According to the new TW table for divisions and rewards, the extra core gear and raid gear box should be for both winner and loser.
However, in game I see the following for the second place rewards:
The first place rewards have both boxes though. This is not WAI! Can CG_Doja_Fett_MINI or Kyno confirm?
They are going to update the post.... the box setup is correct.
(Sorry, I'm just the messenger.)
Thanks Kyno-messenger, but in 300 (the movie) even the messenger was thrown in the abyss 😛
Joking aside though, this is not helpful for alleviating the core gear crunch for Guilds that are not TW focused. Let's hope the matchmaking algorithm works better now...
I think the TW changes are adding a small bit of core gear with the emphasis being on TW the spot for R9 gear. I have a feeling that the changes to daily challenges is where we will see the most change in the core gear crunch
That's my take. The changes to TW rewards and everything are designed to change the feel of the game mode and make an incentive to invest in winning.
Within each phase they discussed how there are many elements, that are meant to touch certain areas, all to achieve the end goals outlined in the post.
Exactly. I watched the QA on Cubs’ page and crumb even said there will for sure be a phase 2 in a couple months after P1 rolls out. They wanna see how it plays out then apply more changes so as not to tick us off with extensive roll backs, which is fair. I didn’t like how he said R9 is gonna be used for future GL’s though.
If that’s the case then they need to fine tune the distribution of R9 materials and I REALLY hate how you need everything needed for R8 and then these new pieces. They need to increase the scavenger exchange rates a bit to make lower relic materials not so heavy and match the drop rates of the green and crystal signal data to the blue signal data. I think that would give a great balance to make G12 much easier to get to, and r4 and beyond the the new choke points with R7, 8 and 9 then massive end game hurdles.
Correct, they will grow into it, and yes some guilds along the way may not be able to hold it together. This is way more of a natural process than many make it out to be.
Kyno, I generally agree with a lot of what you post, but I disagree here. There's nothing natural about CG dropping a gear gate that's explicitly based on guild GP. If they somehow gated it behind individual player GP that would have far gentler consequences to the guild structure and would allow people to advance amongst the people they WANT to play with rather than the people they feel COMPELLED to play with.
I've heard this game described so many ways now that I'm honestly not sure what the developers think it is. I've heard it called a 'collection' game, a 'resource management' game, a 'strategy' game - what this game is really seems to be dependent on what the person speaking wants to hype or downplay. In a recent interview crumb even said, 'at its heart this is a strategy game' - I'm paraphrasing there, obviously but you get the point.
All of these things are incorrect in my assessment. Any game that includes chat and a guild structure for players to group themselves together and work as a team is a social game at its heart, and measures should be taken to preserve that social structure. It's a little short sighted in my opinion to knowingly do things that destabilize that structure as doing so tends to imperil the very thing that keeps people here when sentiment toward the game is low - that being the presence of our friends and guild mates.
All that being said - R9 being gated is no surprise. What is a surprise is HOW they chose to do that. I don't care about R9. I'll get it in six months... a year... whatever. I've never been a whale or a kraken and I've rarely acquired the new shiny on day one. I'm fine with that. It's not why I'm here. I'm here because I have fun with my friends and with a couple of notable game mode exceptions (TW being one of them) - I enjoy the game. But if my friends all left for different guilds or flat out quit - I'd probably peace out pretty quick.
F2P since the last time I bought Kyros, Crystals, or the Conquest Pass.
Newer players get gear, middle gets less gear, top gets even less gear but also gets r9. Bottom gets a big boost, middle gets a little boost, top gets a big boost. I'd call that getting shafted.
More Stun Guns and Carabanti is excellent. Easing the gear crunch is awesome. I love that. TW matchmaking needs a rework. I hope that pans out as promised.
The rest of it is just more stuff to eliminate smaller guilds. I've been in my for years. I'm the big homie. I usually get the top score in TB, TW, and raids. I donate the most gear, help other players find direction, answer the most questions... In recent months, I've taken on an officer role and contributed to TW and recruitment. I have helped turn around a guild that lost most of our TWs to winning most of our TWs through strategy, motivation, and coordination. I'm not taking full credit, but a lot of my ideas have been implemented.
I've brought in lower-tier players to help them accelerate their growth. I can't even bring in mid-level players to my guild because we can't beat the CPit yet. We can't beat CPit because we can't bring people in. This is going to make it harder to fill spots. Everybody in the guild's growth is stunted because we can't accomplish these feats, which we can't accomplish because our growth is stunted.
This isn't to say how great I am. This is to say, my leaving this guild would hurt it more than adding me to an elite guild would help them. An elite guild doesn't need me. They're already elite. I have four GLs. I could easily find an elite guild that would take me. I've had offers. I'm penalized for being loyal to my guild. To get the rewards I need to stay competitive in the solo parts of the game, I have to abandon the people I've been playing with for years, and the newer players I've brought in, and the players I've helped mentor. The only way I can get the materials I need without leaving my guild is to merc, which isn't always an option.
Why does CG want to force me to abandon this guild that I've worked very hard to help improve or abandon the people I've been with for years because they're not as focused, disciplined, or motivated as me? CG doesn't make more money from me leaving my guild. So, why?
Same here.... I don't know why, CG try to PUNISH the weak guilds since the CRancor
They are not trying to punish anyone. A goal they will always have is a progressive system that promotes and rewards advancement. They outlined several rewards changes that do nothing at the too end, but give more to low/mid level guilds and players by leaving end tier rewards the same but having a flatter or less steep rewards progression.
They might not be trying to but they do, there is no debate about that. Guilds in the 250-300 range will now either get over 300 or face the death spiral.
Correct, they will grow into it, and yes some guilds along the way may not be able to hold it together. This is way more of a natural process than many make it out to be.
Sure, totally natural process. Nothing at all to do with CG giving players in certain position very clear incentive to ditch their guild. Definitely not an artificial limit with effects so obvious that it had to be deliberate. Totally natural process.
Can you explain how a progressive system doesn't always have a situation where it is better to be "at the top" where things are always going to be offered?
No matter where they put the line, yes someone is going to not quite be there, and this applies to individuals and guilds. Yes 100% this is a natural thing in a progressive system.
According to the new TW table for divisions and rewards, the extra core gear and raid gear box should be for both winner and loser.
However, in game I see the following for the second place rewards:
The first place rewards have both boxes though. This is not WAI! Can CG_Doja_Fett_MINI or Kyno confirm?
They are going to update the post.... the box setup is correct.
(Sorry, I'm just the messenger.)
Thanks Kyno-messenger, but in 300 (the movie) even the messenger was thrown in the abyss 😛
Joking aside though, this is not helpful for alleviating the core gear crunch for Guilds that are not TW focused. Let's hope the matchmaking algorithm works better now...
