[MEGA] State of the Galaxy: November 2021

Replies

  • PickNameToidentifYou
    15 posts Member
    edited November 2021
    This question maybe already asked before but: if I setup only one sqad in one field as defence then I will win cos my opponent will not have anything to attack more than 1 time?
  • This question maybe already asked before but: if I setup only one sqad in one field as defence then I will win cos my opponent will not have anything to attack more than 1 time?

    I'm under the same assumption, but only if you fully clear the opponents defenses (as you should get more points by defeating their toons, and they won't get any extras for taking the territories where you didn't set as you can't get points for defeating enemies if there's none there to beat)
  • Nauros
    5227 posts Member
    This question maybe already asked before but: if I setup only one sqad in one field as defence then I will win cos my opponent will not have anything to attack more than 1 time?

    They will get points as if they cleared everything with 1 character, that's how it works now. What remains to be seen is whether they get the points for characters killed too.
  • @Kyno, can you confirm if squad arena will be eliminated for level 85 players? I don't know if it will be eliminated or if just crystals will be removed.

  • Vitalii wrote: »
    It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
    1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
    2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

    Almost certainly not. They already give max clear points for unfilled slots. Why would they remove this feature?
  • IkamuzU wrote: »
    @Kyno, can you confirm if squad arena will be eliminated for level 85 players? I don't know if it will be eliminated or if just crystals will be removed.

    My understanding is squads will still be there, just reward low teir gear. Basically a dead game mode for anyone mid teir and above
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    1174 posts Member
    edited November 2021
    Nauros wrote: »
    Vitalii wrote: »
    It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
    1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
    2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

    Wait, the "first attack" means that the first one to attack gets it? I interpreted it as each player getting the points for their first attack regardless of when it happens.

    So did I. Based on the table it is presented in, I assume you are correct. It says, "awarded to EACH player once per round." If only one player got it, "each" is a very poor choice of words.
  • They will literally give away a much more crystal than now, its all written in their post. Try use math ;-)

    This is yet to be seen, since you are auto-enrolled in Squad Arena and get some sort of reward for your rank whether you play SA that day or not, since even if you didn't play you still have a rank.

    HOWEVER... If you don't log in on the day that your week-long GAC round starts, you get nothing for 8 days. On top of that, you have to achieve a minimum number of banners each day or you get NOTHING that day. They actually say that. It's something you could read.

    This means that the total crystals given out might be less or more, depending on how common it is to take a day off, and thus lose rewards at least from that day, if not for a full 8 days.

    Do you have the stats on how common it is to take a day off? No? Try using math. WHOOPS, NO DATA AVAILABLE.

    Can't do the operations when you don't have the operands. Of course you could still be snarky and overconfident. That always works.

    You will get daily crystal even if you dont join, you get them even when GAC is not running, its guaranteed income based on league and division, so its equal to do nothing in squad arena and get something.

    You need 10 minimum banners to get round rewards which means one lost attack in attack phase, and 20 banners to get rewards at the end of week and month, so you need 2 attacks each weak to get rewards for doing nothing else in the whole month. So not much people will miss crystal and overall they give a lot of crystall more to players.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    IkamuzU wrote: »
    Kyno, can you confirm if squad arena will be eliminated for level 85 players? I don't know if it will be eliminated or if just crystals will be removed.

    It will still be there, and they are discussing the plans for its future, but at the time it will remain as it is, minus the crystals.
  • flux_rono wrote: »
    most of this post aside: why/where is everyone getting the idea that GAC is an unpopular mode and is going to be even more unpopular? I've never heard that until now with GAC in general. (yes there has always been 3v3 hate, but never much on the 5v5 that I know)

    Can only speak anecdotally, but I’m down to one game mode… tb. I stay mostly for my guild… every other mode in this game is a chore and this won’t affect me at all as I already don’t play SA or GAC. The matchmaking is just too easy to sandbag so why bother. Finding yourself outmatched 3-5GLs to my 1 just kills it every time.

    Sandbagging would lower your rank and thus income. What's the incentive to sandbag? To get some trolly wins at the expense of income and competition?
  • Nauros wrote: »
    Vitalii wrote: »
    It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
    1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
    2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

    Wait, the "first attack" means that the first one to attack gets it? I interpreted it as each player getting the points for their first attack regardless of when it happens.

    So did I. Based on the table it is presented in, I assume you are correct. It says, "awarded to EACH player once per round." If only one player got it, "each" is a very poor choice of words.

