I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked.
They proved you wrong. In case you forgot what you claimed here's your OP:
I have been playing this game from the beginning. Why. WHY are you pairing non GL rosters with GL rosters in GAC. It is impossible! I'm raging and proud of it because I'm right. Come at me you cowards! WHY?!
No, you're not right. You're wrong. You're also wrong when you claim that you can't catch up. You can always stop making choices that hurt your match-up and slowly improve your roster and your performance in GAC. It will take time. The deeper you dug your hole the longer time it will take to climb back up. However, it's doable. Keep digging or start climbing back up - it's your choice.
Incorrect. Nobody proved me wrong, and just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up does nothing.
Check the quoted comments. You've been wrong from your very first post. @ImaSmakya was kind enough to provide the evidence. Denying it makes you look silly.
I have read every comment and I have not been proven wrong. I have refuted every attempt to do this.
Disagreeing with my first post comes down to opinion. You can call something evidence or say my opinions are wrong, but that's just you.
You think it's silly to speak up for what you believe?
ImaSmakya provided hard, irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. You were wrong before and you still are.
I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked.
They proved you wrong. In case you forgot what you claimed here's your OP:
I have been playing this game from the beginning. Why. WHY are you pairing non GL rosters with GL rosters in GAC. It is impossible! I'm raging and proud of it because I'm right. Come at me you cowards! WHY?!
No, you're not right. You're wrong. You're also wrong when you claim that you can't catch up. You can always stop making choices that hurt your match-up and slowly improve your roster and your performance in GAC. It will take time. The deeper you dug your hole the longer time it will take to climb back up. However, it's doable. Keep digging or start climbing back up - it's your choice.
Incorrect. Nobody proved me wrong, and just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up does nothing.
Check the quoted comments. You've been wrong from your very first post. @ImaSmakya was kind enough to provide the evidence. Denying it makes you look silly.
I have read every comment and I have not been proven wrong. I have refuted every attempt to do this.
Disagreeing with my first post comes down to opinion. You can call something evidence or say my opinions are wrong, but that's just you.
You think it's silly to speak up for what you believe?
ImaSmakya provided hard, irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. You were wrong before and you still are.
I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked.
They proved you wrong. In case you forgot what you claimed here's your OP:
I have been playing this game from the beginning. Why. WHY are you pairing non GL rosters with GL rosters in GAC. It is impossible! I'm raging and proud of it because I'm right. Come at me you cowards! WHY?!
No, you're not right. You're wrong. You're also wrong when you claim that you can't catch up. You can always stop making choices that hurt your match-up and slowly improve your roster and your performance in GAC. It will take time. The deeper you dug your hole the longer time it will take to climb back up. However, it's doable. Keep digging or start climbing back up - it's your choice.
Incorrect. Nobody proved me wrong, and just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up does nothing.
Check the quoted comments. You've been wrong from your very first post. @ImaSmakya was kind enough to provide the evidence. Denying it makes you look silly.
I have read every comment and I have not been proven wrong. I have refuted every attempt to do this.
Disagreeing with my first post comes down to opinion. You can call something evidence or say my opinions are wrong, but that's just you.
You think it's silly to speak up for what you believe?
ImaSmakya provided hard, irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. You were wrong before and you still are.
We have told you why you're wrong, several times, you just refuse to accept it. Work on your roster.
You have not told me I'm wrong, nor do you have such authority.
True competition is dependent of fairness. Otherwise, what's the point of engaging? How is 3 GLs against none fair? Surely, you can do better than just saying "nope." Do you really think that is going to convince me? Your arguments are baseless and weak. You amuse me.
I'm a big hockey fan and particularly enjoy tournaments like the world juniors. Using your logic, Canada, US, Finland, etc... should have to sit their top two lines when they are going to play a team that they know they are going to beat 8-0, 10-0 (happens every year).
If they have to do that to give the opponent a chance to win, where is the incentive for the other team to get better? Why wouldn't that team keep going to the tournament with a sub par team because they know their opponent is going to be handicapped to give them a chance to win?
There's always a shot in hockey. There's enough chaos to allow for chance. I have seen many "terrible" teams rally and pull out a win. I work for a D1 program. I watch hockey every day and I know what I am talking about.
