Can you climb to top 20 these days without spending crystals?

"TVF;c-2096271" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;d-228071" wrote:
My shard is 5 years old so I have some stiff competition.

There's no way to correlate this. The older the shard is, the more people that will have quit.

That is logically unsound. The idea is based in players having the ability to improve rosters with time, continuously. The evidence for it is in the top 100 ranks' rosters. They have multiple meta teams and years of investing.

There are often reasonable things to apply the "there is no real data to support that" to but then there are things that logically don't need supporting data sets to allow a reasonable conclusion.

You are right that more people will have quit. You are wrong in not acknowledging survival of the fittest applies to shard competiton, and with 5 years to develop rosters they are pretty fit. The only advantage my 1.5 years off seems to have given me is that I didn't bloat my roster too bad with unnecessary teams besides Jawas. I made a few mistakes but none that cause me to lose GAC. Almost all rounds I lose are mistakes on my part in the battles

"Dal_Zuba;c-2096285" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2096154" wrote:
I set myself a budget of 150 crystals for both arenas. some days I use it, but usually only 100, others I dont spend any. Lately those days are lower, too many active in my fleet so need a 50 to make the whole climb.

arena, is more rare to spend the 50, but it still happens.

I hate fleet but any time Kyno is in my range, I “try” and drop him :D

good to know i'm still making friends.

"Dal_Zuba;c-2096285" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2096154" wrote:
I set myself a budget of 150 crystals for both arenas. some days I use it, but usually only 100, others I dont spend any. Lately those days are lower, too many active in my fleet so need a 50 to make the whole climb.

arena, is more rare to spend the 50, but it still happens.

I hate fleet but any time Kyno is in my range, I “try” and drop him :D

Do or do not, there is no try.

"Mephisto_style;c-2096346" wrote:

"TVF;c-2096271" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;d-228071" wrote:
My shard is 5 years old so I have some stiff competition.

There's no way to correlate this. The older the shard is, the more people that will have quit.

That is logically unsound. The idea is based in players having the ability to improve rosters with time, continuously. The evidence for it is in the top 100 ranks' rosters. They have multiple meta teams and years of investing.

There are often reasonable things to apply the "there is no real data to support that" to but then there are things that logically don't need supporting data sets to allow a reasonable conclusion.

You are right that more people will have quit. You are wrong in not acknowledging survival of the fittest applies to shard competiton, and with 5 years to develop rosters they are pretty fit. The only advantage my 1.5 years off seems to have given me is that I didn't bloat my roster too bad with unnecessary teams besides Jawas. I made a few mistakes but none that cause me to lose GAC. Almost all rounds I lose are mistakes on my part in the battles

We have people in our shard chat that are constantly in the top 5 that one day say "nah, I'm done." Everybody quits one day, and the older the shard, the more likely that that the some of the top players will also do so. Shrug.

"TVF;c-2096408" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;c-2096346" wrote:

"TVF;c-2096271" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;d-228071" wrote:
My shard is 5 years old so I have some stiff competition.

There's no way to correlate this. The older the shard is, the more people that will have quit.

That is logically unsound. The idea is based in players having the ability to improve rosters with time, continuously. The evidence for it is in the top 100 ranks' rosters. They have multiple meta teams and years of investing.

There are often reasonable things to apply the "there is no real data to support that" to but then there are things that logically don't need supporting data sets to allow a reasonable conclusion.

You are right that more people will have quit. You are wrong in not acknowledging survival of the fittest applies to shard competiton, and with 5 years to develop rosters they are pretty fit. The only advantage my 1.5 years off seems to have given me is that I didn't bloat my roster too bad with unnecessary teams besides Jawas. I made a few mistakes but none that cause me to lose GAC. Almost all rounds I lose are mistakes on my part in the battles

We have people in our shard chat that are constantly in the top 5 that one day say "nah, I'm done." Everybody quits one day, and the older the shard, the more likely that that the some of the top players will also do so. Shrug.

I will be here until they turn the lights off on me. I'm no quitter.

