things than I have been doing as a day 1 player and can end up in the same GP (in the current method too). And in that you are vastly advantegous as the newer player, don't understand why you don't see that. All your choices will be based on more recent events in the game, your resource allocations will be much more directly effective than mine. You also have the option to not fluff ever which I can't ever do. I can only max some of my fluff to decrease the total amount of fluff. But since my fluff is -level, gear, ability, star all toons as much as possible without hurting the high end resources- I will always have that baggage.

Ofc you will need way more bottlenecked resources than I did to reach my GP and when you do you'll be roflstomping me if we ever get matched.

I don’t know why you bring completely unrelated stuff in there. Choice of characters is 100% irrelevant to the discussion since all characters scale the same gp-wise. Ancient fluff is also irrelevant, take a player who starts now and go faster than one who started 3 months ago and my point stays the same. I « don’t see that » because it’s totally beside the point. It’s true now and will be true with any change in gp calculation. Maybe i didn’t express myself clearly enough so i’ll try again :

We were talking matchmaking and roster building comparing invested ressources. I said if you want to make it a gp only matchmaking where gp is an exact representation of invested ressources, you need to take start date into account. Right now that start date is very loosely active in the way that building your roster lean and fast will allow you to catch up on fluffy rosters gp-wise thus meeting them in ga, which is a positive (you’ll be more likely to win). In a system where gp is an exact representation of invested ressources, building lean and fast will only allow you to meet rosters of the same strenght regardless of how long it took them to get there, effectively removing any kind of advantage/reward you should get for your smart and effective way of playing. It also remove any incentive to improve your roster since it will only result in you meeting stronger opponent for no gain in the end. To avoid that you need to scale rewards with gp tiers and i don’t like that.

Edit : to your calculations regarding white to purple gear, the problem i see is the fact that outside of time (only universal ressource in this game) gear can be acquired by different means. You ignored the massive amounts of purple gear awarded by tb, tw, ga, rancor, aat, str, challenges, and events (assault battles, mythics tiers, other events...), all of those being energy-free and awarding much more purple than white-blue. Also most purple farm spot award useful white-blue stuff too. All of this change the dynamic a lot, even though it’s clear that it’s much more expensive to earn gp from g11 than from g5, which is perfectly logical.

Edit 2 : just realized my post can look aggressive or rude, it wasn’t my intention, sorry.
Post edited by JohnAran on
• 36766 posts Member
Options
Can you all please start a new quote chain? I'm tagged in it and you're blowing up my notifications. Thanks.
I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
• 5140 posts Member
Options
No_Try wrote: »
Liath wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
Liath wrote: »
I refused to answer the question on the other thread (and stopped reading it) out of anger, but it occurs to me here that your focus on farming gear for energy might go a ways towards explaining our differing perspectives.

I almost never farm gear for energy (aside from what I get incidentally while farming for shards) so a calculation based on that does little to affect my view of the required investment.

Not really. I was just looking for a reliable metric to base the study on. Consider any metric you want as long as it's quantifiable. Resource costs and GP gains by using them will not correlate...not even if you consider your error threshold %100.

I doubt there is a quantifiable method that would make universal sense for my playing style honestly. It would have to consider, for example, how likely the pieces are to drop as rewards from raids, events, TB/TW, etc.

Mk1 gels and mk5 syringes: close to zero.
Most of the g11 pieces: many times higher.

Your style should be irrelevant as we are looking for a universal approach. That's the whole premise of fairness.

All factors you listed can be considered, each are existant in the game as rng rolls, thus can be converted into statistical numbers. i.e. over 50 rancies you go into we can come up with an average number of gear you will be gaining. That's why I keep repeating neither of the two approaches are mathematically easy.

But then I don't like the resources approach and prefer stats approach which is ingame/experienced effectiveness of something (as a result of all resources used for it wherever they may come from). Outcome fairness.