You could win some rounds too if only you bothered to actually play your rounds. You have your shots too in GAC - you just don't take the shots.
Me winning is entirely dependent on the other team not using their brick wall. This is too often not the case.
Unfortunately, you cannot win due to your own choices, and that has nothing to do with fair.
- each player is subject to the same rules - That is what makes it fair.
- each player has to play with the roster they have built and the choices they have made - none of those choices force anyone into a sub category to limit who they may or may not face - that is also fair.
- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.
If GAC is a mode you would like to do better in, your best bet is to make changes within your control. There are many great suggestions in this thread on how you can improve your roster. It is unlikely they will make this change, and if they did decide to make this change, it is unlikely to be any time soon, so you should stick with what is in your control (your roster).
This is the closest anyone has come because you responded in earnest, but no I'm still not wrong.
I have corrected my choices, and the problem has only gotten worse. Why not restructure the divisions so people who invest in GAC characters play each other? Why not scale down rewards for those who don't want to engage in farming those characters but still want to compete in some capacity? I'll even take zero rewards! I don't see how that would be unfair for the players who have invested in GAC. They would be with their own kind. I have no business competing with them.
Would it be so bad if everyone had a fair shot? Tell me why that's fundamentally bad.
You have a few posts that are in somewhat absolute terms, and others have posted evidence that can contradict that, so in some ways you are incorrect in the general sense.
Nothing in this game is on the micro timescale, everyone is given a fair shot, as you can always correct, make changes, and improve your situation. Why changes like this can be seen as fundamentally bad: 1 -
- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.
2- changes like this are drastic in the short term to reward players who have not or do not work thought the long term process. this is fundamentally bad for a game built on the long game.
as to your other points:
- they will never reward players for not moving forward, engaging in content, and generally speaking trying to not "build their way out of it" (I know you are not asking for rewards, but I think you can see what I mean)
- the idea is that they take all players with X investment and have them face players in the same group - that is fair, and allows a players choices to shine through. that doesnt' mean you need GLs, but when building a roster, each decision has many points to be weighed on, and if GAC is important to you, then you need to make choices accordingly.
Choices have weight, and some of that comes from game modes like GAC, they are not likely to make changes that would reduce the value/weight of a decision. They want choices to feel important and impactful. Players who have gone down the path of a GL had a fair amount of fluff they had to add to get there, some faced hard times due to how they did it or the choices they made along the way. We have all been there but if you stick with a good plan you can get through that, even if it feels worse a few times along the way.
I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked.
They proved you wrong. In case you forgot what you claimed here's your OP:
I have been playing this game from the beginning. Why. WHY are you pairing non GL rosters with GL rosters in GAC. It is impossible! I'm raging and proud of it because I'm right. Come at me you cowards! WHY?!
No, you're not right. You're wrong. You're also wrong when you claim that you can't catch up. You can always stop making choices that hurt your match-up and slowly improve your roster and your performance in GAC. It will take time. The deeper you dug your hole the longer time it will take to climb back up. However, it's doable. Keep digging or start climbing back up - it's your choice.
Incorrect. Nobody proved me wrong, and just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up does nothing.
Check the quoted comments. You've been wrong from your very first post. @ImaSmakya was kind enough to provide the evidence. Denying it makes you look silly.
I have read every comment and I have not been proven wrong. I have refuted every attempt to do this.
Disagreeing with my first post comes down to opinion. You can call something evidence or say my opinions are wrong, but that's just you.
You think it's silly to speak up for what you believe?
ImaSmakya provided hard, irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. You were wrong before and you still are.
Prove it.
Sigh, this is both pointless and exhausting.
Enjoy your future GAC success.
I really have no idea what you are talking about with the hard irrefutable evidence thing. It's not there. I'm nice enough to hear you out. Ive been very patient with you all, but you cannot tell me my opinion is wrong. I respect yours though. All in the phrasing.
I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked.
They proved you wrong. In case you forgot what you claimed here's your OP:
I have been playing this game from the beginning. Why. WHY are you pairing non GL rosters with GL rosters in GAC. It is impossible! I'm raging and proud of it because I'm right. Come at me you cowards! WHY?!
