[MEGA] State of the Galaxy: November 2021

Replies

  • The only skill of this new version will be who has bought more Omicron ....
  • Nauros
    5180 posts Member
    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
    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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Ponf
    26 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    if the rewards will depend on the skill rating, which includes both defense and offense.
    On the one hand is clear with the attack, on the other hand is complicated with the defense. it is not possible to understand which abilities will be used in defense, since the auto when playing in attack uses a completely different priority of abilities. in this connection, a number of questions arise:
    1.Are you going to add the ability to view defense squad matches or add the mod to test the squads and their priority of using abilities in defence for better understanding how to set up characters turns and select modules?

    2. .Is it posible to add for players the ability to customize the priority of using abilities for characters in defense?

    without the possibility to set up ours squads in defense, can we talk about the objectivity of the skill rating?
    Post edited by Ponf on
  • Apparently the Squad Arena will stop dropping crystals, and instead they will be dropped in the Grand Arena.

    Looks like the devs are pushing everyone into P2P in order to compete. Because who doesn't like going up against opponents with 4 or more GL's when you have none?
    What does it matter who you go against? You can’t beat Ewoks with JKR.
  • TVF
    32005 posts Member
    Apparently the Squad Arena will stop dropping crystals, and instead they will be dropped in the Grand Arena.

    Looks like the devs are pushing everyone into P2P in order to compete. Because who doesn't like going up against opponents with 4 or more GL's when you have none?
    What does it matter who you go against? You can’t beat Ewoks with JKR.

    Maybe he'll get lucky with someone who doesn't have Ewoks.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of the change to the shipment tab. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • This change is a kick in the teeth to players like me who’ve spent 5-6 years playing a game focused upon the squad arena game mode and crystal income there.

    Could you not give us a ramp period? A 3-6 month heads up to adjust our farms?

    I just spent the last 4 months, $400 and countless hours (eg on maxing conquest) to get a Lord Vader team for the arena crystal income. It is still 6 weeks away from being finished, and now I will never get to use it for the entire reason I did any of this. I hate GAC. I didn’t get it for that, and I’m likely quitting before ever using this team.

    Thanks a lot, CG, for taking a game I loved for the past 5 1/2 years and destroying it for Christmas.

    How would your farm have changed?

    Could you not give us a ramp period? A 3-6 month heads up to adjust our farms?

    How would your farm have changed?

    Had I known 3 mo ago that arena crystal income was going away, I wouldn’t have rushed the farm, not lost sleep over conquest so much, and paid more attention to strengthening other parts of my roster. But as it is, I put in a massive amount of energy and money (for me) to never see the pay off of using it for crystal income in squad arena. I wouldnt do this for GAC. This change defeated the entire purpose of rushing my farm.

    Had they given us some notice, I wouldn’t have put all this in, not have been so ****, and would be more likely to adjust to the change. I’ve played for 5.5 years and have been a staunch supporter of the game. I think I and many others deserved the courtesy of a heads up. That would certainly help with player retention.

    As it is, it is a far too sudden move after us being able to plan on arena being there the past 5-6 years, plan our farms around it, farms which take 6 months, but they give us virtually no notice it’s being yanked away.

    I don't know what your roster is like, but I would've thought that it would be very well rounded after 5.5 years.

    For me... im at 8.2 mil gp about the same amount of years.... and id say mine isnt as well rounded as id want for this change

    Though ive been working on building up every character, even the bad ones, for a while now
  • ShaggyB
    2310 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    ShaggyB wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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 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.

    How much will that exist after gac becomes the only way to get much of yiur daily crystals.

    I hate gac and dislike playing it today.... but once you take my 500 crystals away and force me to put effort into gac.... i will be upset, but will be playing it.

    Id imagine the number of high gp gac players who dont care is going to shrink drastically after the first few runs settle out rankings.