I think the TW changes are adding a small bit of core gear with the emphasis being on TW the spot for R9 gear. I have a feeling that the changes to daily challenges is where we will see the most change in the core gear crunch
That's my take. The changes to TW rewards and everything are designed to change the feel of the game mode and make an incentive to invest in winning.
Within each phase they discussed how there are many elements, that are meant to touch certain areas, all to achieve the end goals outlined in the post.
Exactly. I watched the QA on Cubs’ page and crumb even said there will for sure be a phase 2 in a couple months after P1 rolls out. They wanna see how it plays out then apply more changes so as not to tick us off with extensive roll backs, which is fair. I didn’t like how he said R9 is gonna be used for future GL’s though.
If that’s the case then they need to fine tune the distribution of R9 materials and I REALLY hate how you need everything needed for R8 and then these new pieces. They need to increase the scavenger exchange rates a bit to make lower relic materials not so heavy and match the drop rates of the green and crystal signal data to the blue signal data. I think that would give a great balance to make G12 much easier to get to, and r4 and beyond the the new choke points with R7, 8 and 9 then massive end game hurdles.
I'm sure they will make adjustments and fine tune things, but yes it will be hard to get and it will be hard to make choices on where it should go. That is always the story for new gear at the end game if you are trying to always ride the meta.
At this time they talk about getting people into the relic system as a main goal, they have not set a real line on relic levels, but I agree with your general idea. With gear being used to make relics, I imagine they need to let it play out a bit before they can do that to see how "correcting" the gear levels pushes supplies for relics. That being said much of the core gear falls into the first few relic levels, so it seems like it will play out the way you describe.
More Stun Guns and Carabanti is excellent. Easing the gear crunch is awesome. I love that. TW matchmaking needs a rework. I hope that pans out as promised.
The rest of it is just more stuff to eliminate smaller guilds. I've been in my for years. I'm the big homie. I usually get the top score in TB, TW, and raids. I donate the most gear, help other players find direction, answer the most questions... In recent months, I've taken on an officer role and contributed to TW and recruitment. I have helped turn around a guild that lost most of our TWs to winning most of our TWs through strategy, motivation, and coordination. I'm not taking full credit, but a lot of my ideas have been implemented.
I've brought in lower-tier players to help them accelerate their growth. I can't even bring in mid-level players to my guild because we can't beat the CPit yet. We can't beat CPit because we can't bring people in. This is going to make it harder to fill spots. Everybody in the guild's growth is stunted because we can't accomplish these feats, which we can't accomplish because our growth is stunted.
This isn't to say how great I am. This is to say, my leaving this guild would hurt it more than adding me to an elite guild would help them. An elite guild doesn't need me. They're already elite. I have four GLs. I could easily find an elite guild that would take me. I've had offers. I'm penalized for being loyal to my guild. To get the rewards I need to stay competitive in the solo parts of the game, I have to abandon the people I've been playing with for years, and the newer players I've brought in, and the players I've helped mentor. The only way I can get the materials I need without leaving my guild is to merc, which isn't always an option.
Why does CG want to force me to abandon this guild that I've worked very hard to help improve or abandon the people I've been with for years because they're not as focused, disciplined, or motivated as me? CG doesn't make more money from me leaving my guild. So, why?
Same here.... I don't know why, CG try to PUNISH the weak guilds since the CRancor
They are not trying to punish anyone. A goal they will always have is a progressive system that promotes and rewards advancement. They outlined several rewards changes that do nothing at the too end, but give more to low/mid level guilds and players by leaving end tier rewards the same but having a flatter or less steep rewards progression.
They might not be trying to but they do, there is no debate about that. Guilds in the 250-300 range will now either get over 300 or face the death spiral.
Correct, they will grow into it, and yes some guilds along the way may not be able to hold it together. This is way more of a natural process than many make it out to be.
Sure, totally natural process. Nothing at all to do with CG giving players in certain position very clear incentive to ditch their guild. Definitely not an artificial limit with effects so obvious that it had to be deliberate. Totally natural process.
Can you explain how a progressive system doesn't always have a situation where it is better to be "at the top" where things are always going to be offered?
No matter where they put the line, yes someone is going to not quite be there, and this applies to individuals and guilds. Yes 100% this is a natural thing in a progressive system.
Ah yes, here comes the usual twisting and muddying the issue to justify whatever CG does. Of course people want to be at the top. Of course people leaving to get more TB stars or whatever is entirely natural. The problem is saying "guilds over 300m get exclusive rewards, the rest can go to hell". That is guaranteed to break guilds up beyond the usual flow. Anyone arguing in good faith would see the distinction. There doesn't have to be such a hard line in the first place, and there never was before. That is entirely CG's deliberate choice.
@Kyno Can we please get official clarification on exactly how many defensive teams guilds are required to place? It is getting close to lock-in time and the fact that we do not have this information yet is a bit ridiculous. If we really are required to set over double the amount of teams, guilds need time to plan accordingly.
Can you explain how a progressive system doesn't always have a situation where it is better to be "at the top" where things are always going to be offered?
No matter where they put the line, yes someone is going to not quite be there, and this applies to individuals and guilds. Yes 100% this is a natural thing in a progressive system.
We just had a period where the first 4 GLs were at a simliar power level and the old meta fleet could to some extend compete with the GET2 fleets. Now we're back to huge power jumps. That makes being at the top much more important.
More Stun Guns and Carabanti is excellent. Easing the gear crunch is awesome. I love that. TW matchmaking needs a rework. I hope that pans out as promised.
The rest of it is just more stuff to eliminate smaller guilds. I've been in my for years. I'm the big homie. I usually get the top score in TB, TW, and raids. I donate the most gear, help other players find direction, answer the most questions... In recent months, I've taken on an officer role and contributed to TW and recruitment. I have helped turn around a guild that lost most of our TWs to winning most of our TWs through strategy, motivation, and coordination. I'm not taking full credit, but a lot of my ideas have been implemented.
I've brought in lower-tier players to help them accelerate their growth. I can't even bring in mid-level players to my guild because we can't beat the CPit yet. We can't beat CPit because we can't bring people in. This is going to make it harder to fill spots. Everybody in the guild's growth is stunted because we can't accomplish these feats, which we can't accomplish because our growth is stunted.
This isn't to say how great I am. This is to say, my leaving this guild would hurt it more than adding me to an elite guild would help them. An elite guild doesn't need me. They're already elite. I have four GLs. I could easily find an elite guild that would take me. I've had offers. I'm penalized for being loyal to my guild. To get the rewards I need to stay competitive in the solo parts of the game, I have to abandon the people I've been playing with for years, and the newer players I've brought in, and the players I've helped mentor. The only way I can get the materials I need without leaving my guild is to merc, which isn't always an option.
