[MEGA] State of the Galaxy: November 2021

Replies

  • all these arguments and assumptions are based on the hypothesis that CG is able to create an honest match making system. I don't add anything else but have fun...
  • Joebo720 wrote: »
    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.

    Does TW have a ladder MM system? I don't see why we should assume they will use the same MM mechanics. If CG were to say that they do, then I would have some concerns.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    ShaggyB wrote: »
    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.

    True that situation will change, but that is probably the most likely scenario to have this result, despite everyone thinking this is going to happen in some large scale.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    @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.

    I for one do not think CG is in the business of making choices that dont have a bottom line where they expect it to be.

    Many want to question their choices, I get that, and some will always point to choices where "revenue dropped" and what not. Bone of that seems to have had an undesirable effect on their long term plans for where they expect the game to be. They are always trying to balance the details and make things work. We are in a period of change, but I'm sure they have plans upon plans on how to make money and attract players, and yes keep the ones they have.

    This is all a fluid situation with many moving parts, I dont think this change was made brashly and without thought or long term plans and ideas.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    @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.

    I for one do not think CG is in the business of making choices that dont have a bottom line where they expect it to be.

    Many want to question their choices, I get that, and some will always point to choices where "revenue dropped" and what not. Bone of that seems to have had an undesirable effect on their long term plans for where they expect the game to be. They are always trying to balance the details and make things work. We are in a period of change, but I'm sure they have plans upon plans on how to make money and attract players, and yes keep the ones they have.

    This is all a fluid situation with many moving parts, I dont think this change was made brashly and without thought or long term plans and ideas.

    CG run through 4 (maybe more) senior producers in 6 years. The direction seems to pivot with each. Hard to believe the plans are really thought out that far in advance.
  • If their decisions had been thought out in advance, everyone wouldn't hate Conquest.
  • StarSon
    6164 posts Member
    Rebmes wrote: »
    If their decisions had been thought out in advance, everyone wouldn't hate Conquest.

    You assume they wanted to make something we enjoyed instead of something that made them money.

  • 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?

    If you fail to see why is a """""forced"""" 50-50 an equality of outcome, i am afraid I cannot help you. Also, I fail to see what makes you think that if you score 50/50 in Aurodium and magically move to Kyber you will still score 50/50. I did say indeed that you will hover around 50/50, but of course one of the tools at the system's disposal is to change your league. So 50/50 is only on the long term, short term arguments to not apply.

    And if there is a potential matchup, where under any circumstances I might get matched up against ahnald for example that's hardly equal opportunity. And for the record I have better winrate than he does.

    Let's simplyify it for the sake of reasoning just a little bit. GAC is about placing teams on defense, then using other teams to defeat the opponent's defending teams. It seems to me that in a scenario like this having the ability to rally more troops is an advantage. Up until this very point the official argument was that higher GP rosters have to use more and more teams to keep GAC challenging for them, so I believe we can settle that higher GP equals more squads which equals advantage.

    Now we need to talk about quality, not just quantity, since the Nerf. Yes there are teams that represent higher quality (we might abbreviate them as GLs) and the more higher quality teams, the better.

    Now making an argument, like: "okay buddy, you get +1 GL, but I get +5 extra teams" is something that is worth debating. Whether that is equal opportunity is questionable, but I see some sort of idea behind it, which might need some finetuning.

    The other argument which sounds like: "okay buddy, I get +1 (+2) GL AND +6 teams BUT you have beaten your previous X opponents and I have lost to all of them" is nowhere near fair argument. In fact, I find it quite stupid. So far I was doing something better than others, had my rewards for it, now I will face harder and harder opponents until I cannot compensate by skill - only by money.

    The potential counter argument that "the reward here is a higher league with higher income" is mathematically incorrect, bc potentially you may get a higher league with a lower income.

    While this economical system makes sense in a financial aspect, I have my reasons to detest it.




  • Konju
    1130 posts Member
    Rebmes wrote: »
    If their decisions had been thought out in advance, everyone wouldn't hate Conquest.

