So you agree with me that Arena constrains your roster choices less than GAC, and that this leaves you more free to pursue the strategies that make you happy and/or that help accomplish guild goals (like prioritizing all DS teams for a while when first reaching DS GeoTB)?
Because although everything you wrote supports my argument, your tone makes you sound like you think you're disagreeing with me.
So my question is once the matchmaking, if it works, sorts itself out properly for fair matchmaking, wouldn’t GAC allow you to build your roster more broadly?
SA forces a GL at this point. Nothing else. In GAC you can go beyond that once things (hopefully) become balanced. Now I am just as skeptical as you they can get it right. However if they do, wouldn’t GAC allow these passion projects to flourish? Like Imps where it’ll work towards SEE. Or bad batch for Peon Vader.
I agree, if the matchmaking fails then this is a moot point. However if it does actually work, wouldn’t this be better?
I don't think so. Here's why.
For arena, if you want 500 crystals a day, you now need to have a GL and if you want it easy you the new meta.
Under the new system to get the same 500 crystals a day you'll need 6 or 7 mil gp to realistically have a shot at high aurodium or kyber. And it isn't 6 million of trash gp but of competitive teams probably including 3 or 4 GLs.
So the barriers to entry are much higher for the top payouts are much higher. If you actually want to get there every toon you gear will need to be focused toward gac.
If you want to focus on passion projects, you obviously still can and maybe even get more crystals than not caring about arena at all. Though in most shards, you can not care and easily get too 100 for quite some time as long as you actually do some battles. I'm sure you'll be able to get 100 crystals a day easily enough while still farming side projects but if you want the top prize it will be more difficult.
Especially for newer players. The players that are currently at 8 mil gp players will continue to have a lead that will be insurmountable by a lower gp players
Bronzium 1 will have a starting GP of 3.1mil, which will earn them 100 crystals from the daily rewards and doing next to nothing
Yes I said you can do next to nothing and still get 100 crystals a day. However with focus you can be getting 500 a day from squad arena by the time you hit 3 mil gp.
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.
Yes but under the new system it will be flat out impossible for a new account to ever reach that level. That just isn't right. Under the old system newer and older players were separated so it was possible (even ftp if you worked at it enough).
This system doesn't separate older accounts from newer ones and that is a major flaw. In order for rewards to be meaningful they have to be possible to get.
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.
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 the discussion we had, there are some cases where it's a decrease, but overall it's an increase.
When looking at new shards which have the largest active population, this is a blessing, as many of them are averaging a very low income, compared to the average in the new system.
Perhaps a better explaination is needed. The way im reading it newer players (lvl 85) are going to not be anywhere near kyber payouts.
Initial gp will lock them in low. Skill will grow them some, but id think that #1 player with a low gp wont be clearing 500 a day
Yes a small % of players will see lower income, in the situation your are stating.
Are you sure it will be a small %? If skill rating is all that matters, then new players will eventually hit a wall where they can't win because the high leagues are populated by veterans. Unless they heed Carrie's infamous tweet about catching up, of course...
Yes I am sure.
Where do you predict this wall will be?
Was comparing the 110th toon with a guild mate (11 placements = 22 teams = 110 toons). I'm far and away the inferior player (same number of GLs, both have executors), their mods are better. I don't see how I get beat with the bottom of the rosters being what they are. This was with a 700k GP difference (6.3 to ~7M). A 3GL 5M GP roster would be farcical.
Smaller GP rosters cannot compete in the higher leagues if the defensive team placements are fixed. Period.
Yes they can, just not in every case.
Kyno I expect more out of you. This response is akin to "I know you are but what am I?"
"Just not in every case". In which cases in Kyber can giving up 2M GP be "fair"? Please provide an example. Let me be clear, I have no dog in this fight. I could not care less. This change benefits me in some ways and potentially reduces my income in others. Either way, whatever.
The salient question IMHO, is the relationship between league and number of defensive team placements and how there is a massive advantage for higher GP players in the higher leagues as things have been described.
If that's not the case, please explain how - with examples.
Sure, a good player at a lower GP, and a player who doesnt like or care about GAC but with a higher GP.
I am not saying there will not be some level of stratification that will occur based on GP, I think there will be, and that this will provide some stability and insulation that will stop some of these more wild non-ideal matchups from happening, at least in any major sense.
But how this works, when players are getting matched and working around the same average, the player who is more active will have a higher income, and no high level GP player is getting down there with being active.
As a low GP player moves up, they will face challenges and may need to develop more to grow into the skill ranking they have to surpass others, and that is all within their grasp, with a smart plan of development.
Again, just like GAC has always been, total GP is a less effective measure of how well a player will do, we have a fixed number of defensive positions, and that does help level the field within reason.