Why does CG want to force me to abandon this guild that I've worked very hard to help improve or abandon the people I've been with for years because they're not as focused, disciplined, or motivated as me? CG doesn't make more money from me leaving my guild. So, why?
Same here.... I don't know why, CG try to PUNISH the weak guilds since the CRancor
They are not trying to punish anyone. A goal they will always have is a progressive system that promotes and rewards advancement. They outlined several rewards changes that do nothing at the too end, but give more to low/mid level guilds and players by leaving end tier rewards the same but having a flatter or less steep rewards progression.
They might not be trying to but they do, there is no debate about that. Guilds in the 250-300 range will now either get over 300 or face the death spiral.
Correct, they will grow into it, and yes some guilds along the way may not be able to hold it together. This is way more of a natural process than many make it out to be.
Sure, totally natural process. Nothing at all to do with CG giving players in certain position very clear incentive to ditch their guild. Definitely not an artificial limit with effects so obvious that it had to be deliberate. Totally natural process.
Can you explain how a progressive system doesn't always have a situation where it is better to be "at the top" where things are always going to be offered?
No matter where they put the line, yes someone is going to not quite be there, and this applies to individuals and guilds. Yes 100% this is a natural thing in a progressive system.
Ah yes, here comes the usual twisting and muddying the issue to justify whatever CG does. Of course people want to be at the top. Of course people leaving to get more TB stars or whatever is entirely natural. The problem is saying "guilds over 300m get exclusive rewards, the rest can go to hell". That is guaranteed to break guilds up beyond the usual flow. Anyone arguing in good faith would see the distinction. There doesn't have to be such a hard line in the first place, and there never was before. That is entirely CG's deliberate choice.
Actually it is not guaranteed to break up guilds.
There hasn't been? Can show guilds below 220m GP beating CRancor?
Yes in TW there is a more stated line, because that is literally how the game mode works. No matter where you put that line someone will be on the other side. Yes there are lines where players enter "end game" and start to have more access to things.
How would you have done this in a way that didnt create this divide in TW?
Why cant guilds stay together and grow into this? Does none of the onus fall on player agency? Should CG be working to lock people into guilds?
Why is it unhealthy that guilds feel pressure to be a tighter nit more competitive group, if that is what the individuals seem to want?
This is not a 100% all on CG moment. Players have choices.
Correct, they will grow into it, and yes some guilds along the way may not be able to hold it together. This is way more of a natural process than many make it out to be.
Kyno, I generally agree with a lot of what you post, but I disagree here. There's nothing natural about CG dropping a gear gate that's explicitly based on guild GP. If they somehow gated it behind individual player GP that would have far gentler consequences to the guild structure and would allow people to advance amongst the people they WANT to play with rather than the people they feel COMPELLED to play with.
I've heard this game described so many ways now that I'm honestly not sure what the developers think it is. I've heard it called a 'collection' game, a 'resource management' game, a 'strategy' game - what this game is really seems to be dependent on what the person speaking wants to hype or downplay. In a recent interview crumb even said, 'at its heart this is a strategy game' - I'm paraphrasing there, obviously but you get the point.
All of these things are incorrect in my assessment. Any game that includes chat and a guild structure for players to group themselves together and work as a team is a social game at its heart, and measures should be taken to preserve that social structure. It's a little short sighted in my opinion to knowingly do things that destabilize that structure as doing so tends to imperil the very thing that keeps people here when sentiment toward the game is low - that being the presence of our friends and guild mates.
All that being said - R9 being gated is no surprise. What is a surprise is HOW they chose to do that. I don't care about R9. I'll get it in six months... a year... whatever. I've never been a whale or a kraken and I've rarely acquired the new shiny on day one. I'm fine with that. It's not why I'm here. I'm here because I have fun with my friends and with a couple of notable game mode exceptions (TW being one of them) - I enjoy the game. But if my friends all left for different guilds or flat out quit - I'd probably peace out pretty quick.
TW is built with guild GP as the dividing factor. If it was going to happen in TW, then yes this is natural to that game mode.
Player agency is a big part of this, and no one is forced to do things, unless they want to. If a player feels they need to be in a higher GP guild to stay in the place they want to be in, they have that option.
There are some larger plans at work on each game mode and we are seeing some of the first pushes here.
I would say there is some disconnect here in the generalization that such a large amount of guilds are directly effected by this line. Not every player in a guild below the line is ready for or would be accepted into a guild above the line. This kind of changes has an effect to push higher guilds to not carry lower players, and possibly push players who want to be competitive to move into a better situation for that.
All in all this is driven by player agency. Yes this happens every time a new guild event comes around or gets some change like this. Yes we all want gear and new things and want to be at the highest end. I do not think CG should tailor every change to "not upset" the balance, and I also believe they dont do this with any full intention to make people do things they wouldnt want to do anyway. They want players to develop and grow, and if a player is really wanting to be at the top edge, why shouldn't they already be in a guild of players wanting to be the same as them.
TBF, this is the first change of this type that was also accompanied by the tools for these guilds to grow and develop quicker to get into the range they want. If players are going to make short sighted decisions, CG cannot stop them.
Kyno, I think you don't understand how other people react to the word "natural".
I think you mean, "inevitable". It is inevitable that some people will leave guilds and some guilds will die. But this phenomenon is not some natural rule: who is happy in what guild is a product of human choices, not the laws of physics. CG is implementing decisions that put more pressure on guilds. Statistically I think it's inevitable that more guilds will splinter and/or fail with the r9 structure than if it hadn't been introduced, since it doesn't cure any old pressures and yet it introduces a new pressure (and, again, it doesn't introduce that pressure because the laws of nature mandated r9 be rolled out this way, it was human choice). Would there have been zero guilds splintering & reforming (or splintering and dying) if r9 was never announced or implemented? Of course not.
That does not make CG's decision "natural" or the r9 release structure "natural" or the expected increase in guild problems "natural".
In this context you use of the word "natural" comes across as (not saying it was intended as, but it is how it comes across to at least some people) saying that CG is not accountable for their choices because, whoops! that was just nature, not a choice that a human made for which a human should be responsible.
CG made the choice. CG is responsible. Saying that all this is "natural" comes across as deflection and isn't helping.
Now it's also true that this is probably inevitable. I don't think CG would have announced this if they didn't have their minds made up about how r9 was going to work. I don't think they're going to back off now, however technically true that it's not literally impossible for them to change their minds.
Will we have to live with CG's choices? Sure, but we can do that by playing more, playing less, quitting the game, buying a hundred million dollars of CG's stock and ordering them to give free r9 mats to everyone, whatevs. There are lots of ways that we as players can react.
But -- unpaid or not, fair or not -- you represent CG here, and if CG cares about its relationship with its player base, brushing off accountability by saying all this is "natural" is a bad plan.
