Adjustments to the Crystal League

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Who are cgvg made for? Why on castle 5 timeslots, in cgvg 3 timeslots and that inconvenient?
    Make 5 timeslots for L1-3, put a limit on lvlup territories per day, make a better prime time (for example, 20 UTC is too late for Europe, add 16 and 19 UTC).
    What is now in the table is unplayable.
  • Thank you all for your feedback and happy new year!

    We have put a lot of thought into your replies and went over all of them. There were many great ideas that we will keep in mind.
    Crystal League will develop over the coming seasons, as participation and demand will show us how to adapt.

    Here are the final adjustments:

    Time Slot Adjustments:
    The NA time slot has been moved forward by one hour to 2 UTC to avoid overlap with the prime time slot.
    Time slots for Levels 1-4 are now:
    • 02 UTC
    • 13 UTC
    • 20 UTC
    The calendar has been updated: here

    Softcap Adjustments:
    All Soft Caps have been upped to 80% again.

    LevelItempower CapSoft Cap

    Hope you guys have a great week!
  • Seldom wrote:

    Thank you all for your feedback and happy new year!

    We have put a lot of thought into your replies and went over all of them. There were many great ideas that we will keep in mind.
    Crystal League will develop over the coming seasons, as participation and demand will show us how to adapt.

    Here are the final adjustments:


    While I'm glad that you guys aren't dismissing those of us that asked for more than more than 1 match per day, per timeslot, I'm confident that there is already substantial evidence to show that participation in crystal leagues as currently incarnated are low. In fact, this information is publicly available:
    Last night, January 7, there were 18 matches played across all of Albion in the 2 UTC timezone, for CGvGs.

    Sure, the new CGvG system in Queen will have substantial changes, most of them for the better.
    But we are also losing all of the GvG matches, which were the extremely high stakes reason why many of us started to use CGvGs as practice (for the real battles), in the first instance.

    You could interpret this as leaving open the question as to whether or not there would be sufficient enough interest to run a daily, 3 match tournament, in a specific timeslot. However, we can safely theorize that opening up CGvGs to individuals without owning a territory, removing the "alliance only" restriction on participation, and lowering the entry level IPs will at least play a positive role on participation levels.

    Factors that favor lower participation is the reality that 5 Man GvGs are no longer the key to territory control. Being a skilled GvGer not only previously provided direct rewards in the form of CGvG payouts, and loot from your fallen opponents, but it also provided tons of secondary benefits when you are GvG competitive, such as siphoned energy and season points from controlling territories, and valuable access to resource terries, farm terries, and home terries. These days your rewards are almost entirely quantified in the CGvG rewards themselves, the only secondary benefit is a buff for your guild's territory. The reduction in prestige and frank necessity for a land-holding clan to run a GvG team will probably have some downward effect on the prevalence of CGvG participation.

    So, can we do better to both improve overall CGvG participation, and more important, increase the fun that people have while participating in CGvGs? Resoundingly, we can.
    A tournament system that runs 3 matches back to back in 20 time minute windows is a trivial time commitment compared to the organizational overhead necessary to put together and coordinate a decent 5v5 team. It means that players will be more likely to have a mixed night of wins and losses (less likely to play 1 team and get absolutely stomped, either by mismatch of skill or comp matchup, thereby souring desire for further participation), and it means that participation in CGvGs will be more substantial than 7-20 minutes total per day of play.

    This form of play will also be substantially more interesting to stream, and for viewers to watch. A variety of matchups, teams, and personalities, will undoubtedly be more interesting to view than a simple team vs team, one off. This is *exactly* why Hellgate streaming is as popular as it is. CGvG could, and should, be a more streamlined and higher stakes variant of that same experience.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Svenblade ().

  • Why not just add in more opportunities to participate. This is really limited. It's going to be 10 minutes of content once a day at an inconvenient time. They should be run once every hour or two, and the levels should be staggered, so you can do level 1,2,3 one after the other if you win each fight or buy the token.
  • They are not spaced out, levels 1-4 happen at the same time so that you don't end up with top teams playing in the lower ends of the bracket beating up on new 5v5 players, which is fun for absolutely nobody
    IGN: DungeonRealms
    Founded Elevate
    Won Season 9
    #1 Locus Kill Fame
    Held 6 cities till SBI deleted them :/
  • 1 cgvg in day vs randoms. i see now why so many 5 vs 5 players leave this game. and will leave more. when i buy this game for 100 dollars it was game about hg and gvg. now it will game with perma 2 greater holy 3 melee HGs ( SBI cant fix 2 healer for years) and stupid like arena 1 cvg in day vs random guys from carleon. thx NO !!!! i dont deserve this EPIC content.
  • 80% IP cap is a step in the good direction but i actually think the worst part of this new CGvG league is the lack of content for levels 4+. Why should it be 1/week, 1/month or 1/ season?

    Just make the level 4+ give less season points and set them all to at least 6 or 8 time slots every day for every level.

    To ensure that every level have enough traffic DO NOT force people to start from levels 1-3 every time after losing but give them a token of one level below so they can go back to a level they already won before and try to do it again to get the next level token one more time and try again.

    It would be like this:

    -Level 1: Winners get level 2 toneks. Lossers get nothing.
    -Level 2: Winners get level 3 toneks. Lossers get level 1 tokens
    -Level 3: Winners get level 4 tokens. Lossers get level 2 tokens
    -Level 4: Winners get level 5 toneks. Lossers get level 3 tokens
    -Level 5: Winners get level 6 toneks. Lossers get level 4 tokens
    -Level 6: Winners get level 7 toneks. Lossers get level 5 tokens
    -Level 7: Winners get level 8 toneks. Lossers get level 6 tokens
    -Level 8: Winners get level 9 toneks. Lossers get level 7 tokens
    -Level 9: Winners get a relatively bigger amount of season points and Lossers get level 8 tokens.