No, you're not right. You're wrong. You're also wrong when you claim that you can't catch up. You can always stop making choices that hurt your match-up and slowly improve your roster and your performance in GAC. It will take time. The deeper you dug your hole the longer time it will take to climb back up. However, it's doable. Keep digging or start climbing back up - it's your choice.
Incorrect. Nobody proved me wrong, and just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up does nothing.
Check the quoted comments. You've been wrong from your very first post. @ImaSmakya was kind enough to provide the evidence. Denying it makes you look silly.
I have read every comment and I have not been proven wrong. I have refuted every attempt to do this.
Disagreeing with my first post comes down to opinion. You can call something evidence or say my opinions are wrong, but that's just you.
You think it's silly to speak up for what you believe?
ImaSmakya provided hard, irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. You were wrong before and you still are.
Prove it.
Sigh, this is both pointless and exhausting.
Enjoy your future GAC success.
I really have no idea what you are talking about with the hard irrefutable evidence thing. It's not there. I'm nice enough to hear you out. Ive been very patient with you all, but you cannot tell me my opinion is wrong. I respect yours though. All in the phrasing.
It was a valid point way back then when GL's were introduced (especially for 3v3 and before Vader got his touch up and JKL was introduced). There's been enough time now for people to prepare. We know that the GAC algorithm is looking at the top 66 (3v3) / 80 (5v5) GP chars in div 1 (and fleets to some extent but details are unknown) so everyone should know that increasing the GP of that chars is going to affect matchmaking and result in getting matched with tougher opponents.
Yes, I agree with this. I'm just saying altering the affect on GP for certain characters wouldn't be a bad thing. I would still be going for GLs just like everyone else. I just think that I should be matched with an opponent who is truly at the same level. I can't win. That's not fair.
I don't understand why you keep saying you can't win and blame it on the fact that you do not have a GL. I have on many occasions been matched against opponents with a GL far before I had mine and I've managed to find a way to win in most of them. There are counters that work in almost every case (Rey 3v3 kinda sucks), you just have to do a little research and perhaps some mod work before signing up for GAC.
Sure, it can happen, on occasion, though highly unlikely, but why is it fair to give me such and overpowered opponent in the first place?
You're confused as to why I can't win without a GL? Really?
I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked. You also have GAS and DR/BSF/Malak. I do not.
3 GLs vs no GLs. I can't win. That is not fair. Anyone got anything better than that to throw at me? I'm not wrong!
It's ok if you wanna develop fun (but inferior in pvp) chars and don't wanna chase the meta teams. Just stop whining about being smashed in a competetive pvp mode then. I don't buy myself an off-road car and take it to the race track expecting to get a top lap time competing with race cars.
So you should compete with other off-road cars then? As in fair competition? Thanks for supporting me.
Even and fair are two different things. You don't get even match-ups - and that's fair. Preparing and building your roster for GAC is just as important as your tactics and execution during the GAC itself. Apparently you didn't do well at the first part. That's why you don't have even match-ups. If you had even matches it wouldn't be fair to the ones who actually built their roster well. They earned their advantage.
How would it not be fair if it was evenly matched? Would it be fair for a flyweight to fight a heavyweight regardless of skill level?
In GAC you're matched with opponents in same weight class as yourself. You're matched by relevant GP. Your top-X characters have matching GP.
Some middleweighters are fit, enduring hardhitters (the equivalent to your strongest opponents) while other middleweighters are less fit and hit less hard (like you).
So, we agree it's fair to match two heavyweights against each other, right? That's how it works in GAC. That's why it's fair.
I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked.
They proved you wrong. In case you forgot what you claimed here's your OP:
I have been playing this game from the beginning. Why. WHY are you pairing non GL rosters with GL rosters in GAC. It is impossible! I'm raging and proud of it because I'm right. Come at me you cowards! WHY?!
No, you're not right. You're wrong. You're also wrong when you claim that you can't catch up. You can always stop making choices that hurt your match-up and slowly improve your roster and your performance in GAC. It will take time. The deeper you dug your hole the longer time it will take to climb back up. However, it's doable. Keep digging or start climbing back up - it's your choice.