Own up: this is CG's choice. They made it on purpose. This is what they want to do, not some quantum consequence of the strong nuclear force the universe just imposed. And this choice will put new, additional pressures on guilds.
If we can start there, then we're in a place where we feel like we're all agreeing on the facts. Without that, it feels like you're denying the fact that this isn't "nature" acting here. This is what CG wants to do.
We can only have a productive conversation if we agree on the facts, and the appearance right now is that, through you and your word choices, CG is pretending that certain things aren't true when they manifestly are.
And again, for final clarity, you may not be intending to say that CG is not responsible for the pressures on guilds created by the reward system with r9, but please think about your wording, because that's how it's coming across, and we're not going to make progress in having a productive conversation about the game so many of us love if we can't reach explicit agreement on the facts. That's just a necessary starting point.
More Stun Guns and Carabanti is excellent. Easing the gear crunch is awesome. I love that. TW matchmaking needs a rework. I hope that pans out as promised.
The rest of it is just more stuff to eliminate smaller guilds. I've been in my for years. I'm the big homie. I usually get the top score in TB, TW, and raids. I donate the most gear, help other players find direction, answer the most questions... In recent months, I've taken on an officer role and contributed to TW and recruitment. I have helped turn around a guild that lost most of our TWs to winning most of our TWs through strategy, motivation, and coordination. I'm not taking full credit, but a lot of my ideas have been implemented.
I've brought in lower-tier players to help them accelerate their growth. I can't even bring in mid-level players to my guild because we can't beat the CPit yet. We can't beat CPit because we can't bring people in. This is going to make it harder to fill spots. Everybody in the guild's growth is stunted because we can't accomplish these feats, which we can't accomplish because our growth is stunted.
This isn't to say how great I am. This is to say, my leaving this guild would hurt it more than adding me to an elite guild would help them. An elite guild doesn't need me. They're already elite. I have four GLs. I could easily find an elite guild that would take me. I've had offers. I'm penalized for being loyal to my guild. To get the rewards I need to stay competitive in the solo parts of the game, I have to abandon the people I've been playing with for years, and the newer players I've brought in, and the players I've helped mentor. The only way I can get the materials I need without leaving my guild is to merc, which isn't always an option.
Why does CG want to force me to abandon this guild that I've worked very hard to help improve or abandon the people I've been with for years because they're not as focused, disciplined, or motivated as me? CG doesn't make more money from me leaving my guild. So, why?
Same here.... I don't know why, CG try to PUNISH the weak guilds since the CRancor
They are not trying to punish anyone. A goal they will always have is a progressive system that promotes and rewards advancement. They outlined several rewards changes that do nothing at the too end, but give more to low/mid level guilds and players by leaving end tier rewards the same but having a flatter or less steep rewards progression.
They might not be trying to but they do, there is no debate about that. Guilds in the 250-300 range will now either get over 300 or face the death spiral.
Correct, they will grow into it, and yes some guilds along the way may not be able to hold it together. This is way more of a natural process than many make it out to be.
Sure, totally natural process. Nothing at all to do with CG giving players in certain position very clear incentive to ditch their guild. Definitely not an artificial limit with effects so obvious that it had to be deliberate. Totally natural process.
Can you explain how a progressive system doesn't always have a situation where it is better to be "at the top" where things are always going to be offered?
No matter where they put the line, yes someone is going to not quite be there, and this applies to individuals and guilds. Yes 100% this is a natural thing in a progressive system.
Ah yes, here comes the usual twisting and muddying the issue to justify whatever CG does. Of course people want to be at the top. Of course people leaving to get more TB stars or whatever is entirely natural. The problem is saying "guilds over 300m get exclusive rewards, the rest can go to hell". That is guaranteed to break guilds up beyond the usual flow. Anyone arguing in good faith would see the distinction. There doesn't have to be such a hard line in the first place, and there never was before. That is entirely CG's deliberate choice.
Actually it is not guaranteed to break up guilds.
There hasn't been? Can show guilds below 220m GP beating CRancor?
Yes in TW there is a more stated line, because that is literally how the game mode works. No matter where you put that line someone will be on the other side. Yes there are lines where players enter "end game" and start to have more access to things.
How would you have done this in a way that didnt create this divide in TW?
Why cant guilds stay together and grow into this? Does none of the onus fall on player agency? Should CG be working to lock people into guilds?
Why is it unhealthy that guilds feel pressure to be a tighter nit more competitive group, if that is what the individuals seem to want?
This is not a 100% all on CG moment. Players have choices.
No, there hasn't been. The line on Crancor is a lot more fuzzy, I heard that 13 people total completed it and I doubt they had over 220m GP, so there is at least the possibility.
A way to do it without such divide would be to offer g9 elsewhere, just like aeromags are in conquest. Which is another reason why the comparison to Crancor fails.
And yes, I actually think CG should give more incentive to stay in the same guild, right now there is nothing beyond the raid limit. But that is going off topic.
An inevitable course in a man made system, is a natural occurence in said system. No matter what CG does this will happen, which again makes this natural within the system we are in.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
I hope you can appreciate that my context is within the gaming system and I am not speaking of the outside world, where natural order would apply. I believe the context we are all talking in allows for this vernacular to be used.
I will read through your other points and discuss things further, but I disagree that the term natural cannot be used within a system to describe things that will occur with or without outside interference, but are just due to the nature of the system and/or elements (people) involved.
I feel like these new pieces (and R8 dependent ones) should be made available in every division, even if it is only one piece. Sure higher guilds should get more, they have either played longer or paid more to get there. It will still take players in lower ones a while to accumulate. But it will also allow them to progress at a steady enough pace. These changes are a step in the right direction. As more characters are added clearly more gear is required, same goes for new relic levels. As new things are added you also need to add new ways to progress evenly. Obviously not everyone will be working on the same squads based on when they started the game and that makes sense. And none of what I am saying is new info here. Also since adding a new slot in one of the stores with core gear is possible, maybe adding a slot or two in other stores with a new (or newer) character or gear is needed as well. Just flat out saying no to things like this hinders you more than it helps. Again things need to evolve evenly for all. Who cares if very player has EVERY character 7* G13 or higher at this point? Mods are still the deciding factor that differentiates each players roster. I hope Phase 2 and on addresses these things further.
I will read through your other points and discuss things further, but I disagree that the term natural cannot be used
I know you disagree, and I know that there are more definitions of the word "natural" than one. However, reading your conversation with other people, it seems apparent (or at least highly likely) that your use of the word "natural" is impeding good conversation rather than enhancing it.
If that's the case, why not just pick another term and clarify that you agree that CG's choices have impacts on guilds and players?
I'm not trying to take the side of other people against you. I'm trying to point out that the word you've chosen, even if one of its definitions is perfectly applicable, seems to be causing problems in communication.