    I think the plan WAS to get everyone to hate Conquest. Reel them in with a bit of fun and then hoodwink them with the utmost grindy feats possible. They heard we don’t like those feats and implement them similarly every time. They LOVE that we HATE Conquest. I have heard from many how the $30 battle pass sounds awfully nice instead of running the event ftp.

    Anyway returning to this topic, seems like there is ZERO incentive to whale as a new player. Unless you are going to whale out from 0 to 6M GP in a month or 2, your crystal income will not match your financial investment like it did under the old Squad Arena system. The matchmaking system will understandably settle many players at a GP threshold and thus settle their League until players grow beyond their competition ahead of them (people earning more crystals from higher leagues and progressing faster, thus widening the gap), a virtual impossibility without spending money (likely a 5-6 figure sum). This change doesn’t bring anything good for new players.

    My opinion: I dislike GAC a lot. Not a fan of this change, but I will just play GAC again and have roughly the same income simply from being a veteran player with good knowledge and squads. All I have to do is adjust my play style to GAC instead of SA. A new whale player will never reach the Leagues to match what they could have potentially earned in the old SA system unless they drop $10,000-$100,000.
  • SerWulfgar wrote: »
    If you fail to see why is a """""forced"""" 50-50 an equality of outcome, i am afraid I cannot help you.

    If Wins and Losses were all that mattered, I'd agree with you. But a Kyber 50-50 rewards much more than an Aurodium 50-50. So even if the W-L are the same, the outcome as a whole is dramatically different.
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    Also, I fail to see what makes you think that if you score 50/50 in Aurodium and magically move to Kyber you will still score 50/50.

    I doubt anyone that goes 6-6 in Aurodium moves to Kyber.
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    And if there is a potential matchup, where under any circumstances I might get matched up against ahnald for example that's hardly equal opportunity. And for the record I have better winrate than he does.

    I can't see your swgoh.gg. I will infer that you have much less GP than him. If that's the case, I fail to see how comparing your current GAC win rates is remotely relevant to this discussion.
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    Let's simplyify it for the sake of reasoning just a little bit. GAC is about placing teams on defense, then using other teams to defeat the opponent's defending teams. It seems to me that in a scenario like this having the ability to rally more troops is an advantage. Up until this very point the official argument was that higher GP rosters have to use more and more teams to keep GAC challenging for them, so I believe we can settle that higher GP equals more squads which equals advantage.

    Now we need to talk about quality, not just quantity, since the Nerf. Yes there are teams that represent higher quality (we might abbreviate them as GLs) and the more higher quality teams, the better.

    Now making an argument, like: "okay buddy, you get +1 GL, but I get +5 extra teams" is something that is worth debating. Whether that is equal opportunity is questionable, but I see some sort of idea behind it, which might need some finetuning.

    The other argument which sounds like: "okay buddy, I get +1 (+2) GL AND +6 teams

    Not really following the above. Sounds like you are talking about how to generate 50-50 matchups in the absence of a ranking system? If so, not sure how that is relevant.
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    "BUT you have beaten your previous X opponents and I have lost to all of them" is nowhere near fair argument. In fact, I find it quite stupid. So far I was doing something better than others, had my rewards for it, now I will face harder and harder opponents until I cannot compensate by skill - only by money.

    If you beat the same players someone else lost to, your ladder rating should be higher and you shouldn't get matched up. If you did, because maybe you're still in range to get matched up, one could reasonably assume you can beat the guy that lost to someone you already beat.

    To the latter part of your point (if I understand it), I don't think you deserve better rewards for beating 5M players than for beating 8M players (or even for going 50-50 against 8M players). That's just an opinion. You are welcome to have a different one.
    SerWulfgar wrote: »
    The potential counter argument that "the reward here is a higher league with higher income" is mathematically incorrect, bc potentially you may get a higher league with a lower income.

    While this economical system makes sense in a financial aspect, I have my reasons to detest it.