    So in all honesty, how many of your corner case scenarios do you think will still eixst, as it should be a much smaller group.
  • *shrug*

    The 1% takes a small haircut, the 99% benefits. I see no problem with any of this.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • @Ragnarok_COTF

    Thank you for the discussion. It seems you were using CG's language without yourself being overly wedded to the idea that "give a____" was going to be far more important in high-gp accounts dropping into low-gp divisions than what you and I would actually call skill.

    We do seem to be on the same page now that we understand each other better, and I hope that other readers gained some insight into different perspectives on this change as a result of our back & forth.
  • Dave12
    35 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    Me, I am just laughing. My shard was controlled by 15 guys who mercilessly attacked anyone who tried to get into that top 15. I have not been happier with any of the long list of silly changes CG made just to bust these turds up.
    Post edited by Kyno on
  • We can assume that once our crystals depend on our GAC rank, there should be fairly high participation rates. That doesn't guarantee a smooth ride, I know.

    Thanks for the posts MasterSeedy and Ragnarok_COTF
  • If I’m a 2-3 mil player at the bronzium- audio threshold. Previously I ha control if I chose to increase my GP over the next threshold

    With it using skill points and not GP, and I do well and get promoted, I go from a ‘league’ that requires 2 total fleets 1D, 1 offense. But without changing my roster or increasing my GP at all, newly promoted into audio it would now require 4 total fleets 2D 2 offense.

    Which can automatically result in more losses regardless of skill, which can result in a lot less crystals since they are tied to winning. So if I got the minimum crystals how does it compare to the previous league/division avg/max. Is it possible to get less crystals from being higher than if you stayed in lower group with unchanged GP?
  • Decicrim wrote: »
    If I’m a 2-3 mil player at the bronzium- audio threshold. Previously I ha control if I chose to increase my GP over the next threshold

    With it using skill points and not GP, and I do well and get promoted, I go from a ‘league’ that requires 2 total fleets 1D, 1 offense. But without changing my roster or increasing my GP at all, newly promoted into audio it would now require 4 total fleets 2D 2 offense.

    Which can automatically result in more losses regardless of skill, which can result in a lot less crystals since they are tied to winning. So if I got the minimum crystals how does it compare to the previous league/division avg/max. Is it possible to get less crystals from being higher than if you stayed in lower group with unchanged GP?

    Pretty much the new system in a nut shell. You will be punished for succeeding. You will reach rosters that you have 0 chance of beating no matter what you believe your "skill" is at that game. Will take a season or two but eventually you will hit a ceiling and loose repeatedly, get bumped down a division. Then rinse and repeat.

  • Salv
    28 posts Member
    Joebo720 wrote: »
    Decicrim wrote: »
    If I’m a 2-3 mil player at the bronzium- audio threshold. Previously I ha control if I chose to increase my GP over the next threshold

    With it using skill points and not GP, and I do well and get promoted, I go from a ‘league’ that requires 2 total fleets 1D, 1 offense. But without changing my roster or increasing my GP at all, newly promoted into audio it would now require 4 total fleets 2D 2 offense.

    Which can automatically result in more losses regardless of skill, which can result in a lot less crystals since they are tied to winning. So if I got the minimum crystals how does it compare to the previous league/division avg/max. Is it possible to get less crystals from being higher than if you stayed in lower group with unchanged GP?

    Pretty much the new system in a nut shell. You will be punished for succeeding. You will reach rosters that you have 0 chance of beating no matter what you believe your "skill" is at that game. Will take a season or two but eventually you will hit a ceiling and loose repeatedly, get bumped down a division. Then rinse and repeat.

    It's not true - you should land in a league where you will be winning ~50% matches. With no big chance to advance (until you improve your roster/strategy) or drop.
  • Joebo720 wrote: »
    Decicrim wrote: »
    If I’m a 2-3 mil player at the bronzium- audio threshold. Previously I ha control if I chose to increase my GP over the next threshold

    With it using skill points and not GP, and I do well and get promoted, I go from a ‘league’ that requires 2 total fleets 1D, 1 offense. But without changing my roster or increasing my GP at all, newly promoted into audio it would now require 4 total fleets 2D 2 offense.

