[MEGA] State of the Galaxy: November 2021

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2318472" wrote:

"Nauros;c-2318361" wrote:

"Vitalii;c-2318357" wrote:
It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

Wait, the "first attack" means that the first one to attack gets it? I interpreted it as each player getting the points for their first attack regardless of when it happens.

So did I. Based on the table it is presented in, I assume you are correct. It says, "awarded to EACH player once per round." If only one player got it, "each" is a very poor choice of words.

Yeas, its mechanic to allow low GP player to defeat inactive high gp which will not engage in this mod so his autodeploy will not block you. You get 10 points for lost attack, he gets 0 for no show and its win for low go player, this way inactive players will drop to bottom divisions and wont be blocking active players

"Nauros;c-2318412" wrote:
Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2318470" wrote:

"Vitalii;c-2318357" wrote:
It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

Almost certainly not. They already give max clear points for unfilled slots. Why would they remove this feature?

They are completely reworking the system. We know how well that works. There is nothing in the article that says this. I am sure this will come up in the Q&A and I hope they will have a good answer.

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.

With escalated TWs and Conquest modes GAC seems to take too much time (not to fall behind) when you are TW officer and have job, family and kids. Sad to see the game moving into even more time-consuming direction for nerds with loads of free time. Hope it's gonna be justified financially for devs.

"Magruffin;c-2318440" wrote:
I've slogged through over a year around 500 in SA while building up towards my first gl (all ftp), now that Ihave jml i'm actually in contention for being in top 100 cg is going to kill purples. Great..... meanwhile myself and 75% of the opponents I face in gac just do auto defense and leave it.
This is another in a series of really bad decisions cg.

If you just set an autodefense every time, then soon you're only going to face people who only set autodefenses. For the rest of us, after the initial sorting period, people who auto will be at the bottom and we won't be matched against them.

People keep beinging up stuff like autodefenses or sandbagging or whatever without actually thinking through the consequences. Sandbag? You're reducing your rewards. Autodefense? Reducing rewards. Facing autodefenses? Those players tend to lose, so after a while you will have separated and won't see them. Lower rewards "in general?" You aren't "in general."

I was hoping the removal of 3v3s was going to be a part of this. Bummer. Looks like my rank's gonna be dropping those months

"Sithlords_Inc;c-2318462" wrote:

"ShaggyB;c-2318459" wrote:

"Sithlords_Inc;c-2318388" wrote:

"LordDirt;c-2318002" wrote:
So with no meta what is there to chase? Now I can collect at mu own pace and just play the game for free. How does this help CG?

Because now every new character will be "meta". Just look at the new Maquees theive been releasing for example. Theyre not needed for Squad Arena, but for GA youre going to have a big advantage if you have them. The days of chasing one team is over, and now we have to chase all of them.

Or none of them and you just get it when you get it.

It does make panic farming a thing of the past

Cant you say the exact same thing about GLs?

Sure i can.

But i have them all currently. Your mileage may vary.

"Nauros;c-2318485" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2318479" wrote:

"Nauros;c-2318412" wrote:
Given some time to think, I see the biggest pitfall in the matchmaking. There are two important parameters, GP and win/loss ratio, and they are not exactly correlated. Two players can have the same win/loss but wildly different GP. Over time, a lot of players across GP will gravitate towards 1:1 w/l, and it will be pure hell. Imagine facing players selected randomly from the entire GP range. Unless, of course, the matchmaking isn't as independent on GP as they claim.

The GP only affects initial seeding. After that, it's not considered. Only our skill rating matters, which is based on performance. If your skill rating is too high, you'll lose more than you win until you settle into the right spot. If you improve your roster suddenly, you should get some easy wins until your skill rating increases appropriately.

I know all this. My point is that the same skill rating is achievable with wildly different GP. If you fight your peers and win constantly, you will get the same rating as someone who keeps winning against their peers but at double your GP. Or half. It will be a pure coin toss at that point, assuming that the matchmaking really is independent on GP.

And how is that different from Squad Arena? I have 7m gp because I've been playing for years. But new Arena shards are made every day. Someone who just started playing a month ago can still be #1 on their leaderboard by virtue of the fact that it consists ONLY of players who started playing a month ago.

"nottenst;c-2318481" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2318470" wrote:

"Vitalii;c-2318357" wrote:
It looks like that with these changes if I put no defence and then make a full clear I will get a win. Even if I will not win several battles from the first attempt. Ratio is easy:
1. I will get first attack, as my opponent will not face squads on my side of the field
2. I will get points got defeating units on his side of the field and my opponent will not

Almost certainly not. They already give max clear points for unfilled slots. Why would they remove this feature?

They are completely reworking the system. We know how well that works. There is nothing in the article that says this. I am sure this will come up in the Q&A and I hope they will have a good answer.

They aren't going to detail every element that is unchanged. Come on, the post is about changes. If they said nothing about a feature, the base assumption should be that the feature is unchanged.

Heck, they didn't say the game would still be playable in the US. Maybe all US players are getting banned /s