    I don't really know if you can get higher income in a lower league. Maybe... but I assume that you would have to be out-performing that league by a lot, and you would get promoted out of it. To get back down, you'd have to tank the next season. Is tanking Kyber than crushing Aurodium better than just 6-6 in Kyber? If so, that's on CG to fix their reward structure and is not a fatal flaw in a ladder system.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    @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.

    I for one do not think CG is in the business of making choices that dont have a bottom line where they expect it to be.

    Many want to question their choices, I get that, and some will always point to choices where "revenue dropped" and what not. Bone of that seems to have had an undesirable effect on their long term plans for where they expect the game to be. They are always trying to balance the details and make things work. We are in a period of change, but I'm sure they have plans upon plans on how to make money and attract players, and yes keep the ones they have.

    This is all a fluid situation with many moving parts, I dont think this change was made brashly and without thought or long term plans and ideas.

    CG run through 4 (maybe more) senior producers in 6 years. The direction seems to pivot with each. Hard to believe the plans are really thought out that far in advance.

    2, and we are going onto the 3rd I believe, also, I dont think you realize how little those changes effect the general long term plans.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Rebmes wrote: »
    If their decisions had been thought out in advance, everyone wouldn't hate Conquest.

    If they had started with Conquest the way it is now, things would be very different than they are right now, it's almost like they had a plan to build and change it the way they did to minimize the fall out, but maybe not.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    If their decisions had been thought out in advance, everyone wouldn't hate Conquest.

    If they had started with Conquest the way it is now, things would be very different than they are right now, it's almost like they had a plan to build and change it the way they did to minimize the fall out, but maybe not.

    This is the Conquest path of minimal fallout?

    https://media.giphy.com/media/uPnKU86sFa2fm/giphy.gif
  • DEATHER
    86 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    panetone wrote: »
    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?

    The math is this: i think shard have 20000 players, now these players gets 10000*15+5000*25... the sum of all crystal for shard is 487 750 crystal, plus shard chats rotating around 100 players and milking another 50 000, so whole shard gets around 540 000 crystal per day from arena.

    In new system even if whole 20 000 shard was in lowest league and there in lowest division, they get 55 crystal daily for nothing, so in new system whole shard gets minimum 20 000*55=1 100 000 crystal. This is at least 2 times more crystals then squad arena gives.

    If i missed something in calculation fell free to point it out and correct it.

  • Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    If their decisions had been thought out in advance, everyone wouldn't hate Conquest.

    If they had started with Conquest the way it is now, things would be very different than they are right now, it's almost like they had a plan to build and change it the way they did to minimize the fall out, but maybe not.

    Whatever their plan was, the feeling that it is terrible is near universal. They really don’t care what people say it’s sad. Nearly everyone was saying how horrible the grind was on some of the feats and they totally lied and ignored the feedback they received. They better change the plan they have right now. I just hope they won’t come on and say how everyone is engaging into and are happy so here is some more awful feats that everyone hates.
  • DEATHER wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    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?

    The math is this: i think shard have 20000 players, now these players gets 10000*15+5000*25... the sum of all crystal for shard is 487 750 crystal, plus shard chats rotating around 100 players and milking another 50 000, so whole shard gets around 540 000 crystal per day from arena.

    In new system even if whole 20 000 shard was in lowest league and there in lowest division, they get 55 crystal daily for nothing, so in new system whole shard gets minimum 20 000*55=1 100 000 crystal. This is at least 2 times more crystals then squad arena gives.

    If i missed something in calculation fell free to point it out and correct it.

    How many players are actually active in a shard though? I honestly don't know. But I'd guess for mature shards (>2 years), it's less than 1,000.

  • I don't really know if you can get higher income in a lower league. Maybe... but I assume that you would have to be out-performing that league by a lot, and you would get promoted out of it. To get back down, you'd have to tank the next season. Is tanking Kyber than crushing Aurodium better than just 6-6 in Kyber? If so, that's on CG to fix their reward structure and is not a fatal flaw in a ladder system.

    I am happy to agree to disagree regarding the previous points.