"Kyno;c-2096445" wrote:

"TVF;c-2096408" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;c-2096346" wrote:

"TVF;c-2096271" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;d-228071" wrote:
My shard is 5 years old so I have some stiff competition.

There's no way to correlate this. The older the shard is, the more people that will have quit.

That is logically unsound. The idea is based in players having the ability to improve rosters with time, continuously. The evidence for it is in the top 100 ranks' rosters. They have multiple meta teams and years of investing.

There are often reasonable things to apply the "there is no real data to support that" to but then there are things that logically don't need supporting data sets to allow a reasonable conclusion.

You are right that more people will have quit. You are wrong in not acknowledging survival of the fittest applies to shard competiton, and with 5 years to develop rosters they are pretty fit. The only advantage my 1.5 years off seems to have given me is that I didn't bloat my roster too bad with unnecessary teams besides Jawas. I made a few mistakes but none that cause me to lose GAC. Almost all rounds I lose are mistakes on my part in the battles

We have people in our shard chat that are constantly in the top 5 that one day say "nah, I'm done." Everybody quits one day, and the older the shard, the more likely that that the some of the top players will also do so. Shrug.

I will be here until they turn the lights off on me. I'm no quitter.

You'll have to quit once they turn the lights off.

"TVF;c-2096446" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2096445" wrote:

"TVF;c-2096408" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;c-2096346" wrote:

"TVF;c-2096271" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;d-228071" wrote:
My shard is 5 years old so I have some stiff competition.

There's no way to correlate this. The older the shard is, the more people that will have quit.

That is logically unsound. The idea is based in players having the ability to improve rosters with time, continuously. The evidence for it is in the top 100 ranks' rosters. They have multiple meta teams and years of investing.

There are often reasonable things to apply the "there is no real data to support that" to but then there are things that logically don't need supporting data sets to allow a reasonable conclusion.

You are right that more people will have quit. You are wrong in not acknowledging survival of the fittest applies to shard competiton, and with 5 years to develop rosters they are pretty fit. The only advantage my 1.5 years off seems to have given me is that I didn't bloat my roster too bad with unnecessary teams besides Jawas. I made a few mistakes but none that cause me to lose GAC. Almost all rounds I lose are mistakes on my part in the battles

We have people in our shard chat that are constantly in the top 5 that one day say "nah, I'm done." Everybody quits one day, and the older the shard, the more likely that that the some of the top players will also do so. Shrug.

I will be here until they turn the lights off on me. I'm no quitter.

You'll have to quit once they turn the lights off.

the old, it wasn't the fall, but the ground that killed them....got it. i'll keep playing, the game just wont work. :wink:

I just about m for top 50 with no refreshes.. shrug

"TVF;c-2096408" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;c-2096346" wrote:

"TVF;c-2096271" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;d-228071" wrote:
My shard is 5 years old so I have some stiff competition.

There's no way to correlate this. The older the shard is, the more people that will have quit.

That is logically unsound. The idea is based in players having the ability to improve rosters with time, continuously. The evidence for it is in the top 100 ranks' rosters. They have multiple meta teams and years of investing.

There are often reasonable things to apply the "there is no real data to support that" to but then there are things that logically don't need supporting data sets to allow a reasonable conclusion.

You are right that more people will have quit. You are wrong in not acknowledging survival of the fittest applies to shard competiton, and with 5 years to develop rosters they are pretty fit. The only advantage my 1.5 years off seems to have given me is that I didn't bloat my roster too bad with unnecessary teams besides Jawas. I made a few mistakes but none that cause me to lose GAC. Almost all rounds I lose are mistakes on my part in the battles

We have people in our shard chat that are constantly in the top 5 that one day say "nah, I'm done." Everybody quits one day, and the older the shard, the more likely that that the some of the top players will also do so. Shrug.

I don't think I will like a lack of challenge, but 75 crystals per day is getting old from squad.

"TVF;c-2096271" wrote:

"Mephisto_style;d-228071" wrote:
My shard is 5 years old so I have some stiff competition.

There's no way to correlate this. The older the shard is, the more people that will have quit.

And we all know it's the best players that quit ,therefore making old shards easy ;).