I get how you're using natural. But do you care about being right, or do you care about communicating well with others? Admitting that there's some miscommunication going on and that choosing a different word might help wouldn't involve you admitting that you're evil or bad intentioned or even, actually, wrong.
It just means you're taking the time to acknowledge what other people are saying and why the word rubs them the wrong way. Then you could even go on to reassure them (if this is your opinion) that CG does see its decisions as having consequences for guilds and players, not all of those consequences are positive, but for X reasons it sees this as a good compromise between various different possibilities and is operating in good faith to create the least bad consequences for guilds and players while moving the game forward.
This isn't about trying to be right. This is about trying to have a conversation that works to address players fears and concerns, which, by definition, won't always be rational.
It's a tough job you have, but you're the one who is actually representing CG here and that's why this falls to you.
I wonder if now it's more efficient to farm gear from Hard nodes instead of Normal nodes (for example, using Wicket's node for Stun Guns instead of one of the normal nodes, even if you already have Wicket maxed).
It is ! Drop rate is doubled, so you have the same amount of gear with 100 energy spent as a normal node would give you, plus shard shop currency. Goodbye normal nodes, i’ll see you again when i’ll need GL tickets.
Aren't the GL tix distributed based on energy used? If so, then the only time to go back to Normal is situations where you care more about the gear than any other reward and it's more than doubly less to make the attempt on the gear. For instance, if you can get 1 of the gear for 8 energy, but the only time you can hit it as a Hard node is when it's 20 energy. Chance for 2 (1 and 1) for 16 energy or chance for 2 (single shot) for 20 energy.
Aren't the GL tix distributed based on energy used?
Essentially. There are details to quibble about, but I won't.
am I missing something?
Nope and yes. I think you've got it. Farming on character shard nodes will be more efficient, so do that for your first 5 attempts/day.
HOWEVER it's not more efficient once you take into account the refresh costs for attempts 6-10, 11-15, etc. If you're farming a ton of something, you'll farm the hard node first, but you might very well then go to a normal node to continue farming that same piece of gear.
ADDITIONALLY, Kyros are currently only available on Normal nodes, IIRC, so if you're farming Kyros, there is no Hard node to use for your first 5 attempts of the day.
So people will still farm on normal nodes, but hard nodes with be the go-to until you run out of attempts for that day or if that gear doesn't have a hard node.
I think for the sake of argument we need to separate the game from the community. These changes seem to be good for the game but are a kick in the teeth to each of the guilds in the 200-300 million range. Sad.
With gear changes coming, those guilds in that range will be able to build into the place they want to be, and most guilds in those ranges are benefiting from the CRancor changes.
Can you specify the bad parts for them?
I didn't see a response to this, so I'll make it.
300M+ GP guilds are generally hyper competitive. 200M+ GP guilds are the in-between of hyper competitive and casual. They include a lot of end game players that don't enjoy the PvP content, most notably TW. But end game players want end game content. In this case, the new end game content is being able to up their toons to R9. And, no doubt, the next GLs will require R9 toons to unlock, so the next foreseeable end game content is also gated by this new mat.
R8 being gated by CPit made sense. That was a guild activity that all guilds could get behind and build for. There was a known end goal to achieving what the guild wanted, and the community soon figured out efficient ways to achieve that end goal. TW is a moving target, and it is subject to PvP issues, such as sandbagging. While I understand there were changes made to matchmaking, which I assume were intended to address this, you can surely understand the skepticism until we see it in action.
My point about the moving target is guilds cannot effectively build towards a goal that will "guarantee" its players gaining the sought after reward. We cannot choose our TW opponent, so there will always be that PvP risk involved. And while the 200M+ GP guilds are grinding to reach the now goal of 300M+ GP to earn those rewards, the guilds already in that range are getting further ahead by leaps and bounds.
Back to the subject of sandbagging, just think about being a guild in the 380M+ range. If all compete, there is a chance at 5 R9 mats, but also a chance for only 1. If that guild sandbags just a little, they will face less stiff competition for a better chance at 4 mats or the same risk of only earning 1. Simply having a rotation of active members for the TWs will see that guild earn more R9 mats on average by sandbagging than by competing at their actual level. Not to mention the added incentive overall to win means sandbagging will make it more likely to get the core gear box, the relic box, and more of the Aeros. And I bring this up to now make the point that when these 200M+ GP guilds finally make it to that 300M+ GP mark, they will now almost certainly be facing 320M+ GP guilds that are sandbagging for the "guaranteed" R9 mat that the fledgling guild has yet to have a chance to earn. Meanwhile, their opponent has been cashing in on R9s to give them the competitive advantage.
The other issue with this from a community standpoint is the incentive now for top-end players to leave lower GP guilds they were helping and having fun with in order to join guilds they don't even really want to be a part of just to earn a gated reward. Again, this is different from CPit, because CPit had a static target. Those players could forecast and make a determination of whether or not they were fine with missing out on a few rewards to stay with the community they wanted to be with. The moving target of a PvP event makes a forecast impossible.
I don't know what changes you made to TW matchmaking but we got our worst sandbag match ever. 356 mil GP guild vs. a 416 mil GP guild. Their average GP is around 1.2 mil higher than ours. We had 49/50 sign up so around 349 mil GP participating. Which means they have to be around 42/50 participating. So the matchmaking "improvements" aren't looking too good.
I mean, seriously, how hard is it to eliminate sandbagging? At some point in the matchmaking process, the match-up should be looking at the average GP per participating players. Looking at the combined GP of participating players just enables sandbagging. Also, the number of teams per zone should be based on the guild with the HIGHER number of participating players. If you're going to sandbag with stronger rosters than your opponent, then you should be required to expend more teams. Basing the number of teams on the guild with less participants when you're looking at combined GP just allows guilds to get away with sandbagging because they just have to use their best teams and don't have to spread their rosters at all.
This is the first phase of addressing the gear economy, not the final phase. The TW MM changes are meant to create more competitive match-ups and discourage sandbagging.
The problem is the reward structure will encourage it more at the high end (unless you are matching sand baggers with sand baggers)
It's bad enough that the requirements to achieve relic 8 is so difficult but why now do we need relic 9? If I'm right the only way relics will be any good is when the best mods are being utilized, otherwise they dont do much than boost a few stats. Is there some sort of new boost or something available when a toon reaches relic 9 because if there isn't what is the point of it other than just to let the devs up the difficulty of future events? Instead of new useless relics why not create new ability levels that go beyond Zetas or something better than some modest stat boosts that wont do much.
It's bad enough that the requirements to achieve relic 8 is so difficult but why now do we need relic 9? If I'm right the only way relics will be any good is when the best mods are being utilized, otherwise they dont do much than boost a few stats. Is there some sort of new boost or something available when a toon reaches relic 9 because if there isn't what is the point of it other than just to let the devs up the difficulty of future events? Instead of new useless relics why not create new ability levels that go beyond Zetas or something better than some modest stat boosts that wont do much.
