I will try to add my 5 cents in this discussion, hoping that the devs (and those with decision making power) will take them into account:
- I understand that they want to push the GL farming, but their excuse over "defense mechanisms" does not convince anyone. They can e.g. buff some GLs to evade "cheap counters" (like they did with SEE without nerfing the troopers directly). Nerfing Thrawn for example stops many counters that require "expensive" units anyway (like DRevan, Wat, Malak at high relic levels and with good mods). Furthermore, they can push GL farming via other means (like tying R9 rewards or a new mode to GLs only).
- Giving back materials from R8 to R7 as compensation is a joke. For example I reliced Thrawn and Traya to R4/R5 just for countering GLs and climb in Arena until I get my GL. This investment is now a dead weight for GAC matchmaking, as they worked just fine at R0. They can at least revert the nerfed toons to R0.
- What will happen to the TW/GAC modes, which are the favourite modes of many players? Unless some change in matchmaking happens, it will be the account/guild with most GLs that wins 90% of the time. These modes will become just a chore or source of frustration.
Hope that someone (Doja, Crumb) can sincerely answer these questions.
I will try to add my 5 cents in this discussion, hoping that the devs (and those with decision making power) will take them into account:
- I understand that they want to push the GL farming, but their excuse over "defense mechanisms" does not convince anyone. They can e.g. buff some GLs to evade "cheap counters" (like they did with SEE without nerfing the troopers directly). Nerfing Thrawn for example stops many counters that require "expensive" units anyway (like DRevan, Wat, Malak at high relic levels and with good mods). Furthermore, they can push GL farming via other means (like tying R9 rewards or a new mode to GLs only).
- Giving back materials from R8 to R7 as compensation is a joke. For example I reliced Thrawn and Traya to R4/R5 just for countering GLs and climb in Arena until I get my GL. This investment is now a dead weight for GAC matchmaking, as they worked just fine at R0. They can at least revert the nerfed toons to R0.
- What will happen to the TW/GAC modes, which are the favourite modes of many players? Unless some change in matchmaking happens, it will be the account/guild with most GLs that wins 90% of the time. These modes will become just a chore or source of frustration.
Hope that someone (Doja, Crumb) can sincerely answer these questions.
In gac, I still dont understand why it’s game over if you have less GLs, even without counters. I didn’t find a situation where it would be the case yet.
About the nerfed counters: I don’t have any data, I can only judge with my gac history since April 2020 and my first GL. In more than a year, i had less than 5 opponents who managed to one shot my GL with a counter. Maybe it’s a div thing (I had 5 to 6m gp), but this nerf might not change how Gac will play for the majority of players. If so, then there is no reason to change anything (but allowing a higher devolving of nerfed characters than the actual offer seem fair). I guess CG will have data after a couple of Gac post nerf and will be able to see if there is a problem, like a spike in win% for the side with the most GLs.
I will try to add my 5 cents in this discussion, hoping that the devs (and those with decision making power) will take them into account:
- I understand that they want to push the GL farming, but their excuse over "defense mechanisms" does not convince anyone. They can e.g. buff some GLs to evade "cheap counters" (like they did with SEE without nerfing the troopers directly). Nerfing Thrawn for example stops many counters that require "expensive" units anyway (like DRevan, Wat, Malak at high relic levels and with good mods). Furthermore, they can push GL farming via other means (like tying R9 rewards or a new mode to GLs only).
- Giving back materials from R8 to R7 as compensation is a joke. For example I reliced Thrawn and Traya to R4/R5 just for countering GLs and climb in Arena until I get my GL. This investment is now a dead weight for GAC matchmaking, as they worked just fine at R0. They can at least revert the nerfed toons to R0.
- What will happen to the TW/GAC modes, which are the favourite modes of many players? Unless some change in matchmaking happens, it will be the account/guild with most GLs that wins 90% of the time. These modes will become just a chore or source of frustration.
Hope that someone (Doja, Crumb) can sincerely answer these questions.
In gac, I still dont understand why it’s game over if you have less GLs, even without counters. I didn’t find a situation where it would be the case yet.
About the nerfed counters: I don’t have any data, I can only judge with my gac history since April 2020 and my first GL. In more than a year, i had less than 5 opponents who managed to one shot my GL with a counter. Maybe it’s a div thing (I had 5 to 6m gp), but this nerf might not change how Gac will play for the majority of players. If so, then there is no reason to change anything (but allowing a higher devolving of nerfed characters than the actual offer seem fair). I guess CG will have data after a couple of Gac post nerf and will be able to see if there is a problem, like a spike in win% for the side with the most GLs.
GL counters are huge for those that want super high scores. The ability to get 60 vs Rey with Vader+Wat and then solo something with SEE for 63/64 made farming and learning the counters worth the investment.
And, like OP said, there are auxiliary toons that are not being rolled back. I'd like my G12 zIPD rolled back to G8 and the zeta returned. I'd like my Bast rolled back. I want my two Ben zetas back.