Incorrect. Nobody proved me wrong, and just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up does nothing.
Check the quoted comments. You've been wrong from your very first post. @ImaSmakya was kind enough to provide the evidence. Denying it makes you look silly.
I have read every comment and I have not been proven wrong. I have refuted every attempt to do this.
Disagreeing with my first post comes down to opinion. You can call something evidence or say my opinions are wrong, but that's just you.
You think it's silly to speak up for what you believe?
ImaSmakya provided hard, irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. You were wrong before and you still are.
Prove it.
Nope! ImaSmakya proved it already. Now it's up to you to understand the proof.
I went back through my GAC history to before I had a GL to find a few rounds from one season where I was matched up against GL's. One required 2 battles, but I still won the round so yes, I'm confused. Do I win every time I'm matched against a GL? No, but I definitely win more than I lose.
A few rounds from one season? You cherry picked.
They proved you wrong. In case you forgot what you claimed here's your OP:
I have been playing this game from the beginning. Why. WHY are you pairing non GL rosters with GL rosters in GAC. It is impossible! I'm raging and proud of it because I'm right. Come at me you cowards! WHY?!
No, you're not right. You're wrong. You're also wrong when you claim that you can't catch up. You can always stop making choices that hurt your match-up and slowly improve your roster and your performance in GAC. It will take time. The deeper you dug your hole the longer time it will take to climb back up. However, it's doable. Keep digging or start climbing back up - it's your choice.
Incorrect. Nobody proved me wrong, and just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up does nothing.
Check the quoted comments. You've been wrong from your very first post. @ImaSmakya was kind enough to provide the evidence. Denying it makes you look silly.
I have read every comment and I have not been proven wrong. I have refuted every attempt to do this.
Disagreeing with my first post comes down to opinion. You can call something evidence or say my opinions are wrong, but that's just you.
You think it's silly to speak up for what you believe?
ImaSmakya provided hard, irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. You were wrong before and you still are.
Prove it.
Sigh, this is both pointless and exhausting.
Enjoy your future GAC success.
I really have no idea what you are talking about with the hard irrefutable evidence thing. It's not there. I'm nice enough to hear you out. Ive been very patient with you all, but you cannot tell me my opinion is wrong. I respect yours though. All in the phrasing.
You started with "Don't match me with GL's, it's impossible for me to win"
I showed you several instances in my GAC history where I beat GL's when I had none and I won the round. Whether I have GAS/Malak/DR/GG is pointless, if you don't have those either how do you expect to win at that GP level? How do you not have those at that GP level?
You then moved on to "Just got matched with 2 max GL's, impossible for me to win"
You then moved on to "How am I supposed to win when they have 3 GL's and I have none. It's impossible"
If you keep moving the goal posts, the conversation seems somewhat pointless.
Unfortunately, you cannot win due to your own choices, and that has nothing to do with fair.
- each player is subject to the same rules - That is what makes it fair.
- each player has to play with the roster they have built and the choices they have made - none of those choices force anyone into a sub category to limit who they may or may not face - that is also fair.
- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.
If GAC is a mode you would like to do better in, your best bet is to make changes within your control. There are many great suggestions in this thread on how you can improve your roster. It is unlikely they will make this change, and if they did decide to make this change, it is unlikely to be any time soon, so you should stick with what is in your control (your roster).
This is the closest anyone has come because you responded in earnest, but no I'm still not wrong.
I have corrected my choices, and the problem has only gotten worse. Why not restructure the divisions so people who invest in GAC characters play each other? Why not scale down rewards for those who don't want to engage in farming those characters but still want to compete in some capacity? I'll even take zero rewards! I don't see how that would be unfair for the players who have invested in GAC. They would be with their own kind. I have no business competing with them.
Would it be so bad if everyone had a fair shot? Tell me why that's fundamentally bad.
You have a few posts that are in somewhat absolute terms, and others have posted evidence that can contradict that, so in some ways you are incorrect in the general sense.
Nothing in this game is on the micro timescale, everyone is given a fair shot, as you can always correct, make changes, and improve your situation. Why changes like this can be seen as fundamentally bad: 1 -
- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.