R9 adds another 13k health and 20k protection on GK. Is that what you consider modest?
F2P since the last time I bought Kyros, Crystals, or the Conquest Pass.
I'll get excited when they announce Gear Level 9000. Hopefully it'll solve the gear crunch problem once and for all. Until then I'm going to sell my house in anticipation of the "necessary" costs I'm sure will be associated with better gameplay G9000 delivers.
According to the new TW table for divisions and rewards, the extra core gear and raid gear box should be for both winner and loser.
However, in game I see the following for the second place rewards:
The first place rewards have both boxes though. This is not WAI! Can CG_Doja_Fett_MINI or Kyno confirm?
They are going to update the post.... the box setup is correct.
(Sorry, I'm just the messenger.)
Thanks Kyno-messenger, but in 300 (the movie) even the messenger was thrown in the abyss 😛
Joking aside though, this is not helpful for alleviating the core gear crunch for Guilds that are not TW focused. Let's hope the matchmaking algorithm works better now...
I think the TW changes are adding a small bit of core gear with the emphasis being on TW the spot for R9 gear. I have a feeling that the changes to daily challenges is where we will see the most change in the core gear crunch
That's my take. The changes to TW rewards and everything are designed to change the feel of the game mode and make an incentive to invest in winning.
Within each phase they discussed how there are many elements, that are meant to touch certain areas, all to achieve the end goals outlined in the post.
Exactly. I watched the QA on Cubs’ page and crumb even said there will for sure be a phase 2 in a couple months after P1 rolls out. They wanna see how it plays out then apply more changes so as not to tick us off with extensive roll backs, which is fair. I didn’t like how he said R9 is gonna be used for future GL’s though.
If that’s the case then they need to fine tune the distribution of R9 materials and I REALLY hate how you need everything needed for R8 and then these new pieces. They need to increase the scavenger exchange rates a bit to make lower relic materials not so heavy and match the drop rates of the green and crystal signal data to the blue signal data. I think that would give a great balance to make G12 much easier to get to, and r4 and beyond the the new choke points with R7, 8 and 9 then massive end game hurdles.
I'm sure they will make adjustments and fine tune things, but yes it will be hard to get and it will be hard to make choices on where it should go. That is always the story for new gear at the end game if you are trying to always ride the meta.
At this time they talk about getting people into the relic system as a main goal, they have not set a real line on relic levels, but I agree with your general idea. With gear being used to make relics, I imagine they need to let it play out a bit before they can do that to see how "correcting" the gear levels pushes supplies for relics. That being said much of the core gear falls into the first few relic levels, so it seems like it will play out the way you describe.
I think the perfect line would be Relic 5. If they are willing to listen about easing the gear crunch even on relics then relic 5 would be a great number.
This would help a lot of the guilds who are currently not capable of finishing the C Rancor raid get there quicker and be able to start farming up those Aeros.
I think it would also help ease the tension of so many players upset about R9 being here when R8 is still out of reach for probably 60% of the player base.
Have the unlucky folks in the smaller guild been selected to end the losing streak of my Guild?
They don't even have 320m so they get no R9 stuff on a loss so I'm sad they don't have a proper chance at a victory.
For every Executor they have we have 5. The GL, G13 and 6E mod counts differences are huge. The metrics I would judge this match up by would make the win/loss record of my opponent a non consideration.
Why not just universally double the drop rate of gear on all nodes? We all know how pitiful the drop rate can be, so doubling it would at least make farming gear slightly less painful than it is right now.
There hasn't been? Can show guilds below 220m GP beating CRancor?
I can show you. My guild for example. We beat the CRancor since 205M GP. Now we got 31*/20* at GeosTB, 3 years with no losses at TW in a row (hitting it this October), and we are on of the best resulted guilds at Russia & CIS region. There are a lot of great players with great rosters here. But now it seems like CG is saying us "go to hell" because we have "just" 240M. I hope CG will lose their players base just like <300M GP guilds losing their players right now. Hope this will make CG thinking and listen to the community. Every recent update I thought "lol, they can't do anything worse than that" but you always impress me. You just troll the community for last 6 months or maybe even an year.
To behave so ignorantly towards its paying customers is contrary to any long-term business strategy.
Maybe there really is a calculation behind it ...
I mean, the game is a money printing machine. Shouldn't you try to retain the paying customers so that they remain loyal to you in the event of a potential successor?
I just don't understand why CG make these things exclusively gated by guild GP, I don't think anyone has a problem with players progressing faster because they are in a more competitive guild provided there is still a path for everyone else.
Also the changes to the TW reward structure are heavily reliant on the matchmaking, we've been drawn 27 GLs vs 78 GLs, presumably we have to lose 5 times before we'll get a even match up to claim any improved rewards.
Replies
Exactly. I watched the QA on Cubs’ page and crumb even said there will for sure be a phase 2 in a couple months after P1 rolls out. They wanna see how it plays out then apply more changes so as not to tick us off with extensive roll backs, which is fair. I didn’t like how he said R9 is gonna be used for future GL’s though.
If that’s the case then they need to fine tune the distribution of R9 materials and I REALLY hate how you need everything needed for R8 and then these new pieces. They need to increase the scavenger exchange rates a bit to make lower relic materials not so heavy and match the drop rates of the green and crystal signal data to the blue signal data. I think that would give a great balance to make G12 much easier to get to, and r4 and beyond the the new choke points with R7, 8 and 9 then massive end game hurdles.
Kyno, I generally agree with a lot of what you post, but I disagree here. There's nothing natural about CG dropping a gear gate that's explicitly based on guild GP. If they somehow gated it behind individual player GP that would have far gentler consequences to the guild structure and would allow people to advance amongst the people they WANT to play with rather than the people they feel COMPELLED to play with.
I've heard this game described so many ways now that I'm honestly not sure what the developers think it is. I've heard it called a 'collection' game, a 'resource management' game, a 'strategy' game - what this game is really seems to be dependent on what the person speaking wants to hype or downplay. In a recent interview crumb even said, 'at its heart this is a strategy game' - I'm paraphrasing there, obviously but you get the point.
All of these things are incorrect in my assessment. Any game that includes chat and a guild structure for players to group themselves together and work as a team is a social game at its heart, and measures should be taken to preserve that social structure. It's a little short sighted in my opinion to knowingly do things that destabilize that structure as doing so tends to imperil the very thing that keeps people here when sentiment toward the game is low - that being the presence of our friends and guild mates.