    Math behind the last part:
    With 9-3 W-L you have the best-est-est chance to get promoted (i would call it almost guaranteed), and with 8-4, you have some chance but that depends on your performance. So you make 9-3, congrats, promotion. Then you get stomped in the higher league bc now you are playing with the big guys.
    (The whole idea of scoring 6-6 in Kyber after making 9-3 in Aurodium is not really plausible for me)

    So for the daily difference you score +350 over 35 days.
    Now the whole preconcept is the league back-and-forth so I am going to assume that you will leave the league at the end of season thus you cannot really do better than 4-8, but I will say 3-9 is once again more realistic.

    So you lose 6 extra rounds (-3300 +1200 (no winreward but extra lossreward)) which also effects your end of the week rewards (-1500, and I made an assumption that you were never 0-3-d. If you get 0-3d your losses are slightly mitigated here) but those you actually win give you some extra (+150). Then at the end of the season you gain extra +230 (I took data to compare Aurodium1 Vs Kyber5)

    You are at -2870 crystals over the second set of 35 days, which is -82/day.
    These effects can be mitigated if you:
    - Made the promotion with 8-4 instead of 9-3 or better
    - Leave the league with 4-8
    - if you get promoted to a higher division temporarly
    - if you take your 8 defeats with 2 time 0-3 but the difference is still existant.

    The losses are even greater if you:
    - get the promotion with 10-2 or better rate
    - leave the league with 2-10 or worse rate
    - if you score your victories on different weeks.
    However, the better you perform in a lower league the lower the chances are that you will have to leave the higher league immediately, so the probability of this scenario is getting reduced.

    And if you decide to throw a match to avoid promotion that's -600 (1200) for you.

    Ultimately: as for now with this current system, it is better for you to play the same league than punching up every 2nd season just to get corrected by the system. I dont see this as an encouareging phenomenon.
  • DEATHER
    86 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    DEATHER wrote: »
    panetone wrote: »
    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?

    The math is this: i think shard have 20000 players, now these players gets 10000*15+5000*25... the sum of all crystal for shard is 487 750 crystal, plus shard chats rotating around 100 players and milking another 50 000, so whole shard gets around 540 000 crystal per day from arena.

    In new system even if whole 20 000 shard was in lowest league and there in lowest division, they get 55 crystal daily for nothing, so in new system whole shard gets minimum 20 000*55=1 100 000 crystal. This is at least 2 times more crystals then squad arena gives.

    If i missed something in calculation fell free to point it out and correct it.

    How many players are actually active in a shard though? I honestly don't know. But I'd guess for mature shards (>2 years), it's less than 1,000.

    Old shards with 1000 active players with 100 rotating for first, its around 100 000 crystals

    This active older players wont be at the bottom division so maybe arround middle where there is arround 115 crystal per day passive income, so its 115 000 passive daily income for them and as they are active portion of shard players there will be another income on top of that from GAC activities(even losing battles gives crystals, end of week, season rewards for minimum effort), so still much more
  • Kyno wrote: »

    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.

    Yes, all players can do it. It's just a matter of determination, choice and hmm of course money.

    With the future system, players will be stuck in their category with little chance of getting out (10%) ...

    Anyway, as another said in the thread, THANKS CG, I will finally be able to save my money for other games. No more intensive farming, no more GL to have very quickly, before the others or at least at the same time, and the best, I will be able to work between 12' and 2 p.m. instead of doing squad arena ... Really, thank you.
    Y a un n*a*z*i qui a changé mon nom sans rien me dire...
  • Kyno wrote: »

    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.

    Yes, all players can do it. It's just a matter of determination, choice and hmm of course money.

    With the future system, players will be stuck in their category with little chance of getting out (10%) ...

    Anyway, as another said in the thread, THANKS CG, I will finally be able to save my money for other games. No more intensive farming, no more GL to have very quickly, before the others or at least at the same time, and the best, I will be able to work between 12' and 2 p.m. instead of doing squad arena ... Really, thank you.

    Not even money, I am fully F2P and I went all in on grievous when he was reworked in 2019, turned that into a quick padme then a quick GAS and then JKL and JML which allowed me to get number 1 in SA for quite some time.