2- changes like this are drastic in the short term to reward players who have not or do not work thought the long term process. this is fundamentally bad for a game built on the long game.
as to your other points:
- they will never reward players for not moving forward, engaging in content, and generally speaking trying to not "build their way out of it" (I know you are not asking for rewards, but I think you can see what I mean)
- the idea is that they take all players with X investment and have them face players in the same group - that is fair, and allows a players choices to shine through. that doesnt' mean you need GLs, but when building a roster, each decision has many points to be weighed on, and if GAC is important to you, then you need to make choices accordingly.
Choices have weight, and some of that comes from game modes like GAC, they are not likely to make changes that would reduce the value/weight of a decision. They want choices to feel important and impactful. Players who have gone down the path of a GL had a fair amount of fluff they had to add to get there, some faced hard times due to how they did it or the choices they made along the way. We have all been there but if you stick with a good plan you can get through that, even if it feels worse a few times along the way.
I agree wholeheartedly with this and I'm happy somebody is actually trying, so thanks for that.
I admit some of my posts may have been in absolute terms. I'm one man fighting an army here, and it is easy to get ahead of my skis at times. However, the relatively few ways in which I am incorrect, in the general sense, hold no bearing against the validity of my original opinion. GL rosters should not be paired with GL rosters (correction non-GL*). That is how I and many other people feel, and the only way to prove that wrong is to try it and see it fail.
Some elements of your argument seem vague.
1. You refer to "changes" but do not specify. Changes I have suggested? I have given some thoughts, but I am arguing a matter of principle and am not interested in getting into specifics. I feel that you are selecting extreme elements of my argument and attacking only those. Let me help you understand what I am saying. If, hypothetically, changes to GAC did not affect those players who are GAC-oriented would it still be unfair in your opinion? There are already divisions. Why shouldn't I be competing in one that truly pushes me to do better rather than makes me quit?
2. Again, changes like what? All players in GAC are rewarded regardless of trajectory, long and short-term. I am not saying that players should not work toward long-term goals.
As to your other points:
Do you speak for them? I agree that they should not reward players for not "building their way out of it." I wouldn't have played this long if I didn't already know that. I never asked for no rewards. You misunderstood me there.
I understand that they group players based on investment. I am not arguing against that whatsoever. I agree with everything you have been saying in principle. I have a problem with how they are quantifying such investment considering how much more powerful GLs are. I am saying matchmaking "could" be better. I hear everyone else saying "No it's perfect." Do you think matchmaking is perfect?
I am not arguing that they should make any fundamental changes to matchmaking. I just think that something could be done where incentive stays the same and we are all competing within the framework you described. I believe that the value/weight of a decision is important, I want choices to be impactful, and I want the opportunity to rise out of adversity. Hard times are part of that. I would not be complaining if I did not understand that. In my case, it's too hard, and I am so far behind that it is actually getting steadily worse despite investing in GAC. Great mechansim for getting me to give up my money though, right? That's why I'm done with this game.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
Why is it worse? Since you know.
Because part of the reason to get a GL is to gain a strategic advantage over potential opponents with poor roster choices.
You usually don't try to get the PvP meta with the intent to get harder matches in GAC (see only GLs vs GLs as you suggest).
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
Why is it worse? Since you know.
Because part of the reason to get a GL is to gain a strategic advantage over potential opponents with poor roster choices.
You usually don't try to get the PvP meta with the intent to get harder matches in GAC (see only GLs vs GLs as you suggest).
Are you saying you can't get a strategic advantage over potential opponents without a GL?
3 GLs to none(no GAS, among others) is such a hilarious level of overkill. I give up at that point.
I cannot be proven wrong. Nobody can. Go ahead. Try to prove a negative. The only reason I'm still on here is because we're finishing out a TW, which are much more fun than gac, I might add.
I cannot be proven wrong. Nobody can. Go ahead. Try to prove a negative. The only reason I'm still on here is because we're finishing out a TW, which are much more fun than gac, I might add.
Yup, you're right. No one can prove you wrong, you win.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
Why is it worse? Since you know.
This has been explained in this thread more than once.
Right now people are matched based on criteria that they are in control of: how they choose to utilise equivalent resources. This is fair - no matter how many times you state the contrary.