All that being said - R9 being gated is no surprise. What is a surprise is HOW they chose to do that. I don't care about R9. I'll get it in six months... a year... whatever. I've never been a whale or a kraken and I've rarely acquired the new shiny on day one. I'm fine with that. It's not why I'm here. I'm here because I have fun with my friends and with a couple of notable game mode exceptions (TW being one of them) - I enjoy the game. But if my friends all left for different guilds or flat out quit - I'd probably peace out pretty quick.
Can you explain how a progressive system doesn't always have a situation where it is better to be "at the top" where things are always going to be offered?
No matter where they put the line, yes someone is going to not quite be there, and this applies to individuals and guilds. Yes 100% this is a natural thing in a progressive system.
I'm sure they will make adjustments and fine tune things, but yes it will be hard to get and it will be hard to make choices on where it should go. That is always the story for new gear at the end game if you are trying to always ride the meta.
At this time they talk about getting people into the relic system as a main goal, they have not set a real line on relic levels, but I agree with your general idea. With gear being used to make relics, I imagine they need to let it play out a bit before they can do that to see how "correcting" the gear levels pushes supplies for relics. That being said much of the core gear falls into the first few relic levels, so it seems like it will play out the way you describe.
Ah yes, here comes the usual twisting and muddying the issue to justify whatever CG does. Of course people want to be at the top. Of course people leaving to get more TB stars or whatever is entirely natural. The problem is saying "guilds over 300m get exclusive rewards, the rest can go to hell". That is guaranteed to break guilds up beyond the usual flow. Anyone arguing in good faith would see the distinction. There doesn't have to be such a hard line in the first place, and there never was before. That is entirely CG's deliberate choice.
Actually it is not guaranteed to break up guilds.
There hasn't been? Can show guilds below 220m GP beating CRancor?
Yes in TW there is a more stated line, because that is literally how the game mode works. No matter where you put that line someone will be on the other side. Yes there are lines where players enter "end game" and start to have more access to things.
How would you have done this in a way that didnt create this divide in TW?
Why cant guilds stay together and grow into this? Does none of the onus fall on player agency? Should CG be working to lock people into guilds?
Why is it unhealthy that guilds feel pressure to be a tighter nit more competitive group, if that is what the individuals seem to want?
This is not a 100% all on CG moment. Players have choices.
TW is built with guild GP as the dividing factor. If it was going to happen in TW, then yes this is natural to that game mode.
Player agency is a big part of this, and no one is forced to do things, unless they want to. If a player feels they need to be in a higher GP guild to stay in the place they want to be in, they have that option.
There are some larger plans at work on each game mode and we are seeing some of the first pushes here.
I would say there is some disconnect here in the generalization that such a large amount of guilds are directly effected by this line. Not every player in a guild below the line is ready for or would be accepted into a guild above the line. This kind of changes has an effect to push higher guilds to not carry lower players, and possibly push players who want to be competitive to move into a better situation for that.
All in all this is driven by player agency. Yes this happens every time a new guild event comes around or gets some change like this. Yes we all want gear and new things and want to be at the highest end. I do not think CG should tailor every change to "not upset" the balance, and I also believe they dont do this with any full intention to make people do things they wouldnt want to do anyway. They want players to develop and grow, and if a player is really wanting to be at the top edge, why shouldn't they already be in a guild of players wanting to be the same as them.
TBF, this is the first change of this type that was also accompanied by the tools for these guilds to grow and develop quicker to get into the range they want. If players are going to make short sighted decisions, CG cannot stop them.
I think you mean, "inevitable". It is inevitable that some people will leave guilds and some guilds will die. But this phenomenon is not some natural rule: who is happy in what guild is a product of human choices, not the laws of physics. CG is implementing decisions that put more pressure on guilds. Statistically I think it's inevitable that more guilds will splinter and/or fail with the r9 structure than if it hadn't been introduced, since it doesn't cure any old pressures and yet it introduces a new pressure (and, again, it doesn't introduce that pressure because the laws of nature mandated r9 be rolled out this way, it was human choice). Would there have been zero guilds splintering & reforming (or splintering and dying) if r9 was never announced or implemented? Of course not.
That does not make CG's decision "natural" or the r9 release structure "natural" or the expected increase in guild problems "natural".
In this context you use of the word "natural" comes across as (not saying it was intended as, but it is how it comes across to at least some people) saying that CG is not accountable for their choices because, whoops! that was just nature, not a choice that a human made for which a human should be responsible.
CG made the choice. CG is responsible. Saying that all this is "natural" comes across as deflection and isn't helping.
Now it's also true that this is probably inevitable. I don't think CG would have announced this if they didn't have their minds made up about how r9 was going to work. I don't think they're going to back off now, however technically true that it's not literally impossible for them to change their minds.
Will we have to live with CG's choices? Sure, but we can do that by playing more, playing less, quitting the game, buying a hundred million dollars of CG's stock and ordering them to give free r9 mats to everyone, whatevs. There are lots of ways that we as players can react.
But -- unpaid or not, fair or not -- you represent CG here, and if CG cares about its relationship with its player base, brushing off accountability by saying all this is "natural" is a bad plan.
Own up: this is CG's choice. They made it on purpose. This is what they want to do, not some quantum consequence of the strong nuclear force the universe just imposed. And this choice will put new, additional pressures on guilds.
If we can start there, then we're in a place where we feel like we're all agreeing on the facts. Without that, it feels like you're denying the fact that this isn't "nature" acting here. This is what CG wants to do.
We can only have a productive conversation if we agree on the facts, and the appearance right now is that, through you and your word choices, CG is pretending that certain things aren't true when they manifestly are.
And again, for final clarity, you may not be intending to say that CG is not responsible for the pressures on guilds created by the reward system with r9, but please think about your wording, because that's how it's coming across, and we're not going to make progress in having a productive conversation about the game so many of us love if we can't reach explicit agreement on the facts. That's just a necessary starting point.
No, there hasn't been. The line on Crancor is a lot more fuzzy, I heard that 13 people total completed it and I doubt they had over 220m GP, so there is at least the possibility.
A way to do it without such divide would be to offer g9 elsewhere, just like aeromags are in conquest. Which is another reason why the comparison to Crancor fails.
And yes, I actually think CG should give more incentive to stay in the same guild, right now there is nothing beyond the raid limit. But that is going off topic.
I hope you can appreciate that my context is within the gaming system and I am not speaking of the outside world, where natural order would apply. I believe the context we are all talking in allows for this vernacular to be used.
I will read through your other points and discuss things further, but I disagree that the term natural cannot be used within a system to describe things that will occur with or without outside interference, but are just due to the nature of the system and/or elements (people) involved.
I know you disagree, and I know that there are more definitions of the word "natural" than one. However, reading your conversation with other people, it seems apparent (or at least highly likely) that your use of the word "natural" is impeding good conversation rather than enhancing it.
If that's the case, why not just pick another term and clarify that you agree that CG's choices have impacts on guilds and players?
