[MEGA] State of the Galaxy: November 2021

Replies

  • RTS
    684 posts Member
    Options
    The number of people on here complaining that the top 1-5 arena payouts are going to lose crystal income is like people making $40,000 a year upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.

    This will be better for 90-95% of the player base - if they just play the minimum effort for GAC.

    If you hate GAC then you should just be focusing on your PvE rewards anyway.
  • Options
    I’d re-read their post regarding crystal payouts for Grand Arena… you still will be getting crystals
  • Options
    DEATHER wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Still waiting for you prove this claim with math: "These changes will dramatically reduce the amount of crystals given out to the player base as a whole.". Should be easy since you have already done the math.

    It’s literally right there in the post. If you’re too dumb to understand it, I can’t help you.

    They will literally give away a much more crystal than now, its all written in their post. Try use math ;-)

    Could you show your math please? I can say if it's more or less total crystals because I don't know how many shards exist. And This is information is crucial for comparing both totals, isn't it?
  • StarSon
    7515 posts Member
    Options
    RTS wrote: »
    The number of people on here complaining that the top 1-5 arena payouts are going to lose crystal income is like people making $40,000 a year upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.

    This will be better for 90-95% of the player base - if they just play the minimum effort for GAC.

    If you hate GAC then you should just be focusing on your PvE rewards anyway.

    This is a terrible analogy. Considering how the game population breaks down, it's much more like the billionaires getting upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.
  • Options
    RTS wrote: »
    The number of people on here complaining that the top 1-5 arena payouts are going to lose crystal income is like people making $40,000 a year upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.

    This will be better for 90-95% of the player base - if they just play the minimum effort for GAC.

    If you hate GAC then you should just be focusing on your PvE rewards anyway.

    I’ve sorta been waiting for this post. This isn’t exactly an appropriate analogy but it mostly fits. If you look at this change short term, it’s extremely player friendly. It puts more crystals in almost everyones pocket. We very well could be at the beginning of the golden age of player satisfaction because everyone will be swimming in crystals.

    Cg isn’t the government though. It needs revenue and can’t just print money. So when players start progressing faster then they used to and newer players see less benefit than before in spending, cg will have to cut ways your crystals can be used to speed up progression. More characters will need omicrons which will out pace you omicron income and the only source to increasing omicrons will cost real money. Newer gls will require multiple r9 characters so even those in the very top guilds will not be able to get the new shiny toy without spending 150 bucks.

    It’ll be great short term. By June we will see all the new ways cg is forcing you to use your credit card to progress because crystals alone won’t be able to do it. This is my concern not that my crystal income will be negatively affected or that gac annoys me because mm sucks. No, I’m worried that progression will soon be locked behind a cc number no matter how you manage your resources.
  • RTS
    684 posts Member
    Options
    StarSon wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    The number of people on here complaining that the top 1-5 arena payouts are going to lose crystal income is like people making $40,000 a year upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.

    This will be better for 90-95% of the player base - if they just play the minimum effort for GAC.

    If you hate GAC then you should just be focusing on your PvE rewards anyway.

    This is a terrible analogy. Considering how the game population breaks down, it's much more like the billionaires getting upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.

    So you think the majority of the game population is getting 350+ in SA crystals per day?
  • Monel
    2789 posts Member
    Options
    xGriiMErZ wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Magruffin wrote: »
    DEATHER wrote: »
    Angry are low GP arena focused players, they will have income cut, its same patern like with hard/normal/easy conquest to limit low gp players on rewards to encourage fast roster development

    Bingo. The whole driving force in this game since conception is to earn purps, and you did that by striving to have a top notch arena squad. Rewards for a diverse roster were a joke (ie regular grand arena). Now after 6 years, they've flipped that whole dynamic.

    Why should a player who has built only 1 top squad for arena (and has mediocre mods at best) earn the same amount as a player who has a wide roster, with better mods, and understand the overall roster and strategy better?

    With an inventory collection game, it never made sense to have one single meta team represent an entire roster and to earn one of the most precious commodities off that single team.

    Thats kinda the point of a meta, 1 team rules over all...

    eh96so058kjt.gif
  • Options
    Will the fleet arena be affected ?
  • Monel
    2789 posts Member
    Options
    Fredy5 wrote: »
    Will the fleet arena be affected ?

    No, but the vehicle arena is about to become a clown show.
  • RTS
    684 posts Member
    Options
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    The number of people on here complaining that the top 1-5 arena payouts are going to lose crystal income is like people making $40,000 a year upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.

    This will be better for 90-95% of the player base - if they just play the minimum effort for GAC.

    If you hate GAC then you should just be focusing on your PvE rewards anyway.