Anyway, do you have a claim (even intuitively) that current GP calculation is accurate? Are the GP gained by each gear tier accurate comparatively? (GP calculation has many more problems, gear tier comparisons was the easiest the illustrate, that's why I made my case on it)

My play style is irrelevant to a universal GP metric, but it’s not irrelevant to the question you asked me originally, which is whether I feel that GP adequately accounts for differences in investment. My manner of investment impacts those differences and thus impacts how I feel about GP’s correlation to it.

Drop rates in raids and events exist in the game somewhere but AFAIK I don’t have access to them.

My intuitive claim is that GP (as it relates to gear tiers only) is probably not accurate but it’s also probably not as far off as you claim and that fixing it, while something I would be fine with the devs doing (if it continues to be based on investment in some form rather than your outcome based proposal which I dislike), is not terribly high on my list of priorities.
• 4051 posts Member
Options

I brought roster age differences, because you brought up resources gained by roster age.
JohnAran wrote: »
even though it’s clear that it’s much more expensive to earn gp from g11 than from g5, which is perfectly logical.

Cost should directly translate to GP, how is it logical the step up curves don't align between cost and GP if you are going by resources for a GP calculation? If 1\$ worth of gear is 1gp, 2\$ worth of gear should be 2GP and not 5GP.

Are we talking about invested/spent resources? Or are we talking about gained resources freely?
I don't see how you got 20k carbantis matters in any way besides establishing a universal cost currency for each gear item. How you spent them does as that's when you gain GP.

I'm done for today, wheee.
• 3884 posts Member
Options
Free energy + crystals obtained/spent would be fair enough. Though if you're going to include all resources, you'd need to include challenges completed, raids completed, and the various tyoes of store tokens received/spent. Then they woukd have to be weighted.

It would be fair enough but woukd likely solve little. You would still have those that have more fluff complaining that tgey are matched against rosters with more g12. Or with more gp (depending how closely thos correlates to gp).

So the end effect is that it would have similar matchups as we have now and change little.
• 4051 posts Member
Options
Free energy + crystals obtained/spent would be fair enough. Though if you're going to include all resources, you'd need to include challenges completed, raids completed, and the various tyoes of store tokens received/spent. Then they woukd have to be weighted.

It would be fair enough but woukd likely solve little. You would still have those that have more fluff complaining that tgey are matched against rosters with more g12. Or with more gp (depending how closely thos correlates to gp).

So the end effect is that it would have similar matchups as we have now and change little.

• 24 posts Member
Options
Just wanted to say GA is dope. I'm less than 1.4gp and have a pretty tight roster. I played somebody w 10 more zetas but 8 less g12. Played somebody w a Revan badass team, but not much else. The mod materials are a great reward, although zetas are better than Omegas.
I don't think sandbagging is much of an issue, at least not at my GP. You might be able to strip 75k, but that's not an issue.
I tried to build a tight roster so a higher guild would take me in. Most 100m guilds won't accept somebody w less than 2m go. Rewards from TB and TW are muuuuuch better at higher GPs. I had been in a guild where they wanted to sandbag in TW by keeping me and other lower GP players out. So I gave them a reason to keep me in.
• 1843 posts Member
Options
Why I am always facing gp 60k teams defending their territories?

As a 3.2m gp player I thought having 12+ squads above 75k are normal?
• 11587 posts Moderator
Options
Phoenixeon wrote: »
Why I am always facing gp 60k teams defending their territories?
Message your opponents in-game chat and ask them. Only they can answer why they put 60k power defensive teams and no one else
• 1843 posts Member
Options
Ultra wrote: »
Phoenixeon wrote: »
Why I am always facing gp 60k teams defending their territories?
Message your opponents in-game chat and ask them. Only they can answer why they put 60k power defensive teams and no one else

Then forget it lol.
I dont even check opponents roster, and using same defense teams ecerytime...
• 1659 posts Member
Options
Phoenixeon wrote: »
Ultra wrote: »
Phoenixeon wrote: »
Why I am always facing gp 60k teams defending their territories?
Message your opponents in-game chat and ask them. Only they can answer why they put 60k power defensive teams and no one else

Then forget it lol.
I dont even check opponents roster, and using same defense teams ecerytime...