I'm not trying to take the side of other people against you. I'm trying to point out that the word you've chosen, even if one of its definitions is perfectly applicable, seems to be causing problems in communication.
I get how you're using natural. But do you care about being right, or do you care about communicating well with others? Admitting that there's some miscommunication going on and that choosing a different word might help wouldn't involve you admitting that you're evil or bad intentioned or even, actually, wrong.
It just means you're taking the time to acknowledge what other people are saying and why the word rubs them the wrong way. Then you could even go on to reassure them (if this is your opinion) that CG does see its decisions as having consequences for guilds and players, not all of those consequences are positive, but for X reasons it sees this as a good compromise between various different possibilities and is operating in good faith to create the least bad consequences for guilds and players while moving the game forward.
This isn't about trying to be right. This is about trying to have a conversation that works to address players fears and concerns, which, by definition, won't always be rational.
It's a tough job you have, but you're the one who is actually representing CG here and that's why this falls to you.
Aren't the GL tix distributed based on energy used? If so, then the only time to go back to Normal is situations where you care more about the gear than any other reward and it's more than doubly less to make the attempt on the gear. For instance, if you can get 1 of the gear for 8 energy, but the only time you can hit it as a Hard node is when it's 20 energy. Chance for 2 (1 and 1) for 16 energy or chance for 2 (single shot) for 20 energy.
Or am I missing something?
Essentially. There are details to quibble about, but I won't.
Nope and yes. I think you've got it. Farming on character shard nodes will be more efficient, so do that for your first 5 attempts/day.
HOWEVER it's not more efficient once you take into account the refresh costs for attempts 6-10, 11-15, etc. If you're farming a ton of something, you'll farm the hard node first, but you might very well then go to a normal node to continue farming that same piece of gear.
ADDITIONALLY, Kyros are currently only available on Normal nodes, IIRC, so if you're farming Kyros, there is no Hard node to use for your first 5 attempts of the day.
So people will still farm on normal nodes, but hard nodes with be the go-to until you run out of attempts for that day or if that gear doesn't have a hard node.
I didn't see a response to this, so I'll make it.
300M+ GP guilds are generally hyper competitive. 200M+ GP guilds are the in-between of hyper competitive and casual. They include a lot of end game players that don't enjoy the PvP content, most notably TW. But end game players want end game content. In this case, the new end game content is being able to up their toons to R9. And, no doubt, the next GLs will require R9 toons to unlock, so the next foreseeable end game content is also gated by this new mat.
R8 being gated by CPit made sense. That was a guild activity that all guilds could get behind and build for. There was a known end goal to achieving what the guild wanted, and the community soon figured out efficient ways to achieve that end goal. TW is a moving target, and it is subject to PvP issues, such as sandbagging. While I understand there were changes made to matchmaking, which I assume were intended to address this, you can surely understand the skepticism until we see it in action.
My point about the moving target is guilds cannot effectively build towards a goal that will "guarantee" its players gaining the sought after reward. We cannot choose our TW opponent, so there will always be that PvP risk involved. And while the 200M+ GP guilds are grinding to reach the now goal of 300M+ GP to earn those rewards, the guilds already in that range are getting further ahead by leaps and bounds.
Back to the subject of sandbagging, just think about being a guild in the 380M+ range. If all compete, there is a chance at 5 R9 mats, but also a chance for only 1. If that guild sandbags just a little, they will face less stiff competition for a better chance at 4 mats or the same risk of only earning 1. Simply having a rotation of active members for the TWs will see that guild earn more R9 mats on average by sandbagging than by competing at their actual level. Not to mention the added incentive overall to win means sandbagging will make it more likely to get the core gear box, the relic box, and more of the Aeros. And I bring this up to now make the point that when these 200M+ GP guilds finally make it to that 300M+ GP mark, they will now almost certainly be facing 320M+ GP guilds that are sandbagging for the "guaranteed" R9 mat that the fledgling guild has yet to have a chance to earn. Meanwhile, their opponent has been cashing in on R9s to give them the competitive advantage.
The other issue with this from a community standpoint is the incentive now for top-end players to leave lower GP guilds they were helping and having fun with in order to join guilds they don't even really want to be a part of just to earn a gated reward. Again, this is different from CPit, because CPit had a static target. Those players could forecast and make a determination of whether or not they were fine with missing out on a few rewards to stay with the community they wanted to be with. The moving target of a PvP event makes a forecast impossible.
I mean, seriously, how hard is it to eliminate sandbagging? At some point in the matchmaking process, the match-up should be looking at the average GP per participating players. Looking at the combined GP of participating players just enables sandbagging. Also, the number of teams per zone should be based on the guild with the HIGHER number of participating players. If you're going to sandbag with stronger rosters than your opponent, then you should be required to expend more teams. Basing the number of teams on the guild with less participants when you're looking at combined GP just allows guilds to get away with sandbagging because they just have to use their best teams and don't have to spread their rosters at all.
The problem is the reward structure will encourage it more at the high end (unless you are matching sand baggers with sand baggers)
R9 adds another 13k health and 20k protection on GK. Is that what you consider modest?
I think the perfect line would be Relic 5. If they are willing to listen about easing the gear crunch even on relics then relic 5 would be a great number.
This would help a lot of the guilds who are currently not capable of finishing the C Rancor raid get there quicker and be able to start farming up those Aeros.
I think it would also help ease the tension of so many players upset about R9 being here when R8 is still out of reach for probably 60% of the player base.
More information on how losses factor in please.
Have the unlucky folks in the smaller guild been selected to end the losing streak of my Guild?
They don't even have 320m so they get no R9 stuff on a loss so I'm sad they don't have a proper chance at a victory.
For every Executor they have we have 5. The GL, G13 and 6E mod counts differences are huge. The metrics I would judge this match up by would make the win/loss record of my opponent a non consideration.
I can show you. My guild for example. We beat the CRancor since 205M GP. Now we got 31*/20* at GeosTB, 3 years with no losses at TW in a row (hitting it this October), and we are on of the best resulted guilds at Russia & CIS region. There are a lot of great players with great rosters here. But now it seems like CG is saying us "go to hell" because we have "just" 240M. I hope CG will lose their players base just like <300M GP guilds losing their players right now. Hope this will make CG thinking and listen to the community. Every recent update I thought "lol, they can't do anything worse than that" but you always impress me. You just troll the community for last 6 months or maybe even an year.
Maybe there really is a calculation behind it ...
I mean, the game is a money printing machine. Shouldn't you try to retain the paying customers so that they remain loyal to you in the event of a potential successor?
Also the changes to the TW reward structure are heavily reliant on the matchmaking, we've been drawn 27 GLs vs 78 GLs, presumably we have to lose 5 times before we'll get a even match up to claim any improved rewards.