"MaruMaru;c-2087063" wrote:"Waqui;c-2087056" wrote:"MaruMaru;c-2087047" wrote:"Waqui;c-2087045" wrote:"MaruMaru;c-2087037" wrote:"Waqui;c-2087036" wrote:"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.
These are not remotely the same problems. I have no idea how they divided the infamous fleet shard, from furthers reports from people on the divided shards...the problem didn't fade.
In terms of finding a fair solution it's not much different. If you can move a low number of players - or even just a single player - in a fair way you can also move more players in a fair way."MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:
Anyway, you can divide a shard in two by a superbly simple logic. Just make a snapshot of players at some random time, put the even numbers in one shard and odd in another. That way you maintain the status quo while reducing the extremity of high end players on each.
Agreed."MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:
What's the paradigm you would go with if you were to shuffle shards and maintain some resemblence of fairness?
I'm not saying there's a fair solution. I certainly don't have a fair solution myself. But there's a solution which is just as fair (or unfair) as what was done with that fleet shard."MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:
Whatever scheme you can think of, will it solve the problem of collusion that this whole discussion stems from or does it merely shuffle the colluding parties?
If a shard shuffle was to solve the "problem" of collusion (I personaly don't see shard chats as a problem) it would have to be repeated very often and you need to ensure that each shuffle will result in different top end players being put together in each shard. In my opinion it would be terrible.
If shard chats is not the problem, is there a problem that calls for any change in shard structure whether easy to implement or not?
In my opinion there isn't but that's not the point.
Ok, I don't follow the point then.
You'll see the point back where this part of the discussion started:"Waqui;c-2086775" wrote:"Kyno;c-2086743" wrote:"BobcatSkywalker;c-2086741" wrote:"ZAP;c-2086728" wrote:"BlackIrish;c-2086727" wrote:
I'm against shard mafias. I don't think EA does enough or anything to discourage or stop them.
Do you have any suggestions on how CG could stop it?
Random shard shuffle monthly. But keep limit the movement so people are always in a shard with others who started within the same 60 days to prevent new players from getting matched in shards with 4yr old accounts would help.
If people start setting up monthly shard chats then do the shuffle weekly. It can be a auto run job on their servers and takes 0 effort once set up.
how do you handle the regrouping? what order are they placed in?
CG could do it in a similar way as when they split up that one fleet shard. If they found a fair way to do it back then, they can also find a way to shuffle shards.
My response to Kyno's question. For some reason it spawn several responses.
Ok, I tried to address that in my first response to you. Whatever method they used for shard split, it's not the same with shard shuffling. Shard breaking doesn't introduce anyone new into the equation.
"MaruMaru;c-2087063" wrote:
All the shard breaking experience shows is that it's technically possible to move someone from a shard, just like it's technically possible to multiply the stats of a toon by 10.
"MaruMaru;c-2087063" wrote:
Shard shuffling would be more similar to matchmaking which we know has always been a glorious problem.
"Talifer;c-2087080" wrote:
It would probably be simpler to just change the payout to highest rank achieved today and possibly remove the timer between retries. Just allow people to make an uninterrupted (not 100%) run and be done. The downside, for CG, would be that more rewards would probably be handed out but this could always come under the "easing the gear grind" promise. Trouble is profit comes way higher than customer satisfaction for CG.
"MaruMaru;c-2087086" wrote:"Waqui;c-2087082" wrote:"MaruMaru;c-2087063" wrote:"Waqui;c-2087056" wrote:"MaruMaru;c-2087047" wrote:"Waqui;c-2087045" wrote:"MaruMaru;c-2087037" wrote:"Waqui;c-2087036" wrote:"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.
These are not remotely the same problems. I have no idea how they divided the infamous fleet shard, from furthers reports from people on the divided shards...the problem didn't fade.
In terms of finding a fair solution it's not much different. If you can move a low number of players - or even just a single player - in a fair way you can also move more players in a fair way."MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:
Anyway, you can divide a shard in two by a superbly simple logic. Just make a snapshot of players at some random time, put the even numbers in one shard and odd in another. That way you maintain the status quo while reducing the extremity of high end players on each.
Agreed."MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:
What's the paradigm you would go with if you were to shuffle shards and maintain some resemblence of fairness?
I'm not saying there's a fair solution. I certainly don't have a fair solution myself. But there's a solution which is just as fair (or unfair) as what was done with that fleet shard."MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:
Whatever scheme you can think of, will it solve the problem of collusion that this whole discussion stems from or does it merely shuffle the colluding parties?