Maybe they don't have a ton of great teams and are saving their best for offense. That's what I see most times in GA
• 4051 posts Member
Options
@JohnAran @Liath @Gannon and whomever else is interested;

I think the resources argument suddenly took a weird turn what to consider. Right from the beginning when I was talking about resources I was talking about this body of parameters:
(1)
- Credits
- Training Droids
- Ability Mats
- Gear Pieces
- Shards
- Mods
- Slicing Mats

Then there are these you use to obtain them, they are rather intermediary currencies than the resources itself, you can not put any one of them on the toons. Not sure each item here is tracked or how we'll be able to derive them accurately:
(2)
- Crystals
- Various types of tokens
- Credits (once again)
- Excess shards (only convertible to shard store tokens)
- Ally points

Opportunities to obtain both types:
(3)
- Challenges
- Events
- Raid Rewards
- TW/TB/GA Rewards
- Arena Rewards
- Free Energies
- Rewards that end up in our inbox when CG makes mistakes xD

The categorical seperation was necessary, because you can not consider them in the same category. In this way, first list is the outcome of the later 2 and can be directly calculated on the characters they are spent on. Also (3) has rng on the outcome.

As far as I can think of what to consider as resources you can either go with (1) alone, or use (2) and (3) together. In either case you should be able to quantify each one of them and also their relative values.

Current GP calculation for the factors it considers has relative values between the factors.

Relative value assessment in (1) and (2) should be possible. It doesn't look possible on (3) due to rng and also because they trickle down to (1) and (2). i.e. how much is a challenge attempt worth in terms of raid rewards? What are you considering as raid rewards?

If we are going with an opportunity based approach are you gonna use -how many raids a player participated in- as the parameter and assume he had the opportunity to get 1 on every one of them to assess the relative of Raid Rewards? If you are looking at the obtained rewards themselves, you are essentially going with the category (1), then why use (3)?

If you are considering (1) and (2) together, you are double calculating what a player has to use.

If you are using account age as a parameter you're disregarding any long term downtimes, anything not claimed at every opportunity (free energies), any attempt not used in challenges/events and was unusable by a player due to the difficulty.
• 212 posts Member
Options
CUP, Mob Enforcer and their zetas

Tell me more.

• 312 posts Member
Options
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
even though it’s clear that it’s much more expensive to earn gp from g11 than from g5, which is perfectly logical.

Cost should directly translate to GP, how is it logical the step up curves don't align between cost and GP if you are going by resources for a GP calculation? If 1\$ worth of gear is 1gp, 2\$ worth of gear should be 2GP and not 5GP.

It could but it doesn’t work like this. I don’t understand your last sentence, the fact is now 1gp is 1\$ worth of gear at g6 and 10\$ worth of gear at g11. Which is why it’s much easier to gain gp through fluff than maxed out teams. And i’m saying it’s logical yes, always works like this for obvious reasons, in most games but also real life.
Cost should only directly translate to gp if that’s what you want gp to be. If it’s supposed to be invested ressources then yes i agree, if it’s roster’s power/strenght then no.

Are we talking about invested/spent resources? Or are we talking about gained resources freely?
I don't see how you got 20k carbantis matters in any way besides establishing a universal cost currency for each gear item. How you spent them does as that's when you gain GP.

I'm done for today, wheee.

You are talking about cost of gear using energy as a universal currency. I’m simply pointing out that leaving all other sources of gear makes no sense. You actually get much more gear in this game from non energy related sources than actual energy.
If you are using account age as a parameter you're disregarding any long term downtimes, anything not claimed at every opportunity (free energies), any attempt not used in challenges/events and was unusable by a player due to the difficulty.