What you are proposing would have 2 negative impacts:
- it would, to some extent, incentivise people to not farm for and unlock a GL. If the reward for unlocking a GL is to instantly be plunged into a world where you only ever meet other GL owners, some users might decide not to bother.
- it would increase the chances of lopsided matches. The minute matchmaking focuses on a binary “GL v no GL” check as the primary criteria, the more likely it is that people who have allocated a different amount of resources get matched.
You dismissed this earlier as “ad hominem”, but anyone proposing a change to an existing system really should address hypothetical situations that their adjustment would create. So, have another go...
- imagine someone with your current roster reliced another 40 characters without unlocking a GL. There is no one with an even partially similar roster without a GL. Who do you match them with?
- imagine someone new to the game with laser focus, who defies the odds and unlocks their first GL without any other relic characters other than the requirements. Is it “fair” to match them with other 1 GL owners who have much more rounded rosters?
You’re basing your entire stance on GLs being an insurmountable win condition between the haves and have nots. This is not the reality.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
Why is it worse? Since you know.
This has been explained in this thread more than once.
Right now people are matched based on criteria that they are in control of: how they choose to utilise equivalent resources. This is fair - no matter how many times you state the contrary.
What you are proposing would have 2 negative impacts:
- it would, to some extent, incentivise people to not farm for and unlock a GL. If the reward for unlocking a GL is to instantly be plunged into a world where you only ever meet other GL owners, some users might decide not to bother.
- it would increase the chances of lopsided matches. The minute matchmaking focuses on a binary “GL v no GL” check as the primary criteria, the more likely it is that people who have allocated a different amount of resources get matched.
You dismissed this earlier as “ad hominem”, but anyone proposing a change to an existing system really should address hypothetical situations that their adjustment would create. So, have another go...
- imagine someone with your current roster reliced another 40 characters without unlocking a GL. There is no one with an even partially similar roster without a GL. Who do you match them with?
- imagine someone new to the game with laser focus, who defies the odds and unlocks their first GL without any other relic characters other than the requirements. Is it “fair” to match them with other 1 GL owners who have much more rounded rosters?
You’re basing your entire stance on GLs being an insurmountable win condition between the haves and have nots. This is not the reality.
Han: Let him have it. It’s not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir. Nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han: That’s cause a droid don’t pull people’s arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookiee win.
I cannot be proven wrong. Nobody can. Go ahead. Try to prove a negative. The only reason I'm still on here is because we're finishing out a TW, which are much more fun than gac, I might add.
I don't see anyone say "no it's perfect". I just read a lot of posts saying the matchmaking is what it is and you have the control over what chars you want to develop. So if you want to be more successful in GAC start improving your roster accordingly - and that means getting meta chars and GL's and not relic 7 a Stormtrooper Han or zeta a Farmboy Luke.
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
Why is it worse? Since you know.
This has been explained in this thread more than once.
Right now people are matched based on criteria that they are in control of: how they choose to utilise equivalent resources. This is fair - no matter how many times you state the contrary.
What you are proposing would have 2 negative impacts:
- it would, to some extent, incentivise people to not farm for and unlock a GL. If the reward for unlocking a GL is to instantly be plunged into a world where you only ever meet other GL owners, some users might decide not to bother.
- it would increase the chances of lopsided matches. The minute matchmaking focuses on a binary “GL v no GL” check as the primary criteria, the more likely it is that people who have allocated a different amount of resources get matched.
You dismissed this earlier as “ad hominem”, but anyone proposing a change to an existing system really should address hypothetical situations that their adjustment would create. So, have another go...
- imagine someone with your current roster reliced another 40 characters without unlocking a GL. There is no one with an even partially similar roster without a GL. Who do you match them with?
- imagine someone new to the game with laser focus, who defies the odds and unlocks their first GL without any other relic characters other than the requirements. Is it “fair” to match them with other 1 GL owners who have much more rounded rosters?
You’re basing your entire stance on GLs being an insurmountable win condition between the haves and have nots. This is not the reality.
1. The higher reward in GAC is the incentive. That's why I was going after them. A lot of people don't bother with GLs.
2. I'll concede on this point, a bit. One GL, vs none I can see as doable, maybe, but 2-3 every time against none and it only gets worse? That's a little much.