    I’ve sorta been waiting for this post. This isn’t exactly an appropriate analogy but it mostly fits. If you look at this change short term, it’s extremely player friendly. It puts more crystals in almost everyones pocket. We very well could be at the beginning of the golden age of player satisfaction because everyone will be swimming in crystals.

    Cg isn’t the government though. It needs revenue and can’t just print money. So when players start progressing faster then they used to and newer players see less benefit than before in spending, cg will have to cut ways your crystals can be used to speed up progression. More characters will need omicrons which will out pace you omicron income and the only source to increasing omicrons will cost real money. Newer gls will require multiple r9 characters so even those in the very top guilds will not be able to get the new shiny toy without spending 150 bucks.

    It’ll be great short term. By June we will see all the new ways cg is forcing you to use your credit card to progress because crystals alone won’t be able to do it. This is my concern not that my crystal income will be negatively affected or that gac annoys me because mm sucks. No, I’m worried that progression will soon be locked behind a cc number no matter how you manage your resources.

    May not be "accurate" but I'd say it's definitely appropriate.

    This game is a business - it exists to make money, without money the game dies. There will always be a wall for people to spend on to get the most advantage - because if not, the game dies and we lose our fun times.

    There has not, to my knowledge, ever been anything in the game that you can NEVER get as F2P, and I don't think it will ever go that way - because once you start completely walling off sections of the game you lose a large portion of your playerbase.
  • Nauros
    5429 posts Member
    Options
    Monel wrote: »
    Fredy5 wrote: »
    Will the fleet arena be affected ?

    No, but the vehicle arena is about to become a clown show.

    Vehicle arena?
  • Options
    The distinction is that one cares enough about the game mode to make an actual effort and the other doesn't.

    I'm okay with that. You are welcome to disagree. But I won't argue over personal preference.
    If one doesn't care at all and the other squeaks out a win by 12 points from 1st attack and taking down 2 characters out of a squad of 5, that's not "making the matchup interesting" (to quote Ragnarok).

    Sure, we may get some matchups where one player was seeded higher, doesn't care, and has been falling while the opposite is true for the other. Neither of us knows how common that will be. If I end up getting more disengaged 10M whales in the new system than I was getting auto-sets and FU defenses in the old (the latter used to derail a season if you had top 10 aspirations), then I will acknowledge this as an issue.

    With what we know now, I think I will have more engaging matches than I used to.
    "Skill" will certainly play some role in sorting between a few players here and there, but most of what will be assigned to "skill rating" is simply the amount of time people are willing to invest -- researching the opponent's defensive tendencies, researching potential counters in advance, re-researching actual counters once the defense is revealed. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    "Effort rating (with some smaller contribution from skill)" is a much better description than "Skill rating (with a small contribution from effort)".

    Okay, fine. You can call it whatever you want. I like a ladder system for MM. You don't. No one is right or wrong here.
    Matching a 5M gp player who actively plays against an 8M gp player who hates GAC and wants nothing to do with it isn't "interesting". The fact that neither of you two seem to realize that 5M/8M gp matchups are never going to happen without the 8M gp player giving up on GAC makes your analysis curiously suspect.

    A 3M gap does seem like too much to overcome with skill alone. I don't know where I suggested otherwise. And I don't see why effort shouldn't be rewarded here.
    Why not honestly deal with the ramifications of a long-term GP barrier to new accounts, once 8M gp inactives sort themselves to the bottom?

    I believe I "Liked" one of your earlier comments suggesting such an issue. I completely agree that there are concerns as to what will happen to new players. I don't believe I have suggested otherwise.
    Why do you pretend that there's such a thing as "skill" that lets a 5M gp player win a close match against an 8M gp player that makes an effort?

    Again, you're really clinging to the word "skill". I only used it because that's what they called it in the announcement. I have fully acknowledged above, and again here in case there is any confusion, that I agree that the "skill" rating measures much more than just skill. And I will repeat it again, I'm okay with that and I don't care what you or CG calls the metric.
    Every highly-ranked newer account is going to lose crystals from this.

    Agreed. As stated above, I agreed with this the first time it was brought up and it is a concern of mine. I'm just now realizing that Kyno is the one who has said this specific issue isn't a big deal. So maybe this part of your post is really for him. As such, I am going to stop responding because I share many of the concerns you list from this point forward.
  • Options
    @Ragnarok_COTF
    To improve your analogy. It will match a [bi]cyclist with a [motor]biker only if they are routinely completing the course in the same amount of time. And if that's the case, who cares what contraption they rode on?

    Because that's not what it does. It matches the bicyclist against a motorbiker depending on how many head-to-head races they win. And when they settle in at 50/50 and get squared off as "even", what's actually happening is that 50% of the time the motorcyclist is having a beer at a local pub and doesn't bother showing up and 50% of the time the motorcyclist thinks, "I should win a couple races, just so I don't fall further," shows up, and speeds off into the sunset, winning the race with no competition at all.