No you are not. You talk like i said « we should match players by start date +-1 day » which is not true. I said if you want to make matchmaking fair (that’s what we want, let’s not lose track of that), using gp as an exact translation of invested ressources is not enough and the way those ressources were obtained should be taken into account*. I’ve explained how and why i think that twice.
I also gave you what you wanted in the process : every ressource in this game is strictly related to time spent. You can get a fixed maximum amount of energy per day, of raid tickets, of challenges, of tw/tb/events (depending on how reliable the schedule is...), of crystals, of credits, of everything. Which means you can convert all those ressources into 1 using those rates. Random example, gear acquired with normal energy and gear acquired with fleet energy. When rng is included use probabilities and averages.

All of this is becoming more and more complicated for what i feel will be not much results in the end though. (Especially since we’re not making the game, cg is xD)
Which is why i said a simple way to improve matchmaking safely is to use time spent* to correct/reduce the difference of value between two rosters of same gp, because it’s obvious that a roster with only g12 is much harder to acquire, much more expensive (= should take longer) than a roster full of fluff. Pretty sure it wouldn’t be hard to only take actual activity into account* (ex : only days with at least 1 co, only week with 1 co, etc)

* never meant, don’t mean and never will mean matching it exactly.
• 4051 posts Member
Options
JohnAran wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
even though it’s clear that it’s much more expensive to earn gp from g11 than from g5, which is perfectly logical.

Cost should directly translate to GP, how is it logical the step up curves don't align between cost and GP if you are going by resources for a GP calculation? If 1\$ worth of gear is 1gp, 2\$ worth of gear should be 2GP and not 5GP.

It could but it doesn’t work like this. I don’t understand your last sentence, the fact is now 1gp is 1\$ worth of gear at g6 and 10\$ worth of gear at g11. Which is why it’s much easier to gain gp through fluff than maxed out teams. And i’m saying it’s logical yes, always works like this for obvious reasons, in most games but also real life.
Cost should only directly translate to gp if that’s what you want gp to be. If it’s supposed to be invested ressources then yes i agree, if it’s roster’s power/strenght then no.

Are we talking about invested/spent resources? Or are we talking about gained resources freely?
I don't see how you got 20k carbantis matters in any way besides establishing a universal cost currency for each gear item. How you spent them does as that's when you gain GP.

I'm done for today, wheee.

You are talking about cost of gear using energy as a universal currency. I’m simply pointing out that leaving all other sources of gear makes no sense. You actually get much more gear in this game from non energy related sources than actual energy.
If you are using account age as a parameter you're disregarding any long term downtimes, anything not claimed at every opportunity (free energies), any attempt not used in challenges/events and was unusable by a player due to the difficulty.

No you are not. You talk like i said « we should match players by start date +-1 day » which is not true. I said if you want to make matchmaking fair (that’s what we want, let’s not lose track of that), using gp as an exact translation of invested ressources is not enough and the way those ressources were obtained should be taken into account*. I’ve explained how and why i think that twice.
I also gave you what you wanted in the process : every ressource in this game is strictly related to time spent. You can get a fixed maximum amount of energy per day, of raid tickets, of challenges, of tw/tb/events (depending on how reliable the schedule is...), of crystals, of credits, of everything. Which means you can convert all those ressources into 1 using those rates. Random example, gear acquired with normal energy and gear acquired with fleet energy. When rng is included use probabilities and averages.

All of this is becoming more and more complicated for what i feel will be not much results in the end though. (Especially since we’re not making the game, cg is xD)
Which is why i said a simple way to improve matchmaking safely is to use time spent* to correct/reduce the difference of value between two rosters of same gp, because it’s obvious that a roster with only g12 is much harder to acquire, much more expensive (= should take longer) than a roster full of fluff. Pretty sure it wouldn’t be hard to only take actual activity into account* (ex : only days with at least 1 co, only week with 1 co, etc)

* never meant, don’t mean and never will mean matching it exactly.

I used energy as a metric just to showcase what you agreed on as far as I understood: GP gains by gear tiers doesn't correlate with the resource costs of of gear tiers, the gap is as wide as a %300 difference (gp only bumps %100 while the resources spend got bumped %400). If I was trying to design a GP system based on relative costs I wouldn't do that. In no way I'm advocating for an energy-based value system.