    Yeas, its mechanic to allow low GP player to defeat inactive high gp which will not engage in this mod so his autodeploy will not block you. You get 10 points for lost attack, he gets 0 for no show and its win for low go player, this way inactive players will drop to bottom divisions and wont be blocking active players

  • Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.
  • Vitalii wrote: »
    It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
    1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
    2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

    Almost certainly not. They already give max clear points for unfilled slots. Why would they remove this feature?

    They are completely reworking the system. We know how well that works. There is nothing in the article that says this. I am sure this will come up in the Q&A and I hope they will have a good answer.
  • SurvivorM
    79 posts Member
    edited November 2021
    With escalated TWs and Conquest modes GAC seems to take too much time (not to fall behind) when you are TW officer and have job, family and kids. Sad to see the game moving into even more time-consuming direction for nerds with loads of free time. Hope it's gonna be justified financially for devs.
  • Nauros
    5227 posts Member
    Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

    I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.
  • Magruffin wrote: »
    I've slogged through over a year around 500 in SA while building up towards my first gl (all ftp), now that Ihave jml i'm actually in contention for being in top 100 cg is going to kill purples. Great..... meanwhile myself and 75% of the opponents I face in gac just do auto defense and leave it.
    This is another in a series of really bad decisions cg.

    If you just set an autodefense every time, then soon you're only going to face people who only set autodefenses. For the rest of us, after the initial sorting period, people who auto will be at the bottom and we won't be matched against them.

    People keep beinging up stuff like autodefenses or sandbagging or whatever without actually thinking through the consequences. Sandbag? You're reducing your rewards. Autodefense? Reducing rewards. Facing autodefenses? Those players tend to lose, so after a while you will have separated and won't see them. Lower rewards "in general?" You aren't "in general."
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • I was hoping the removal of 3v3s was going to be a part of this. Bummer. Looks like my rank's gonna be dropping those months
  • ShaggyB wrote: »
    LordDirt wrote: »
    So with no meta what is there to chase? Now I can collect at mu own pace and just play the game for free. How does this help CG?

    Because now every new character will be "meta". Just look at the new Maquees theive been releasing for example. Theyre not needed for Squad Arena, but for GA youre going to have a big advantage if you have them. The days of chasing one team is over, and now we have to chase all of them.

    Or none of them and you just get it when you get it.

    It does make panic farming a thing of the past

    Cant you say the exact same thing about GLs?

    Sure i can.

    But i have them all currently. Your mileage may vary.
  • Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

    I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.

    And how is that different from Squad Arena? I have 7m gp because I've been playing for years. But new Arena shards are made every day. Someone who just started playing a month ago can still be #1 on their leaderboard by virtue of the fact that it consists ONLY of players who started playing a month ago.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Nauros
    5227 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

    I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.

    And how is that different from Squad Arena? I have 7m gp because I've been playing for years. But new Arena shards are made every day. Someone who just started playing a month ago can still be #1 on their leaderboard by virtue of the fact that it consists ONLY of players who started playing a month ago.

    I feel like something is getting lost in our conversation. The situation in GAC will be as if you and the hypothetical #1 player could face each other, all based on a random roll.
  • nottenst wrote: »
    Vitalii wrote: »
    It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
    1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
    2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

    Almost certainly not. They already give max clear points for unfilled slots. Why would they remove this feature?

    They are completely reworking the system. We know how well that works. There is nothing in the article that says this. I am sure this will come up in the Q&A and I hope they will have a good answer.

    They aren't going to detail every element that is unchanged. Come on, the post is about changes. If they said nothing about a feature, the base assumption should be that the feature is unchanged.

    Heck, they didn't say the game would still be playable in the US. Maybe all US players are getting banned /s
  • Magruffin
    637 posts Member
    edited November 2021
    NicWester wrote: »
    Magruffin wrote: »
    I've slogged through over a year around 500 in SA while building up towards my first gl (all ftp), now that Ihave jml i'm actually in contention for being in top 100 cg is going to kill purples. Great..... meanwhile myself and 75% of the opponents I face in gac just do auto defense and leave it.
    This is another in a series of really bad decisions cg.

    If you just set an autodefense every time, then soon you're only going to face people who only set autodefenses. For the rest of us, after the initial sorting period, people who auto will be at the bottom and we won't be matched against them.

    People keep beinging up stuff like autodefenses or sandbagging or whatever without actually thinking through the consequences. Sandbag? You're reducing your rewards. Autodefense? Reducing rewards. Facing autodefenses? Those players tend to lose, so after a while you will have separated and won't see them. Lower rewards "in general?" You aren't "in general."


    I didn't say "in general" once. Not sure if you're confusing this and another post.
    My point was they're pushing this on (from what I routinely see) a crap game mode that most ppl I encounter don't even bother with.
    Unless my assumption that you know how to use quotations properly was way off...
  • Has it been addressed yet that if you just so happen to miss the one day join period that you've completely messed up your payouts for a whole week? If I make 29 out of 30 days but the one day I miss is join day then I've lost way more crystal income than the previous system.