I think players seeing high GP differences outside of Kyber will be very unlikely for a while and if/when it does happen, it will not be as everyone seems to be making it.
Well, okay. But so does HSTR or you get terrible rewards. So does Galactic Challenge, which will allow you 2nd best rewards every week with a single GL, but will not guarantee you that with 0 GL. This isn't even mentioning LS Geo TB.
There are plenty of reasons to get a GL, and with the RPS meta you can pick from several (at the very least LV, JML, SEE, and GLOW). So, sure, you can say that for early game players SA might force a GL effort earlier than the player would otherwise choose it, but it also might not. In a lower-gp guild having the only (or one of the only) SLKRs gives you a **massive** boost to the amount of g12 gear you soak up, which means you progress much more quickly by prioritizing a GL than by prioritizing anything else, even GAC-priority squads in a game where GAC's crystal flow has started.
I will likely have all the crystals that I used to have, and with minimal effort, though I hate GAC and will be unlikely to stay in the highest division because of that (it's likely Kyber-2 for me). That's my choice and though I'm not happy about it, it's not what most worries me.
No, it's the fact that newer accounts will now be competing directly against older accounts that makes things so dangerous. The facts around whether GAC constrains choices more than Squad Arena (I think it clearly does, but it's not something for which either of us would have conclusive data) are interesting, but I only brought it up because someone else had said that SA constrains player choice without any acknowledgement that even if it forces you to build a specific team, once you have one single team done, you're on to whatever you want for a good long while. With GAC's priority on multiple GL's to block progress with specific required counter-squads (that have been nerfed and are now less reliable), things become much more grindy in GAC than in SA with its "one team & you're good to go!" requirement. So having refuted (or at least complicated) the simple narrative that SA constrains player choice, I'm much more interested in talking about other things that are actually problems with or benefits of the new system, rather than things that are exactly as good or as bad about SA or GAC no matter whether the current system or the recently proposed system is in use.
So looking at yours and Helmet’s responses this seems a tad more clear.
The way I see it now is that you need to spruce up that GP to max out those rewards.
So with these changes….
Those in newer shards no longer have access to the immediate 500-200 crystals per day to hoard and empower your roster. Now it’s in GAC so that income is reduced. Ok point taken.
So what they’re doing is trimming the crystal income for newer players trying to induce spending. I think older/heavier accouns will see short term (at the least) in terms of crystals, even after the matchmaking sorts itself out.
Hmmm this is getting deeper the more it’s discussed. I dig it lol
Trimming the income of the top of the shard on new players, yes. Increasing the PO most new players will see, also yes.
Newer shards are going to be bigger and more active. Anyone outside of the top 50-100 has a chance at an increased income, and possibly more depending on refreshes due to activity.
Anyone outside of the top 100 already could get increased income. Typically all it takes to be in the top 100 was to actually farm a good team and actually do your battles. Quit treating everyone that was below the top 100 as if they were some sort of victim.
Yes, they will likely benefit from this. But punishing your most active players to even out the income probably won't bode well for the long term health of the game.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 ...)
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Replies
Yes but under the new system it will be flat out impossible for a new account to ever reach that level. That just isn't right. Under the old system newer and older players were separated so it was possible (even ftp if you worked at it enough).
This system doesn't separate older accounts from newer ones and that is a major flaw. In order for rewards to be meaningful they have to be possible to get.
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.
Sure, a good player at a lower GP, and a player who doesnt like or care about GAC but with a higher GP.
I am not saying there will not be some level of stratification that will occur based on GP, I think there will be, and that this will provide some stability and insulation that will stop some of these more wild non-ideal matchups from happening, at least in any major sense.
But how this works, when players are getting matched and working around the same average, the player who is more active will have a higher income, and no high level GP player is getting down there with being active.
As a low GP player moves up, they will face challenges and may need to develop more to grow into the skill ranking they have to surpass others, and that is all within their grasp, with a smart plan of development.
Again, just like GAC has always been, total GP is a less effective measure of how well a player will do, we have a fixed number of defensive positions, and that does help level the field within reason.
I think players seeing high GP differences outside of Kyber will be very unlikely for a while and if/when it does happen, it will not be as everyone seems to be making it.
Anyone outside of the top 100 already could get increased income. Typically all it takes to be in the top 100 was to actually farm a good team and actually do your battles. Quit treating everyone that was below the top 100 as if they were some sort of victim.
Yes, they will likely benefit from this. But punishing your most active players to even out the income probably won't bode well for the long term health of the game.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So you think the majority of the game population is getting 350+ in SA crystals per day?
No, but the vehicle arena is about to become a clown show.
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.
Vehicle arena?
I'm okay with that. You are welcome to disagree. But I won't argue over personal preference.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...)
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.
Maybe even indefinitely.
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.
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.
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.
Why would it be in the text? It's how it works today.