Let's assume we managed to determine relative costs of all gear pieces including bottlenecks, abundancies etc. too. Now we know what a single carbanti is worth. To further simplify assume a gear tier only needs 100 carbantis, and another 500 carbantis and nothing else. Then the GP gain for the 2nd tier should be exactly %500 of the first tier. The same carbantis shouldn't be costing different amounts of GP gains amongst tiers.

As I said numerous times, I'm fine with more than one approach to this. I'm not necessarily saying we should go with any one of these, just trying to layout what are the ins and outs of each. The current GP calculation is as arbitrary as it gets.

There have been numerous occasions where the designers took cues both from player demands and designs. And even when they don't roll with one of the models players had came up with, they still get the gist of it and try to derive another idea from it depending on their priorities.

I remember pretty vividly being the one to offer the taunt mechanic to the lead designer here which made sense to him, got noted and got implemented in their previous game.
• 1659 posts Member
Options
That's invariably more complex tho, I'm sure there's a bunch of other factors that would creep up if you focused on just stuff like that.
😐 so much stuff they'd have to have accounted for that likely isn't on file also
• 1659 posts Member
Options
Also, I've hit a wall on reevaluating all the gp calculation process.. But I have an idea for finding the missing values. When revan returns, I will record the gp added for each level, gear piece, gear tier bump stats, etc and record the whole thing. Then we can examine it in depth, and see if the gp calculation is more accurate than we thought.
• 4051 posts Member
Options
Gannon wrote: »
Also, I've hit a wall on reevaluating all the gp calculation process.. But I have an idea for finding the missing values. When revan returns, I will record the gp added for each level, gear piece, gear tier bump stats, etc and record the whole thing. Then we can examine it in depth, and see if the gp calculation is more accurate than we thought.

Cool.
• 36766 posts Member
edited January 2019
Options
Deleted, not relevant to the conversation.
Post edited by TVF on
I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
• 36766 posts Member
Options
I'd like to keep posting here, thanks.
I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
• 69 posts Member
Options
I’m sure it’s been stated 250 times in here already but the rewards have to be revamped to justify a week-long event!

The developers clearly put in a lot of time and effort creating this new event and if you want it to succeed you have to give us a reason to care about it!

I am bored to death with TW so I applaud the developers for giving us something new but I’ll take TW (which I hate) over GA if for no other reason than the rewards
• 835 posts Member
Options
I already suffer from GA abstinence, can’t wait for the next run! It would be great if we would be able to make adjustements to defences set during the prep day though (some of us are really old and accidentally add wrong toons in a squad for example). Something for a futiure quality of life update maybe?
• 312 posts Member
Options
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
even though it’s clear that it’s much more expensive to earn gp from g11 than from g5, which is perfectly logical.

Cost should directly translate to GP, how is it logical the step up curves don't align between cost and GP if you are going by resources for a GP calculation? If 1\$ worth of gear is 1gp, 2\$ worth of gear should be 2GP and not 5GP.

It could but it doesn’t work like this. I don’t understand your last sentence, the fact is now 1gp is 1\$ worth of gear at g6 and 10\$ worth of gear at g11. Which is why it’s much easier to gain gp through fluff than maxed out teams. And i’m saying it’s logical yes, always works like this for obvious reasons, in most games but also real life.
Cost should only directly translate to gp if that’s what you want gp to be. If it’s supposed to be invested ressources then yes i agree, if it’s roster’s power/strenght then no.

Are we talking about invested/spent resources? Or are we talking about gained resources freely?
I don't see how you got 20k carbantis matters in any way besides establishing a universal cost currency for each gear item. How you spent them does as that's when you gain GP.

I'm done for today, wheee.

You are talking about cost of gear using energy as a universal currency. I’m simply pointing out that leaving all other sources of gear makes no sense. You actually get much more gear in this game from non energy related sources than actual energy.
If you are using account age as a parameter you're disregarding any long term downtimes, anything not claimed at every opportunity (free energies), any attempt not used in challenges/events and was unusable by a player due to the difficulty.

