"BobcatSkywalker;c-2089809" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2089791" wrote:
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2089749" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2088753" wrote:
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2088744" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2087584" wrote:
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2087579" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2087336" wrote:
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2087324" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2087321" wrote:
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2087315" wrote:
I make more complicated algorithms everyday for my work...a shard split algorithm isnt that hard to write... maybe they just need some competent people or maybe they just dont care that their most competitive mode is really a collusion racket of friends manipulating their system to get extra Crystal's by coordinating their payouts so they all get 1st place. Maybe if CG thought of the collusion as stealing from them they would address it.
maybe they understand that a solution like this is a bad idea because it is not fair to the entire player base and could do more harm than good to the stability of the game.
just moving people around would be very detrimental to the F2P base. I'm sure you can see this, and adding any element to keep that "fair" to them is much more complicated than just shifting players.
How is it not fair, other than because you say so. How is this detrimental to f2p?
The shards would be based on when you started playing. That's how they were built years ago so reorganizing them based on when you started playing is exactly as fair as it is now.
Currently shards are based on when you started playing.
Proposed shards being shuffled but keeping players within a couple months base of when they started playing is essentially the same exact thing but it prevents shard chats from easily forming. If anything it requires more work for people to constantly locate their shard members and set up a colluding ring before the next shuffle so it makes it harder for people to cheat the system.
Unless your saying that its not fair to take away people's ability to collude for top spots because then those same people would just quit the game and that's bad for the game because less players..... But some would counter argue that those people quitting because they can no longer collude and lock others out of top spots that would be good for the game because it removed the collusion aspect of arena.
Therefore it would actually improve the health of the game.
correct, they are based on that. Do you think all shards are the same? shards within the same month all have the same level of difficulty?
I dont think they do. There are shards with more or less players that have focused on mods, or $$ in this game. each shard even in close range to each other are unique.
it has nothing to do with collusion. it has to do with the fact that people have grown into their shard, this is especially true for old shards that were around before a lot of our current events. each player was shaped by arena as that was one of the few focal points in the game.
taking a player that can do well in one shard and throwing them into another doesn't mean they will do well there. much like meta shifts disturb the balance. if this was the way it was from the beginning then players would have developed differently, to make this change now would cause an upheaval to a main system of the game. F2P players have a harder time dealing with major shifts and changes, which is why i bring them up but it would have a similar effect on $$ players too. they have invested a certain amount that gets them to the position they want to be in. this change could devalue that, by changing their situation to now not allow them to place where they want.
the situation is different then just how the shards were built in the first place due to this growth and settling that has happened on each shard over time.
this is also one of those problems that has a massive effect on everyone, but is "fixing" (which it may not, because we all know how to find each other) a problem for "few". that is where the fairness really derives its importance.
to have a broader effectiveness on the fix, information would have to be blocked out, again adding to the headship felt by the players who can now not easily identify their targets, making the climb more difficult.
So shards were built unevenly in the first place even created within the same month. Its known some shards are easy to get first while others are packed with whales.
This was intended?
To make some players easily get a free 500 a day while others can barely make the top 100 then have them all compete against each other down the road in GAC and in TWs.
I understand people have grown into their shards and some people have gotten used to colluding and getting higher or lower payouts than they would have achieved if they had to battle people who aren't letting them win.
At some point someone said this could not be fixed and that it's too complicated.
I was simply stating that it's not very complicated to program. it could be fixed to make things more even and fair for everyone who started within a time frame.
A system many would say is better than the current system of your in a shard maybe it's hard or easy but it is what it is. Sure some would complain.
If the truth is they dont want to fix it because having some easy arenas and some hard arenas is intended then okay but leta not kid ourselves and act like this is too complicated to program or impossible to do. They could do it and it's easy to do. Thuth is they dont see any money in it so it's unlikely to happen.
I never said they couldnt do it. The problem is doing it in such a simple way changes the game drastically and could destabilize the game. That has to be a consideration due to the extensive number of players a change like this touches.
Other games have seasons and shuffles and all that stuff, they are built differently and some play them and others do not, due to those styles of game mode. To change this game mode to that would be huge, and I dont believe that would be good for the game as a whole.
I just think it takes a solution that has the most effect on the problem and the least effect on the player base. We all have to remember that this is a problem for a few, that is cause by (a bigger) few, with a solution that would probably affect everyone.
No I dont knownwhat that is, but a blind shard shuffle with no caring towards the general "fairness" would just end in disaster.
When did I ever suggest a blind shard shuffle with no caring towards general fairness?
I suggest you re read what I suggested because I specifically mentioned using start date to limit the shuffle and maintain a general fairness. One that isnt perfect but it's exactly as fair as we have now since this is how shards were built.