    Through smart decision making and roster building, I was able to go from 100+ in SA to 1-20 in about a year. This was all f2p and in a 2016 Shard. And I was also not a part of a shard mafia and was still able to take 1st easily without much of a challenge.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    @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.

    I for one do not think CG is in the business of making choices that dont have a bottom line where they expect it to be.

    Many want to question their choices, I get that, and some will always point to choices where "revenue dropped" and what not. Bone of that seems to have had an undesirable effect on their long term plans for where they expect the game to be. They are always trying to balance the details and make things work. We are in a period of change, but I'm sure they have plans upon plans on how to make money and attract players, and yes keep the ones they have.

    This is all a fluid situation with many moving parts, I dont think this change was made brashly and without thought or long term plans and ideas.

    CG run through 4 (maybe more) senior producers in 6 years. The direction seems to pivot with each. Hard to believe the plans are really thought out that far in advance.

    2, and we are going onto the 3rd I believe, also, I dont think you realize how little those changes effect the general long term plans.

    Carrie wasn't the first and Mark isn't there anymore. Presumably there was someone before Carrie and presumably someone now. That adds up to 4 or more.
  • I know it will be an unpopular opinon but, I realy like this change. This is the end for the shardchats finally. I realy hate THAT system where 30-40 people decided who will be the top 5 all day, and if they don't liked you bye bye not a chance to be in the top 100. They just gonna **** you 0/24 even out of their payout time just to stop you to get anything. /and before I will be called salty, yes I was invited to the shard but I turned them down after all the "invitation" was an ultimate "YoU do WhAt wE saY or ElSe". So I'm laughing and cheering for this change. Plus side also, I not have to be in front of my mobile for 1 hour in given time frame, I got a full day. Overeal I will be more in the plus side. I guess the shard chat players not like this but they abused the system since day 1 sooo it's over for them. One big like for this change I really like this :)
  • LordHel
    31 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    I think the idea that the GAC is the main source of income from crystals is great, but the implementation is very poor. Why not just leave the old system and distribute the crystals there?
    Then everyone had the chance to get maximum crystals, no matter when he started the game. Now the maximum crystals are exclusive for high end players. It doesn't matter if the average player gets more crystals now, if the bigger players get even more crystals. If your boss gives you a $100 raise and the others get a $300 raise, you're not happy either.
    The GAC mode was always very exciting and every time new interesting. I have often reached a top 10 place in kyber. Now when I do 2-3 rounds successfully I get matched against people who have 1 million GP and 2 GLs more? Congratulations, fun looks different.
  • LordHel wrote: »
    I think the idea that the GAC is the main source of income from crystals is great, but the implementation is very poor. Why not just leave the old system and distribute the crystals there?
    Then everyone had the chance to get maximum crystals, no matter when he started the game. Now the maximum crystals are exclusive for high end players. It doesn't matter if the average player gets more crystals now, if the bigger players get even more crystals. If your boss gives you a $100 raise and the others get a $300 raise, you're not happy either.
    The GAC mode was always very exciting and every time new interesting. I have often reached a top 10 place in kyber. Now when I do 2-3 rounds successfully I get matched against people who have 1 million GP and 2 GLs more? Congratulations, fun looks different.

    Because the old/current system is terrible. Your ranking can only be optimized by chasing ridiculous feats. Your round scores are very dependent on your opponent's strategy. And the MM is too easily manipulated.
  • SerWulfgar wrote: »

    I don't really know if you can get higher income in a lower league. Maybe... but I assume that you would have to be out-performing that league by a lot, and you would get promoted out of it. To get back down, you'd have to tank the next season. Is tanking Kyber than crushing Aurodium better than just 6-6 in Kyber? If so, that's on CG to fix their reward structure and is not a fatal flaw in a ladder system.

    I am happy to agree to disagree regarding the previous points.