    Neither winning because your competition didn't show up nor losing because your competition is completely beyond you is a "fun" outcome.

    That is not how the MM will work, as I understand it. I assume it will pool together players with similar ladder rankings (won't use "skill score" anymore as that is apparently a loaded term). I will definitely ask about this in the Q&A. If your understanding is correct, then I would have concerns.
  • Options
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    This "issue" is so laughably easy for CG to account for. If they don't, then I'll get riled up. Until then, I choose to believe that obvious issues like this will be resolved.
  • Nauros
    5429 posts Member
    Options
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    This "issue" is so laughably easy for CG to account for. If they don't, then I'll get riled up. Until then, I choose to believe that obvious issues like this will be resolved.

    I wouldn't count on that, considering that their reaction to the TW bug is basically "lol, whatever".
  • Options
    Nauros wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    This "issue" is so laughably easy for CG to account for. If they don't, then I'll get riled up. Until then, I choose to believe that obvious issues like this will be resolved.

    I wouldn't count on that, considering that their reaction to the TW bug is basically "lol, whatever".

    Bring on the CWC shards, I guess.

    I give CG flak as much as the next guy, but I think they can handle this one.
  • Nauros
    5429 posts Member
    Options
    Nauros wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    This "issue" is so laughably easy for CG to account for. If they don't, then I'll get riled up. Until then, I choose to believe that obvious issues like this will be resolved.

    I wouldn't count on that, considering that their reaction to the TW bug is basically "lol, whatever".

    Bring on the CWC shards, I guess.

    I give CG flak as much as the next guy, but I think they can handle this one.

    Sure they can. The question is whether they care enough to do it.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »

    You do realize that this is only true for a small segment of players, right?

    Assuming little to no losses on refreshes, and an expertly organized shard, roughly 50-100 per shard, at most.

    Do you realize that a player can currently with just one GL be first in a squad arena every day? (With the right GL of the moment of course). This player with his GL can go from the top 1000 to the top 10 in a few days.

    After this **** update, this same player will be grounded by his GP for years ... (If the game survives the very bad decisions of the devs ...)

    Y a un n*a*z*i qui a changé mon nom sans rien me dire...
  • Options
    RTS wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    The number of people on here complaining that the top 1-5 arena payouts are going to lose crystal income is like people making $40,000 a year upset when there's discussions of taxes on billionaires.

    This will be better for 90-95% of the player base - if they just play the minimum effort for GAC.

    If you hate GAC then you should just be focusing on your PvE rewards anyway.

    I’ve sorta been waiting for this post. This isn’t exactly an appropriate analogy but it mostly fits. If you look at this change short term, it’s extremely player friendly. It puts more crystals in almost everyones pocket. We very well could be at the beginning of the golden age of player satisfaction because everyone will be swimming in crystals.

    Cg isn’t the government though. It needs revenue and can’t just print money. So when players start progressing faster then they used to and newer players see less benefit than before in spending, cg will have to cut ways your crystals can be used to speed up progression. More characters will need omicrons which will out pace you omicron income and the only source to increasing omicrons will cost real money. Newer gls will require multiple r9 characters so even those in the very top guilds will not be able to get the new shiny toy without spending 150 bucks.

    It’ll be great short term. By June we will see all the new ways cg is forcing you to use your credit card to progress because crystals alone won’t be able to do it. This is my concern not that my crystal income will be negatively affected or that gac annoys me because mm sucks. No, I’m worried that progression will soon be locked behind a cc number no matter how you manage your resources.

    May not be "accurate" but I'd say it's definitely appropriate.

    This game is a business - it exists to make money, without money the game dies. There will always be a wall for people to spend on to get the most advantage - because if not, the game dies and we lose our fun times.

    There has not, to my knowledge, ever been anything in the game that you can NEVER get as F2P, and I don't think it will ever go that way - because once you start completely walling off sections of the game you lose a large portion of your playerbase.

    We’re in agreement. We just disagree on the ramifications of such a huge change to the crystal economy. I can’t predict them all or maybe even one. But as crystals was probably their biggest revenue generator and it appears they will be flooding the market with crystals they need to generate revenue by selling things other than crystals that can’t be purchased by crystals or increase the amount of crystals needed to progress at the same rate the average player was under the SA model.

    This doesn’t even get into the longer term issue that it is reasonable to assume it will be more difficult for cg to attract newer players of all spending levels but especially of kraken/whale variety by changing how their crystal income is set.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »

    You do realize that this is only true for a small segment of players, right?