I dont know how you could interpret the below as a blind shard shuffle with no caring towards fairness.
"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.
Later it was even suggested to move all the first places with other first places, 2nds with 2nds, 3rd with 3rds and so on to maintain a balance among all the shards being shuffled.
You say that because you dismiss the effect this would have on players due to changes that you feel are not relevant.
- condensing players in the same hour
- % of p2p vs f2p changing
A shard shuffle will not condense players all in the same hour of payout as you falsely claim.
Sure it's possible there might be more people at that payout (condensed payout). But its EQUALLY possible there are less people at your payout after the shuffle!!!!
So you mise will be arguing that a shard shuffle will make it easier because there will be less people in your payout time. The probability is the same.
Same applies to the % of f2p and p2w - they are what they are in the game. A shuffle may make a shard more p2w but it just as likely could make that shard more f2p.
Your arguing only one side of the coin only that's misleading and severly biased especially for the forum moderator.
Clearly you have an alterior motive because you frame the changes a shuffle would make in the most negative light possible while ignoring the equally likely positive aspect of the proposed change..
Your bias speaks loud and clear.
You are correct it would change the density of each hour, sorry I will use that wording from now on so we can agree that it will change how the arena is structured for players.
do you disagree that changing those factors that players have settled into will make arena different (easier or harder) depending on each change?
who do you think this will effect the most? most likely this will be F2P players who are always going to be less flexible.
I dont think that all hours are spread out evenly, so we will have to disagree that it is equally possible for it to be condensed or spread out.
as a general statement there is no "even distribution" and therefore any change does not have equal changes of making it easier or harder. my argument is not biased, it is just not simplified to the same degree you wish to, to make your solution sound like it will work. There are more factors than you wish to contend with, but its too difficult to do that, so you choose to simplify it.
The point is that any change of this nature would change the layout in shards, some easier some harder, but as the harder changes drive people away due to increased difficulty to get income, then it leads to a spiral that each swap is harder and harder until more and more players leave. This could end up with a "shard issue" that cause them to have an over active shard, like the ship shard. without considering other factors that you choose to say "dont matter" how do you prevent this?
You speak to me have a bias, I am just not blinded by a simplistic argument that "those factors dont matter" because they do. The player base at large would suffer greatly from a system like this, and in the end that is what matters.
We can disagree on the overall impact because I beleive the player base at large would benefit because there would not be a mafia controlling the top payouts of almost every shard.
That mafia controlling who gets Crystal's is more detrimental to the game than worrying about an increase of 6pm payout times. Lots of people quit after getting on the bad side of a mafia because the mafia locks them out of the I come they need to remain competitive.
Payout tines can easily be changed. Its ridiculous to say condensing payout times is even a real issue because 1) if it condenses one payout hour is makes another hour less dense and 2) people can change their payout times.
As far as having a whale shard well that wont happen unless CG puts all the top 20 of all shards in one shard which is extremely dumb but they may do it. Anyways that's not what I suggested to do. They should move 1st place with 1st place 2nd with 2nd and so on mixing up shards but keeping them within the same range of time when players started playing.
This 1st for 1st and 2nd for 2nd swapping would not make any shard more top heavy over time. This kind of distribution will actually equalize all shards over a given date range and prevent the massive whale fleet shard from happening in arena. This type of re distribution can be proven to equalize and it is a known fact if you have any background in statistics or number theory this kind of shuffle actually disperses concentrations rather than create them. That's a fact based on math, not a matter of opinion.
In the end your arguing for a system to preserve a shard mafia and framing it as if cg removed the collusion that removal would be detrimental to players.
Be honest and specific. Say what it is.
your arguing for a system to preserve a shard mafia and framing it as if they removed the collusion that would be detrimental to the players in those mafias.
Please tell me when I was arguing for any system involving shard chats? I just think that any solution should have minimal effect on the player base at large. because chats rarely have any effect on players outside of the top 50-100, but this solution would effect them all.
I'm sorry if my concern reaches to more of the player base than is affected by this problem, but it does. I have never said they should allow or keep shard chats. I just think any solution should be fair to the player base as a whole, don't you?
again, the problem effects a small % (the players pushed out by chats) , but the solution against chats (again a small % of the base) reaches out and affects every player. it should be fair to all the players, and should do its best ot only "negatively" effect these chats, by reducing/removing their effect on others.
not agreeing with an unfair solution to all =/= arguing to keep the current system
some responses to other lines you have there:
- we only have 2 PO changes a year, I think you had mentioned doing this monthly
- the long term effect of "evening out" if players are driven away is an increased level of difficulty, since the ones that will be left will be more competitive or at least more effecting at dealing with these changes. as I have said, this would be driving us to a different game mode than the one we have all settled into which would drive away players.
Capital Games Team