    Math behind the last part:
    With 9-3 W-L you have the best-est-est chance to get promoted (i would call it almost guaranteed), and with 8-4, you have some chance but that depends on your performance. So you make 9-3, congrats, promotion. Then you get stomped in the higher league bc now you are playing with the big guys.
    (The whole idea of scoring 6-6 in Kyber after making 9-3 in Aurodium is not really plausible for me)

    So for the daily difference you score +350 over 35 days.
    Now the whole preconcept is the league back-and-forth so I am going to assume that you will leave the league at the end of season thus you cannot really do better than 4-8, but I will say 3-9 is once again more realistic.

    So you lose 6 extra rounds (-3300 +1200 (no winreward but extra lossreward)) which also effects your end of the week rewards (-1500, and I made an assumption that you were never 0-3-d. If you get 0-3d your losses are slightly mitigated here) but those you actually win give you some extra (+150). Then at the end of the season you gain extra +230 (I took data to compare Aurodium1 Vs Kyber5)

    You are at -2870 crystals over the second set of 35 days, which is -82/day.
    These effects can be mitigated if you:
    - Made the promotion with 8-4 instead of 9-3 or better
    - Leave the league with 4-8
    - if you get promoted to a higher division temporarly
    - if you take your 8 defeats with 2 time 0-3 but the difference is still existant.

    The losses are even greater if you:
    - get the promotion with 10-2 or better rate
    - leave the league with 2-10 or worse rate
    - if you score your victories on different weeks.
    However, the better you perform in a lower league the lower the chances are that you will have to leave the higher league immediately, so the probability of this scenario is getting reduced.

    And if you decide to throw a match to avoid promotion that's -600 (1200) for you.

    Ultimately: as for now with this current system, it is better for you to play the same league than punching up every 2nd season just to get corrected by the system. I dont see this as an encouareging phenomenon.

    You make a lot of assumptions about record required for promotion/demotion as well as the gap between A1 and K5. Let's put that aside for a moment.

    Here is a simple breakdown of K5 income minus A1 income (i.e. positive means more for K5).

    dh49ebdnmex8.png

    So, if you win 2 more matches in A1 than you would in K5, you'd be barely better off in A1. I don't think this runs counter to your point. I also don't think it's really up for debate. Would be happy to send you my Excel if you want to pick it apart (I make mistakes aplenty).

    If we're still in agreement, then the real questions are:
    1. What was my record in Aurodium?
    2. What will my record be in Kyber?
    3. Did I spend all of my Auro season in A1?
    4. Did I spend all my Kyber season in K5?

    Frankly, we don't know the answers to these questions yet. If you are right, and you go 8-4 in A1 and then 4-8 in K5 and keep pinging back and forth, then I would share your concerns. But that is an assumption I'm not ready to buy.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    StAugJames wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rebmes wrote: »
    If their decisions had been thought out in advance, everyone wouldn't hate Conquest.

    If they had started with Conquest the way it is now, things would be very different than they are right now, it's almost like they had a plan to build and change it the way they did to minimize the fall out, but maybe not.

    Whatever their plan was, the feeling that it is terrible is near universal. They really don’t care what people say it’s sad. Nearly everyone was saying how horrible the grind was on some of the feats and they totally lied and ignored the feedback they received. They better change the plan they have right now. I just hope they won’t come on and say how everyone is engaging into and are happy so here is some more awful feats that everyone hates.

    We can agree to disagree about what people think, feel, or care about.
  • SerWulfgar wrote: »

    I don't really know if you can get higher income in a lower league. Maybe... but I assume that you would have to be out-performing that league by a lot, and you would get promoted out of it. To get back down, you'd have to tank the next season. Is tanking Kyber than crushing Aurodium better than just 6-6 in Kyber? If so, that's on CG to fix their reward structure and is not a fatal flaw in a ladder system.

    I am happy to agree to disagree regarding the previous points.

    Math behind the last part:
    With 9-3 W-L you have the best-est-est chance to get promoted (i would call it almost guaranteed), and with 8-4, you have some chance but that depends on your performance. So you make 9-3, congrats, promotion. Then you get stomped in the higher league bc now you are playing with the big guys.
    (The whole idea of scoring 6-6 in Kyber after making 9-3 in Aurodium is not really plausible for me)

    So for the daily difference you score +350 over 35 days.
    Now the whole preconcept is the league back-and-forth so I am going to assume that you will leave the league at the end of season thus you cannot really do better than 4-8, but I will say 3-9 is once again more realistic.