    This gamemode should automatically opt you in, there shouldn't be a need to have to join.
  • Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

    I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.

    I fail to see the issue here. Consider two players, one at 5M and one at 8M. Their initial seeding will have them spread very far apart. If they should meet someday, that means that the 8M player has been losing and the 5M player has been winning. In theory, their skill gap should be enough to make the matchup interesting. If it is not, the 5M player will lose some skill rating and the 8M player will gain some back, and the system corrects itself.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    I feel like the folks who say this is going to reduce income across the board are letting slip their chat status. Practically speaking, the maximum number of players per arena shard that could get first place in a day was 24. If you think 24 players (maximum) represent the experience of the rest of the player base then you're pretty out of touch. You weren't earning your crystals, you were part of a cartel that conspired to keep the crystals in their little group.

    For the rest of us, just being in Carbonite 1 is going to give as many daily crystals as we already get.

    So saying that everyone is going to suffer doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The 1% is going to suffer and the rest of us are going to get an increase based on what we deserve, so........

    Sucks to be you. Get good at Grand Arena.

    You do understand there are multiple arena shards, with new ones popping up all the time right.

    You do not like shard chats.... but a newer player that gets #1 because they have the best team in their newer created shard arena will be getting the shaft with this.

    Its always bad to take something from players, its never bad to add something.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

    I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.

    I fail to see the issue here. Consider two players, one at 5M and one at 8M. Their initial seeding will have them spread very far apart. If they should meet someday, that means that the 8M player has been losing and the 5M player has been winning. In theory, their skill gap should be enough to make the matchup interesting. If it is not, the 5M player will lose some skill rating and the 8M player will gain some back, and the system corrects itself.

    This seems to be the general idea, and while it seems to now be possible to have matches with wide range of GP, I think the assumption some are making that some band will exist where lower GP are only seeing higher GP is not accurate.

    I will also add that unless you are the best player at your GP, when higher GP players make it to your area, they will have been beaten by others at your GP, proving it can be done....
  • NicWester wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

    I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.

    And how is that different from Squad Arena? I have 7m gp because I've been playing for years. But new Arena shards are made every day. Someone who just started playing a month ago can still be #1 on their leaderboard by virtue of the fact that it consists ONLY of players who started playing a month ago.

    So you do see this... so for that player... dont they lose out on crystals now?
  • ShaggyB wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I feel like the folks who say this is going to reduce income across the board are letting slip their chat status. Practically speaking, the maximum number of players per arena shard that could get first place in a day was 24. If you think 24 players (maximum) represent the experience of the rest of the player base then you're pretty out of touch. You weren't earning your crystals, you were part of a cartel that conspired to keep the crystals in their little group.

    For the rest of us, just being in Carbonite 1 is going to give as many daily crystals as we already get.

    So saying that everyone is going to suffer doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The 1% is going to suffer and the rest of us are going to get an increase based on what we deserve, so........

    Sucks to be you. Get good at Grand Arena.

    You do understand there are multiple arena shards, with new ones popping up all the time right.

    You do not like shard chats.... but a newer player that gets #1 because they have the best team in their newer created shard arena will be getting the shaft with this.

    Its always bad to take something from players, its never bad to add something.

    From my understanding of what new shards look like, those taking an early #1 position have spent a lot more than the $50 for the HDB. Are players willing to spend that much that early going to be willing to just buy the crystals they need to offset their losses? Time will tell. I would assume CG/EA have enough data to know whether or not this works for their coffers.

    I think the players this really hurts are those that have been around for about 1-2 years and have clawed their way to a #1-viable arena team with little to no money spent. But CG has shown little regard for such players the past 5 years, so why start now?
  • Nauros
    5227 posts Member
    Nauros wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

    The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

    I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.

    I fail to see the issue here. Consider two players, one at 5M and one at 8M. Their initial seeding will have them spread very far apart. If they should meet someday, that means that the 8M player has been losing and the 5M player has been winning. In theory, their skill gap should be enough to make the matchup interesting. If it is not, the 5M player will lose some skill rating and the 8M player will gain some back, and the system corrects itself.

    Well, that's the thing I detailed in one of my other posts. Either the initial seeding keeps them separated, and new players (seeded to the bottom) will most likely never get very high, or it doesn't and GP mismatches will be common. The solution would be to let skill rating define your league and division and then pull your 7 opponents for the given run based on GP, but from the SOTG it seems that GP won't be taken into account at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.