    Assuming little to no losses on refreshes, and an expertly organized shard, roughly 50-100 per shard, at most.

    Do you realize that a player can currently with just one GL be first in a squad arena every day? (With the right GL of the moment of course). This player with his GL can go from the top 1000 to the top 10 in a few days.

    After this **** update, this same player will be grounded by his GP for years ... (If the game survives the very bad decisions of the devs ...)

    Maybe even indefinitely.
  • Options
    If I can still average my 125 crystals a day from arenas (since I'm never getting into a shard chat) it seems ok to me overall. Every time there is a change in the game people scream the sky is falling. Lets see how this first round goes before losing our minds.

    I'm more annoyed at how petty it seems to not add things like relic materials to Galactic War rewards or even to all the Cantina nodes so you can farm a character/ship and them at the same time easily. And heck, up the rate of Galactic Bounties while you are at it. Once every 6-8 weeks is just silly at this point. Or update the stores a a tiny bit. Quit being stingy.

    Making small changes like this to older aspects of the game will slightly offset the anger when you make bigger changes like this to things like SA.
  • Options
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    This "issue" is so laughably easy for CG to account for. If they don't, then I'll get riled up. Until then, I choose to believe that obvious issues like this will be resolved.

    I'm wondering how this will affect fleet battles.

    I routinely put my malevolence on defence with only the sep ships, Leaving 2 empty reinforcement slots. I have found that the ai will almost always bring in any other ship I put in reinforcement before a sep, which makes mal much easier to defeat.

    This also leaves more ships available if I need backup fleets. Also fleet battles hardly ever get past the second reinforcement, so it seemed a waste of ships.

    If they simply start awarding points to the opponent for empty slots, I'd like to know about it.

    I've added it to the q&a list.
  • Options
    StarSon wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    The scoring already accounts for empty slots. If you set a single character as a defense team, your opponent will get the banners for the empty slots.

    Could you put me in the right direction here, please? I couldn't read it anywhere in that long text. You are saying that a empty slot will be counted as a kill ?

  • Options
    panetone wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    The scoring already accounts for empty slots. If you set a single character as a defense team, your opponent will get the banners for the empty slots.

    Could you put me in the right direction here, please? I couldn't read it anywhere in that long text. You are saying that a empty slot will be counted as a kill ?

    It is not written anywhere in the State of the Galaxy. I have submitted that question to their Q&A and I would guess others have done so as well. So, I presume they will clarify it then.
  • StarSon
    7515 posts Member
    Options
    panetone wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    The scoring already accounts for empty slots. If you set a single character as a defense team, your opponent will get the banners for the empty slots.

    Could you put me in the right direction here, please? I couldn't read it anywhere in that long text. You are saying that a empty slot will be counted as a kill ?

    Why would it be in the text? It's how it works today.
  • Options
    The only skill of this new version will be who has bought more Omicron ....
  • Nauros
    5429 posts Member
    Options
    Fredy5 wrote: »
    The only skill of this new version will be who has bought more Omicron ....

    If zetas are anything to go by, this one will actually resolve itself over time.
  • jonnysiniwal
    675 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    Options
    This is why moving all the crystals to GAC is a bad idea. They are not doing anything about this so why would anyone believe they will do anything about cheating or bugs in GAC?
    Post edited by jonnysiniwal on
  • Options
    StarSon wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    The scoring already accounts for empty slots. If you set a single character as a defense team, your opponent will get the banners for the empty slots.

    Could you put me in the right direction here, please? I couldn't read it anywhere in that long text. You are saying that a empty slot will be counted as a kill ?

    Why would it be in the text? It's how it works today.

    Because they spell everything else out in the table.
  • Options
    panetone wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    All the points are from offense now, set 1 team on defense and you almost can’t lose bc your opponent will only get points for the territory, not from winning battles.

    Since forever ago, if your opponent doesn't set a team in a slot, the attacker gets max banners, as if they had cleared with a perfect solo. By all means, if we match up, don't set any defenses XD

    But today the number of members in a Def team doesn't matter. If you solo a team will you get 64 max. With the new system, it will matter. I can put teams with only one member in Def and you will got 65 max banners. In other hand I could beat one of your full teams soloing it and get 69 banners, or even enter with a full team and got the old 60 + 5 kills and still make the same amount as your soloed win.

    The scoring already accounts for empty slots. If you set a single character as a defense team, your opponent will get the banners for the empty slots.

    Could you put me in the right direction here, please? I couldn't read it anywhere in that long text. You are saying that a empty slot will be counted as a kill ?

    It doesn't matter for ground, because you physically can't set a one man squad in ground. The game will force you to set a full 5-man squad. It might matter in fleets, but it will have a miniscule impact there.
Sign In or Register to comment.