    Which can automatically result in more losses regardless of skill, which can result in a lot less crystals since they are tied to winning. So if I got the minimum crystals how does it compare to the previous league/division avg/max. Is it possible to get less crystals from being higher than if you stayed in lower group with unchanged GP?

    Pretty much the new system in a nut shell. You will be punished for succeeding. You will reach rosters that you have 0 chance of beating no matter what you believe your "skill" is at that game. Will take a season or two but eventually you will hit a ceiling and loose repeatedly, get bumped down a division. Then rinse and repeat.

    You likely won't reach rosters you have 0 chance of beating. If you get on a win streak, your matches should get progressively harder. Unless CG really ruins how ladder MM should work, you should never see someone that outclasses you so much (after the dust settles from the initial seeding) unless they were sandbagging to troll folks.
  • Joebo720 wrote: »
    Decicrim wrote: »
    If I’m a 2-3 mil player at the bronzium- audio threshold. Previously I ha control if I chose to increase my GP over the next threshold

    With it using skill points and not GP, and I do well and get promoted, I go from a ‘league’ that requires 2 total fleets 1D, 1 offense. But without changing my roster or increasing my GP at all, newly promoted into audio it would now require 4 total fleets 2D 2 offense.

    Which can automatically result in more losses regardless of skill, which can result in a lot less crystals since they are tied to winning. So if I got the minimum crystals how does it compare to the previous league/division avg/max. Is it possible to get less crystals from being higher than if you stayed in lower group with unchanged GP?

    Pretty much the new system in a nut shell. You will be punished for succeeding. You will reach rosters that you have 0 chance of beating no matter what you believe your "skill" is at that game. Will take a season or two but eventually you will hit a ceiling and loose repeatedly, get bumped down a division. Then rinse and repeat.

    You likely won't reach rosters you have 0 chance of beating. If you get on a win streak, your matches should get progressively harder. Unless CG really ruins how ladder MM should work, you should never see someone that outclasses you so much (after the dust settles from the initial seeding) unless they were sandbagging to troll folks.

    depends on how you define "outclass". And above all the principle itself is problematic. The system will indeed regulate you to hover around 50% winrate - which is not equal opportunity, it's equality of outcome instead.

    There are many more objective ways to classify a roster than skills. Skill is subjective, mod-rating is mostly objective, number of GLs is objective, GP is objective - cannot fathom why would someone in their right mind prefer a MM based on a subjective metric instead of objective ones.

    I need to emphasize it one more time: I can easily see a way when you will willfully throw a match or two to avoid getting promoted because on a long term (2 championships) it could maximize your income over the scenario of going up and going down again.
  • You likely won't reach rosters you have 0 chance of beating. If you get on a win streak, your matches should get progressively harder. Unless CG really ruins how ladder MM should work, you should never see someone that outclasses you so much (after the dust settles from the initial seeding) unless they were sandbagging to troll folks.

    After seeing the new TW MM fiasco, i do not see why anyone would have faith in whatever MM systems they will try.

    I believe if you are good and reached kyber in the past, you may have a season or two and then you are screwed. Even if what you say is the case, it totally negates the purpose of GAC. So the point is to lose one and win one? What kind of garbage is that? Just shut it down and mail us crystals. That is not engaging game play. Its rochambaue.
  • StarSon
    6204 posts Member
    nottenst wrote: »
    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.

    Everything else in the table is new behavior. They're changing all of that. In last month's GA, the scoring accounted for empty slots. If that's not changing, what's the point of spelling it out that's it's remaining the same?

    Should they have told us that you have to click the table or icon to enter? And then the Enter button a couple times to see the table? And then you have to select each zone, click to place defenses, and then actually set a team?
  • RTS
    657 posts Member
    @Kyno :
    Much of the player base will have a higher average income, is that not good for the player base?

    The point is that we don't know. Maybe it will be good, but common sense (which, yes, can be wrong so for final determination we'll have to wait for data) suggests that flattening the crystal payout for new players means taking away a crucial incentive for new players to spend money.

