I don’t like you cos your feat’s too big
Am I alone in finding GAC feats irritating, infantilising and tedious? I like GAC. I like fighting and I’ve enjoyed the challenge of 3 v 3 to try different teams & strategies. What I find pointless is having to combine those strategies with asinine (and boringly repetitive) challenges. It’s enough for me to work out how to beat your g13 GG team or whatever without having to do it wearing a particular pair of underpants while whistling a De Souza march... I know it’s a trading card game based on a kids’ show but can we sometimes indulge our own conceits and pretend to be grown ups?
(Full disclosure - OP slightly disgruntled about missing Kyber by 300 or so points & regretting they didn’t bother with pointless etc feats)
(Full disclosure - OP slightly disgruntled about missing Kyber by 300 or so points & regretting they didn’t bother with pointless etc feats)
3
- 61.6K General Discussion
- -35 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.7K Arena and Character Strategy
- 3.2K Individual Events
- 5.5K Guild Events
- 4.7K PVP and Rivalry
- 51K Guild Recruitment
- 751 Art and Media
- 4.2K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
Given I usually 1v3 with my Malak, DR, etc
That's exactly what makes it a feat if manage to do all that.
I would rather have them than Not have them and I often find the titles and combinations at least amusing. Thanks CG
Missed kyber by 2 points. First time I ever missed. Sitting here thinking about all the mistakes I made over the last month. Wishing those feats weren't resistance or FO...since I have neither.
You didn't mention having a problem with the generic ones, like winning X arena battles or whatever. So your issue seems to boil down to "I don't like feats I can't accomplish." The solution is to work on your roster so that you can accomplish them. Not remove them all together because you weren't able.
And your complaint that they're repetitive is pretty disingenuous. Only the generic ones have to be done multiple times. The ones that require a specific team need only be done once. I only used my Resistance ships once for that feat, I use Finn/Poe/Trooper pretty often because that's a good team but only needed them once for their feat. The feats you seem to have a problem with aren't repetitive.
Yeah, I forgot about that one. The point stands, though, because each instance of using the ships resulted in one completed feat.
Not really. I don’t like any of them (well it’s a pretty mild animus to be honest, however...) - it seems counterintuitive to talk about rosters here. If I win in the fights but don’t get feats is my roster bad? Conversely if I bomb in the fights but nail every feat have I got a good roster? I would prefer the test of GAC to be more purely based on winning fights - it’s a combat mode after all.
But like I said, it doesn’t exercise me that much.
I mean. It’s pretty pure as is.
I finished 1944 in division 1 aurodium. Without feats I’d likely be tied with a lot of others who had my same record (I don’t remember, let’s say 7-5) so you need something to break up all those scores. Why not have feats? Feats represent extra difficulty taken on voluntarily. They represent broader, more diverse rosters. If someone could get 12 kills with Veteran Smugglers and I couldn’t, why don’t they get something extra out of it? They did combats that were harder while I chose ones that were easier. Give them some points.
What do feats (or any part of the game) have to do with perceived level of maturity? Real head-scratcher here.
Anyway, don't do them if you don't want to. Problem solved.
I don't jeopardize match wins for feats but I do check them regularly and work them in to my plans where possible.
The undersized squad feats in particular have pushed me to up my game and learn where and how I can win fights shorthanded, something I very rarely used to attempt.
Darth Revan is great for 1v3
The solution here is to not throw away the win for a feat worth fewer points. And if you're losing the matches anyway, feats shouldn't make it so everyone gets kyber regardless of win/loss ratio, else there is no point in it.