No you are not. You talk like i said « we should match players by start date +-1 day » which is not true. I said if you want to make matchmaking fair (that’s what we want, let’s not lose track of that), using gp as an exact translation of invested ressources is not enough and the way those ressources were obtained should be taken into account*. I’ve explained how and why i think that twice.
I also gave you what you wanted in the process : every ressource in this game is strictly related to time spent. You can get a fixed maximum amount of energy per day, of raid tickets, of challenges, of tw/tb/events (depending on how reliable the schedule is...), of crystals, of credits, of everything. Which means you can convert all those ressources into 1 using those rates. Random example, gear acquired with normal energy and gear acquired with fleet energy. When rng is included use probabilities and averages.

All of this is becoming more and more complicated for what i feel will be not much results in the end though. (Especially since we’re not making the game, cg is xD)
Which is why i said a simple way to improve matchmaking safely is to use time spent* to correct/reduce the difference of value between two rosters of same gp, because it’s obvious that a roster with only g12 is much harder to acquire, much more expensive (= should take longer) than a roster full of fluff. Pretty sure it wouldn’t be hard to only take actual activity into account* (ex : only days with at least 1 co, only week with 1 co, etc)

* never meant, don’t mean and never will mean matching it exactly.

I used energy as a metric just to showcase what you agreed on as far as I understood: GP gains by gear tiers doesn't correlate with the resource costs of of gear tiers, the gap is as wide as a %300 difference (gp only bumps %100 while the resources spend got bumped %400). If I was trying to design a GP system based on relative costs I wouldn't do that. In no way I'm advocating for an energy-based value system.

Let's assume we managed to determine relative costs of all gear pieces including bottlenecks, abundancies etc. too. Now we know what a single carbanti is worth. To further simplify assume a gear tier only needs 100 carbantis, and another 500 carbantis and nothing else. Then the GP gain for the 2nd tier should be exactly %500 of the first tier. The same carbantis shouldn't be costing different amounts of GP gains amongst tiers.
.

Ok so i have a question : are we trying to design galactic power as an exact representation of the strenght of character/roster, or as an exact representation of the amount of ressources invested in this character/roster ?
Gp and ressources spent are not strictly related and they don’t necessarily need to be unless that’s what we want specifically.
• 4051 posts Member
Options
JohnAran wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
No_Try wrote: »
JohnAran wrote: »
even though it’s clear that it’s much more expensive to earn gp from g11 than from g5, which is perfectly logical.

Cost should directly translate to GP, how is it logical the step up curves don't align between cost and GP if you are going by resources for a GP calculation? If 1\$ worth of gear is 1gp, 2\$ worth of gear should be 2GP and not 5GP.

It could but it doesn’t work like this. I don’t understand your last sentence, the fact is now 1gp is 1\$ worth of gear at g6 and 10\$ worth of gear at g11. Which is why it’s much easier to gain gp through fluff than maxed out teams. And i’m saying it’s logical yes, always works like this for obvious reasons, in most games but also real life.
Cost should only directly translate to gp if that’s what you want gp to be. If it’s supposed to be invested ressources then yes i agree, if it’s roster’s power/strenght then no.

Are we talking about invested/spent resources? Or are we talking about gained resources freely?
I don't see how you got 20k carbantis matters in any way besides establishing a universal cost currency for each gear item. How you spent them does as that's when you gain GP.

I'm done for today, wheee.

You are talking about cost of gear using energy as a universal currency. I’m simply pointing out that leaving all other sources of gear makes no sense. You actually get much more gear in this game from non energy related sources than actual energy.
If you are using account age as a parameter you're disregarding any long term downtimes, anything not claimed at every opportunity (free energies), any attempt not used in challenges/events and was unusable by a player due to the difficulty.