    This game relies on a constant influx of new paying players since older paying players, even ones who have spent 10s of thousands of US$, do eventually retire (or die, or whatever). If you anger your long-term players, prompting a somewhat higher than usual rate of retirement, and simultaneously reduce the incentives for new players to spend, then that is very bad for the player base.

    CG has dramatically flattened the rewards system for new players, so quite a number of new players may not spend (or spend as much) in the early stages. If they get used to playing the game without spending, they may never pick up the habit at all.

    "Higher average income" may sound good, and sure I have an interest in Arena income since I am a daily 1st/1st player in the arenas, but however much someone might discount my opinion as selfish or however much someone might like to look at the "more on average" distribution as a good thing, there have always been good reasons for CG to favor the whales and krakens. They keep the game going.

    A system that doesn't reward spending is a system that doesn't get spending. This isn't all or nothing, of course. The relatively tiny amount I spent on the game (compared to whales, krakens, etc.) was in the first year when I spent on the game something similar to the purchase price of a new game. I did it out of appreciation for the game and a sense of ethics and because I had the money to spare. But most people who spend do so because they expect to get an in-game benefit, and the benefit while not reduced to zero, is no longer as large.

    So, ultimately, we can expect occasional small spenders (like me) and we can expect the residual spending benefits to draw in some players looking for advantage in the game, but on the whole the flattening of the rewards gives every appearance of being likely to reduce spending, even if it doesn't eliminate it.

    So higher average crystal income is appealing, but it might very well (and we shall soon see if this is the case) lead to reduced spending.

    Despite the intuitions of the masses, then, the flatter and higher-average rewards have the potential to be very, very bad for the player base.

    I don't mind people saying we should wait for data to see if the sky falls, but I think that it's naive to assume spenders will keep spending at the same rate when the rewards for doing so are being reduced.

    The number of gaming experts and data scientists that play this game is just fascinating.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    @Ravens1113
    SA forces a GL at this point. Nothing else.

    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.

    There in lies the problem, "most active" does not mean top payout. Stale shards and shard chats actually allow players to get a higher income with less activity.

    The info we say in our discussion was actually showing that after 1-2 years movement in shards regardless of GP or when they were started, were pretty static.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    GaCvet wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    GaCvet wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vishprat wrote: »
    I am really liking the changes. Finally shard competation come to an end. I have been fighting with them for long time. Now I relieved with that. Only people get affected in top 20. However they can still get 500 crystals with few wins.

    Only I have concern about like 4M to 6 M gp how they can move into kyber? And get max crystals. Might be few explanation from CG can help.

    Spend money.

    This entire system is built for you to reach a ceiling and need to spend to get higher.

    Or patiently develop, like all f2p have been doing for years

    Those above you aren’t stopping the development in their rosters. Patiently developing is just treading water. You won’t break through the ceiling by being patient since the ceiling keeps rising.

    If everyone in your bracket has 2 million more GP, patiently developing won’t work since they continue to develop. The only way to close the gap is get frustrated and spend.

    I’ve lost around 5 GAC matchups total in 12 months. In this new system, after a couple of months, I will hope and pray to win 4 of 12.

    GAC has a limited pool of useful characters. A 5M GP account can have the same top X toons as a 7 M GP account.

    You dont need to have all the toons, you need to have a roster built to GAC. So yes patiently and thoughtfully building your roster can have you gaining ground, and not tredding water.

    So you don't want to face players who are as good as you are in GAC and have a similar win ratio?

    Yes this is a change, it's a big change, almost to the point that there will be no comparison between what GAC will be and what it was.

    Does $$$ help a player, yes. Will you hit a point where the only way to progress is to $$$, no.

    This is patently wrong and kyno knows it. The more teams you have developed the more options you have the more ways you can stop your opponent. Kyno does not GAC often and wants to opine like he does.

    You have a set number of defensive placements. Please tell me how having more teams changes that?