If a shard shuffle was to solve the "problem" of collusion (I personaly don't see shard chats as a problem) it would have to be repeated very often and you need to ensure that each shuffle will result in different top end players being put together in each shard. In my opinion it would be terrible.
If shard chats is not the problem, is there a problem that calls for any change in shard structure whether easy to implement or not?
In my opinion there isn't but that's not the point.
Ok, I don't follow the point then.
You'll see the point back where this part of the discussion started:"Waqui;c-2086775" wrote:"Kyno;c-2086743" wrote:"BobcatSkywalker;c-2086741" wrote:"ZAP;c-2086728" wrote:"BlackIrish;c-2086727" wrote:
I'm against shard mafias. I don't think EA does enough or anything to discourage or stop them.
Do you have any suggestions on how CG could stop it?
Random shard shuffle monthly. But keep limit the movement so people are always in a shard with others who started within the same 60 days to prevent new players from getting matched in shards with 4yr old accounts would help.
If people start setting up monthly shard chats then do the shuffle weekly. It can be a auto run job on their servers and takes 0 effort once set up.
how do you handle the regrouping? what order are they placed in?
CG could do it in a similar way as when they split up that one fleet shard. If they found a fair way to do it back then, they can also find a way to shuffle shards.
My response to Kyno's question. For some reason it spawn several responses.
Ok, I tried to address that in my first response to you. Whatever method they used for shard split, it's not the same with shard shuffling. Shard breaking doesn't introduce anyone new into the equation.
With regards to fairness the issues with shard shuffling are the exact same as with breaking up that fleet shard.
Doesn't introduce anyone new into the equation? How so? The players that were removed from that fleet shard were introduced into other fleet shards (at least that's how I understood what Kyno wrote)"MaruMaru;c-2087063" wrote:
All the shard breaking experience shows is that it's technically possible to move someone from a shard, just like it's technically possible to multiply the stats of a toon by 10.
It also shows that CG found a solution for moving people between shards which in their opinion had an acceptable level of fairness."MaruMaru;c-2087063" wrote:
Shard shuffling would be more similar to matchmaking which we know has always been a glorious problem.
Matchmaking is completely different from shard shuffling. Matchmaking doesn't affect your current rank and doesn't affect which payouts your competitors have. Shard shuffling may.
As far as I understood about that particular fleet shard, it was just broken in two.
"srwhitewvu;d-226674" wrote:
To have an arena shard and coordinate hitting non shard members down so that only shard members can reach top 5? These guys are instantaneously licking non shard members out just to be jerks. They are not letting people in their shard either. I feel like this is very much against the spirit of the game.
"ZAP;c-2084621" wrote:"srwhitewvu;d-226674" wrote:
To have an arena shard and coordinate hitting non shard members down so that only shard members can reach top 5? These guys are instantaneously licking non shard members out just to be jerks. They are not letting people in their shard either. I feel like this is very much against the spirit of the game.
Just curious, even if it was against TOS, which it isn’t, how would CG be able to prevent coordination outside the game?
Serious question
"DarjeloSalas;c-2087148" wrote:"Scuttlebutt;c-2087140" wrote:"ZAP;c-2084621" wrote:"srwhitewvu;d-226674" wrote:
To have an arena shard and coordinate hitting non shard members down so that only shard members can reach top 5? These guys are instantaneously licking non shard members out just to be jerks. They are not letting people in their shard either. I feel like this is very much against the spirit of the game.
Just curious, even if it was against TOS, which it isn’t, how would CG be able to prevent coordination outside the game?
Serious question
Shard shuffle to break up existing chats. Remove names and any other identifying marks from arena selection so people can’t find each other outside of the game. Prevent in game messages from being sent through arena so people can’t contact each other inside the game.
It’s early, but this post is my nomination for the least reasonable suggestion of April 2020. Hard to imagine it being beaten.
The existence of shard chats is a direct consequence of the arena payout structure. It is in everyone’s interests to get as high as they can within their payout slot. Knowing when others have their payout slot helps.
If you removed names and other identifying marks (presumably you mean guild name) how on earth would anyone know who they were battling?
"Magruffin;c-2087138" wrote:
This whole topic makes me sick. Any other game or sport where ppl coluding to rig the top brackets of competition (which defeats the whole idea of fair competition) would be booted/banned/punished.
"TVF;c-2087174" wrote:
The only thing worse than the current system is every other alternative system people propose.
Capital Games Team