3. I dismissed some argument as ad hominem because they attacked my character rather than my argument. Though, I did call you all cowards in my first post, so you got me there. I would be happy to discuss hypothetical situations as soon as we can move on from "No, you are absolutely wrong."
4. Oh I don't know, maybe put a cap on how many toons you bring with you. I'm sure something can be figured out. Right now, in my experience, matchmaking is flawed.
5. Yes, because they have a GL. They are that powerful. I'll use your (everybody's) argument against you here and just say it's an incentive to improve.
6. The haves and have nots. That's exactly what this is. All you star-belly sneetches (that might be an offensive reference in today's world)
I cannot be proven wrong. Nobody can. Go ahead. Try to prove a negative. The only reason I'm still on here is because we're finishing out a TW, which are much more fun than gac, I might add.
Replies
Prove it.
Sigh, this is both pointless and exhausting.
Enjoy your future GAC success.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
@Kyno question asked, answered repeatedly, answers ignored.
/thread is all that’s suitable now.
Me winning is entirely dependent on the other team not using their brick wall. This is too often not the case.
You have a few posts that are in somewhat absolute terms, and others have posted evidence that can contradict that, so in some ways you are incorrect in the general sense.
Nothing in this game is on the micro timescale, everyone is given a fair shot, as you can always correct, make changes, and improve your situation. Why changes like this can be seen as fundamentally bad: 1 -
2- changes like this are drastic in the short term to reward players who have not or do not work thought the long term process. this is fundamentally bad for a game built on the long game.
as to your other points:
- they will never reward players for not moving forward, engaging in content, and generally speaking trying to not "build their way out of it" (I know you are not asking for rewards, but I think you can see what I mean)
- the idea is that they take all players with X investment and have them face players in the same group - that is fair, and allows a players choices to shine through. that doesnt' mean you need GLs, but when building a roster, each decision has many points to be weighed on, and if GAC is important to you, then you need to make choices accordingly.
Choices have weight, and some of that comes from game modes like GAC, they are not likely to make changes that would reduce the value/weight of a decision. They want choices to feel important and impactful. Players who have gone down the path of a GL had a fair amount of fluff they had to add to get there, some faced hard times due to how they did it or the choices they made along the way. We have all been there but if you stick with a good plan you can get through that, even if it feels worse a few times along the way.
I really have no idea what you are talking about with the hard irrefutable evidence thing. It's not there. I'm nice enough to hear you out. Ive been very patient with you all, but you cannot tell me my opinion is wrong. I respect yours though. All in the phrasing.
In GAC you're matched with opponents in same weight class as yourself. You're matched by relevant GP. Your top-X characters have matching GP.
Some middleweighters are fit, enduring hardhitters (the equivalent to your strongest opponents) while other middleweighters are less fit and hit less hard (like you).
So, we agree it's fair to match two heavyweights against each other, right? That's how it works in GAC. That's why it's fair.
Nope! ImaSmakya proved it already. Now it's up to you to understand the proof.
You started with "Don't match me with GL's, it's impossible for me to win"
I showed you several instances in my GAC history where I beat GL's when I had none and I won the round. Whether I have GAS/Malak/DR/GG is pointless, if you don't have those either how do you expect to win at that GP level? How do you not have those at that GP level?
You then moved on to "Just got matched with 2 max GL's, impossible for me to win"
You then moved on to "How am I supposed to win when they have 3 GL's and I have none. It's impossible"
If you keep moving the goal posts, the conversation seems somewhat pointless.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
I agree wholeheartedly with this and I'm happy somebody is actually trying, so thanks for that.
I admit some of my posts may have been in absolute terms. I'm one man fighting an army here, and it is easy to get ahead of my skis at times. However, the relatively few ways in which I am incorrect, in the general sense, hold no bearing against the validity of my original opinion. GL rosters should not be paired with GL rosters (correction non-GL*). That is how I and many other people feel, and the only way to prove that wrong is to try it and see it fail.
Some elements of your argument seem vague.