    Are you serious? Go watch GOM play GAC having more teams let's him set ridiculously hard defenses that almost no one clears while he pecks away at your defense. I guess tactics aren't your deal just passive aggressiveness towards customers.

    So you mean you can build a set of defensive teams and offensive teams that will let you win using strategy..... that seems reasonable and correct.

    What is not correct, is that you always need more teams to do that.
  • The more I think about this change in Arena and GAC, the more I understand it and I think it is OK in principle.

    The issue, I think everyone has, is Capital Games history with changes and with cheaters. There has long been cheating in GAC. If the rewards are greater, the incentive to cheat is greater. We have all seen in the past the approach the Capital Games takes towards cheaters. Everyone reported gets banded, but if they spend a lot they come right back (from a lifetime band).

    I spend on the game and I don't like the changes. I have seen some F2P players praise the changes, but I think they might be the most negatively impacted. The biggest spenders will cheat and how Capital Games handles that will dictate how this change impacts the game.

    So, the biggest issue is that Capital Games does not handle changes well. Poor communication of change, poor execution of changes, and poor management of changes. I assume that this change was well intentioned and designed to help, but with the history of cheating and assuming CG will do nothing about it, I think this will be a big failure.

    Such a shame. I hate writing this post. This idea has potential, but I think we can all see where it is going. The best intentions with poor executions are going to fail. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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 ...)

    You realize that number of players that can do that is very limited right?

    And that just reaching the top 10 with all the added cost of getting there, while I agree it is worth it, only remains worth it if you can stay there.

    I'm pretty sure the game will be here for a while, even with this change.

    There is a big chunk of the player base that is already grounded in a low income situation, they seem to be trying to address that and give a wider birth to those who want to increase their income. It seems like more people can now fit into the area that is a top 20 income than could before.
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    990 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    Joebo720 wrote: »
    Decicrim wrote: »
    If I’m a 2-3 mil player at the bronzium- audio threshold. Previously I ha control if I chose to increase my GP over the next threshold

    With it using skill points and not GP, and I do well and get promoted, I go from a ‘league’ that requires 2 total fleets 1D, 1 offense. But without changing my roster or increasing my GP at all, newly promoted into audio it would now require 4 total fleets 2D 2 offense.

    Which can automatically result in more losses regardless of skill, which can result in a lot less crystals since they are tied to winning. So if I got the minimum crystals how does it compare to the previous league/division avg/max. Is it possible to get less crystals from being higher than if you stayed in lower group with unchanged GP?

    Pretty much the new system in a nut shell. You will be punished for succeeding. You will reach rosters that you have 0 chance of beating no matter what you believe your "skill" is at that game. Will take a season or two but eventually you will hit a ceiling and loose repeatedly, get bumped down a division. Then rinse and repeat.

    You likely won't reach rosters you have 0 chance of beating. If you get on a win streak, your matches should get progressively harder. Unless CG really ruins how ladder MM should work, you should never see someone that outclasses you so much (after the dust settles from the initial seeding) unless they were sandbagging to troll folks.

    depends on how you define "outclass". And above all the principle itself is problematic. The system will indeed regulate you to hover around 50% winrate - which is not equal opportunity, it's equality of outcome instead.

    If all you care about is your win rate, then yeah, you won't like a ladder MM system. The infamous bus74 would not care for this new system. There's a guy in my guild with an alt that he uses to manipulate the current MM to rofl stomp people. He is considering dropping the alt because it won't be fun for him with a 50-50 win rate on the alt.

    I prefer good competition. I found no joy in beating folks who either didn't try or didn't care about GAC. Under the new system, I should be able to maintain or exceed my previous crystal income with a 50-50 win rate against other try-hards like myself.

    If your preferences differ from mine, bummer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Also, a 50-50 win rate in Kyber is more rewards than a 50-50 win rate in Aurodium. I fail to see the general 50-50 win rate as equality of outcome.

    Why isn't there an equality of opportunity?
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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 ?

    Yes it will.
Sign In or Register to comment.