    So you lose 6 extra rounds (-3300 +1200 (no winreward but extra lossreward)) which also effects your end of the week rewards (-1500, and I made an assumption that you were never 0-3-d. If you get 0-3d your losses are slightly mitigated here) but those you actually win give you some extra (+150). Then at the end of the season you gain extra +230 (I took data to compare Aurodium1 Vs Kyber5)

    You are at -2870 crystals over the second set of 35 days, which is -82/day.
    These effects can be mitigated if you:
    - Made the promotion with 8-4 instead of 9-3 or better
    - Leave the league with 4-8
    - if you get promoted to a higher division temporarly
    - if you take your 8 defeats with 2 time 0-3 but the difference is still existant.

    The losses are even greater if you:
    - get the promotion with 10-2 or better rate
    - leave the league with 2-10 or worse rate
    - if you score your victories on different weeks.
    However, the better you perform in a lower league the lower the chances are that you will have to leave the higher league immediately, so the probability of this scenario is getting reduced.

    And if you decide to throw a match to avoid promotion that's -600 (1200) for you.

    Ultimately: as for now with this current system, it is better for you to play the same league than punching up every 2nd season just to get corrected by the system. I dont see this as an encouareging phenomenon.

    You make a lot of assumptions about record required for promotion/demotion as well as the gap between A1 and K5. Let's put that aside for a moment.

    Here is a simple breakdown of K5 income minus A1 income (i.e. positive means more for K5).

    dh49ebdnmex8.png

    So, if you win 2 more matches in A1 than you would in K5, you'd be barely better off in A1. I don't think this runs counter to your point. I also don't think it's really up for debate. Would be happy to send you my Excel if you want to pick it apart (I make mistakes aplenty).

    If we're still in agreement, then the real questions are:
    1. What was my record in Aurodium?
    2. What will my record be in Kyber?
    3. Did I spend all of my Auro season in A1?
    4. Did I spend all my Kyber season in K5?

    Frankly, we don't know the answers to these questions yet. If you are right, and you go 8-4 in A1 and then 4-8 in K5 and keep pinging back and forth, then I would share your concerns. But that is an assumption I'm not ready to buy.

    After this all shakes out for a couple months what is the expected GP to get into Kyber 5?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    I can only speak for my experience, but this is what happened to me. The only time I bother fighting to win is when GAC is active with a Win X Squad Arena Battles feat. Otherwise I take my 101-200 place rewards because why bother if I’m just going to be work my **** off every day for the 100th place reward and then get yelled at because that slot belongs to someone’s friend of a friend?
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Konju
    1130 posts Member
    LordHel wrote: »
    I think the idea that the GAC is the main source of income from crystals is great, but the implementation is very poor. Why not just leave the old system and distribute the crystals there?
    Then everyone had the chance to get maximum crystals, no matter when he started the game. Now the maximum crystals are exclusive for high end players. It doesn't matter if the average player gets more crystals now, if the bigger players get even more crystals. If your boss gives you a $100 raise and the others get a $300 raise, you're not happy either.
    The GAC mode was always very exciting and every time new interesting. I have often reached a top 10 place in kyber. Now when I do 2-3 rounds successfully I get matched against people who have 1 million GP and 2 GLs more? Congratulations, fun looks different.

    Because the old/current system is terrible. Your ranking can only be optimized by chasing ridiculous feats. Your round scores are very dependent on your opponent's strategy. And the MM is too easily manipulated.

    While I don’t disagree with your assessment of the “old system”, I do not share your optimism about new matchmaking. Also after a bit of time, most people will end up staying in a League due to reaching the cap of their GP/roster/skill/activity combination. This new system will end up having a stratification of GP-based rewards and the top will simply continue to run away from the bottom (surely with some outliers) due to being ahead already.
Sign In or Register to comment.