1. You refer to "changes" but do not specify. Changes I have suggested? I have given some thoughts, but I am arguing a matter of principle and am not interested in getting into specifics. I feel that you are selecting extreme elements of my argument and attacking only those. Let me help you understand what I am saying. If, hypothetically, changes to GAC did not affect those players who are GAC-oriented would it still be unfair in your opinion? There are already divisions. Why shouldn't I be competing in one that truly pushes me to do better rather than makes me quit?
2. Again, changes like what? All players in GAC are rewarded regardless of trajectory, long and short-term. I am not saying that players should not work toward long-term goals.
As to your other points:
Do you speak for them? I agree that they should not reward players for not "building their way out of it." I wouldn't have played this long if I didn't already know that. I never asked for no rewards. You misunderstood me there.
I understand that they group players based on investment. I am not arguing against that whatsoever. I agree with everything you have been saying in principle. I have a problem with how they are quantifying such investment considering how much more powerful GLs are. I am saying matchmaking "could" be better. I hear everyone else saying "No it's perfect." Do you think matchmaking is perfect?
I am not arguing that they should make any fundamental changes to matchmaking. I just think that something could be done where incentive stays the same and we are all competing within the framework you described. I believe that the value/weight of a decision is important, I want choices to be impactful, and I want the opportunity to rise out of adversity. Hard times are part of that. I would not be complaining if I did not understand that. In my case, it's too hard, and I am so far behind that it is actually getting steadily worse despite investing in GAC. Great mechansim for getting me to give up my money though, right? That's why I'm done with this game.
are you though
If nobody is saying "its perfect." Then why the backlash against "it could be better?" Also, don't tell me what to do with my roster. Your opinion is as good as mine.
There’s no backlash against “it could be better”, because what you’re suggesting is worse.
Why is it worse? Since you know.
You usually don't try to get the PvP meta with the intent to get harder matches in GAC (see only GLs vs GLs as you suggest).
Are you saying you can't get a strategic advantage over potential opponents without a GL?
3 GLs to none(no GAS, among others) is such a hilarious level of overkill. I give up at that point.
Yup, you're right. No one can prove you wrong, you win.
Gratz.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
Right now people are matched based on criteria that they are in control of: how they choose to utilise equivalent resources. This is fair - no matter how many times you state the contrary.
What you are proposing would have 2 negative impacts:
- it would, to some extent, incentivise people to not farm for and unlock a GL. If the reward for unlocking a GL is to instantly be plunged into a world where you only ever meet other GL owners, some users might decide not to bother.
- it would increase the chances of lopsided matches. The minute matchmaking focuses on a binary “GL v no GL” check as the primary criteria, the more likely it is that people who have allocated a different amount of resources get matched.
You dismissed this earlier as “ad hominem”, but anyone proposing a change to an existing system really should address hypothetical situations that their adjustment would create. So, have another go...
- imagine someone with your current roster reliced another 40 characters without unlocking a GL. There is no one with an even partially similar roster without a GL. Who do you match them with?
- imagine someone new to the game with laser focus, who defies the odds and unlocks their first GL without any other relic characters other than the requirements. Is it “fair” to match them with other 1 GL owners who have much more rounded rosters?
You’re basing your entire stance on GLs being an insurmountable win condition between the haves and have nots. This is not the reality.
Han: Let him have it. It’s not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir. Nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han: That’s cause a droid don’t pull people’s arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookiee win.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
1. The higher reward in GAC is the incentive. That's why I was going after them. A lot of people don't bother with GLs.
2. I'll concede on this point, a bit. One GL, vs none I can see as doable, maybe, but 2-3 every time against none and it only gets worse? That's a little much.
3. I dismissed some argument as ad hominem because they attacked my character rather than my argument. Though, I did call you all cowards in my first post, so you got me there. I would be happy to discuss hypothetical situations as soon as we can move on from "No, you are absolutely wrong."
4. Oh I don't know, maybe put a cap on how many toons you bring with you. I'm sure something can be figured out. Right now, in my experience, matchmaking is flawed.
5. Yes, because they have a GL. They are that powerful. I'll use your (everybody's) argument against you here and just say it's an incentive to improve.
6. The haves and have nots. That's exactly what this is. All you star-belly sneetches (that might be an offensive reference in today's world)
Do go on.....