No you are not. You talk like i said « we should match players by start date +-1 day » which is not true. I said if you want to make matchmaking fair (that’s what we want, let’s not lose track of that), using gp as an exact translation of invested ressources is not enough and the way those ressources were obtained should be taken into account*. I’ve explained how and why i think that twice.
I also gave you what you wanted in the process : every ressource in this game is strictly related to time spent. You can get a fixed maximum amount of energy per day, of raid tickets, of challenges, of tw/tb/events (depending on how reliable the schedule is...), of crystals, of credits, of everything. Which means you can convert all those ressources into 1 using those rates. Random example, gear acquired with normal energy and gear acquired with fleet energy. When rng is included use probabilities and averages.

All of this is becoming more and more complicated for what i feel will be not much results in the end though. (Especially since we’re not making the game, cg is xD)
Which is why i said a simple way to improve matchmaking safely is to use time spent* to correct/reduce the difference of value between two rosters of same gp, because it’s obvious that a roster with only g12 is much harder to acquire, much more expensive (= should take longer) than a roster full of fluff. Pretty sure it wouldn’t be hard to only take actual activity into account* (ex : only days with at least 1 co, only week with 1 co, etc)

* never meant, don’t mean and never will mean matching it exactly.

I used energy as a metric just to showcase what you agreed on as far as I understood: GP gains by gear tiers doesn't correlate with the resource costs of of gear tiers, the gap is as wide as a %300 difference (gp only bumps %100 while the resources spend got bumped %400). If I was trying to design a GP system based on relative costs I wouldn't do that. In no way I'm advocating for an energy-based value system.

Let's assume we managed to determine relative costs of all gear pieces including bottlenecks, abundancies etc. too. Now we know what a single carbanti is worth. To further simplify assume a gear tier only needs 100 carbantis, and another 500 carbantis and nothing else. Then the GP gain for the 2nd tier should be exactly %500 of the first tier. The same carbantis shouldn't be costing different amounts of GP gains amongst tiers.
.

Ok so i have a question : are we trying to design galactic power as an exact representation of the strenght of character/roster, or as an exact representation of the amount of ressources invested in this character/roster ?
Gp and ressources spent are not strictly related and they don’t necessarily need to be unless that’s what we want specifically.

Currently it's neither, it's derived from various slots and upgrades on the character but it's not really a representative of power(as in gameplay usage effectiveness level) either.

If it was accurate being in that, I would be ok with it.

I'm also ok with -resources spent- in the way I described. But that makes it incredibly hard to assess between resources for CG while designing (i.e what's the GP range of a purple ability mat. compared a carbanti piecei?)

Ofc it can't be both. I'm against -mish mash different things that looks important in rosters and tune until it looks fine- type of approaches.

It needs to have a sensible and universal philosophy to it.
• 1 posts Member
Options
Ultra wrote: »
This is great news. I like how you are matched with similar people with similar win/loss ratio so its not one-sided and fun. Sure, losers will still whine but its more about singular individual strategy and strength of faction development

If only that's how it worked. I was just venting to my guild about the off-kilter matching system.

For instance, my second opponent in the last set had over twenty G12s, JUST on his defense. I have two. Total. All of his teams were ~90-100k on defense alone. I have one team at close to 90k. One.

Now I'm no data scientist, but that doesn't strike me as fair in the slightest (spoiler alert -- it wasn't).
• 4051 posts Member
Options
ZefyrCoran wrote: »
Ultra wrote: »
This is great news. I like how you are matched with similar people with similar win/loss ratio so its not one-sided and fun. Sure, losers will still whine but its more about singular individual strategy and strength of faction development

If only that's how it worked. I was just venting to my guild about the off-kilter matching system.

For instance, my second opponent in the last set had over twenty G12s, JUST on his defense. I have two. Total. All of his teams were ~90-100k on defense alone. I have one team at close to 90k. One.

Now I'm no data scientist, but that doesn't strike me as fair in the slightest (spoiler alert -- it wasn't).

It's not about matching people with g11-12 numbers they have, the real problem is the GP gained due higher gears doesn't scale up nearly enough. G12 GP being worth only 2X G7 GP is laughable.