Unless I missed something, I have not seen CG address the impacts to these side toons that were part of the counters being nerfed.
I will try to add my 5 cents in this discussion, hoping that the devs (and those with decision making power) will take them into account:
- I understand that they want to push the GL farming, but their excuse over "defense mechanisms" does not convince anyone. They can e.g. buff some GLs to evade "cheap counters" (like they did with SEE without nerfing the troopers directly). Nerfing Thrawn for example stops many counters that require "expensive" units anyway (like DRevan, Wat, Malak at high relic levels and with good mods). Furthermore, they can push GL farming via other means (like tying R9 rewards or a new mode to GLs only).
- Giving back materials from R8 to R7 as compensation is a joke. For example I reliced Thrawn and Traya to R4/R5 just for countering GLs and climb in Arena until I get my GL. This investment is now a dead weight for GAC matchmaking, as they worked just fine at R0. They can at least revert the nerfed toons to R0.
- What will happen to the TW/GAC modes, which are the favourite modes of many players? Unless some change in matchmaking happens, it will be the account/guild with most GLs that wins 90% of the time. These modes will become just a chore or source of frustration.
Hope that someone (Doja, Crumb) can sincerely answer these questions.
In gac, I still dont understand why it’s game over if you have less GLs, even without counters. I didn’t find a situation where it would be the case yet.
About the nerfed counters: I don’t have any data, I can only judge with my gac history since April 2020 and my first GL. In more than a year, i had less than 5 opponents who managed to one shot my GL with a counter. Maybe it’s a div thing (I had 5 to 6m gp), but this nerf might not change how Gac will play for the majority of players. If so, then there is no reason to change anything (but allowing a higher devolving of nerfed characters than the actual offer seem fair). I guess CG will have data after a couple of Gac post nerf and will be able to see if there is a problem, like a spike in win% for the side with the most GLs.
GL counters are huge for those that want super high scores. The ability to get 60 vs Rey with Vader+Wat and then solo something with SEE for 63/64 made farming and learning the counters worth the investment.
And, like OP said, there are auxiliary toons that are not being rolled back. I'd like my G12 zIPD rolled back to G8 and the zeta returned. I'd like my Bast rolled back. I want my two Ben zetas back.
Unless I missed something, I have not seen CG address the impacts to these side toons that were part of the counters being nerfed.
I understand that counters are very important for some players, but if it only changes gac for a small group of players, there is no need to change matchmaking and take the risk to disturb what’s working for the large majority of players. Again, I have no data, but CG have and will, so wait & see.
About the auxiliary toons, that’s a fair point imo. I don’t know how it could be compensated, maybe something like a ‘get out of gear’ card that will allow each player to choose and devolve one non-prerequisite character could help soften the blow. I know I’m defending the RA because I like the game CG created so I trust them to make the right decisions, but I agree that even if r8 to r7 for gas/Vader and back to r5 for dt was a step in the right direction (that they never did before), they could do better with a change of this magnitude.
I will try to add my 5 cents in this discussion, hoping that the devs (and those with decision making power) will take them into account:
- I understand that they want to push the GL farming, but their excuse over "defense mechanisms" does not convince anyone. They can e.g. buff some GLs to evade "cheap counters" (like they did with SEE without nerfing the troopers directly). Nerfing Thrawn for example stops many counters that require "expensive" units anyway (like DRevan, Wat, Malak at high relic levels and with good mods). Furthermore, they can push GL farming via other means (like tying R9 rewards or a new mode to GLs only).
- Giving back materials from R8 to R7 as compensation is a joke. For example I reliced Thrawn and Traya to R4/R5 just for countering GLs and climb in Arena until I get my GL. This investment is now a dead weight for GAC matchmaking, as they worked just fine at R0. They can at least revert the nerfed toons to R0.
- What will happen to the TW/GAC modes, which are the favourite modes of many players? Unless some change in matchmaking happens, it will be the account/guild with most GLs that wins 90% of the time. These modes will become just a chore or source of frustration.
Hope that someone (Doja, Crumb) can sincerely answer these questions.
In gac, I still dont understand why it’s game over if you have less GLs, even without counters. I didn’t find a situation where it would be the case yet.
About the nerfed counters: I don’t have any data, I can only judge with my gac history since April 2020 and my first GL. In more than a year, i had less than 5 opponents who managed to one shot my GL with a counter. Maybe it’s a div thing (I had 5 to 6m gp), but this nerf might not change how Gac will play for the majority of players. If so, then there is no reason to change anything (but allowing a higher devolving of nerfed characters than the actual offer seem fair). I guess CG will have data after a couple of Gac post nerf and will be able to see if there is a problem, like a spike in win% for the side with the most GLs.
GL counters are huge for those that want super high scores. The ability to get 60 vs Rey with Vader+Wat and then solo something with SEE for 63/64 made farming and learning the counters worth the investment.
And, like OP said, there are auxiliary toons that are not being rolled back. I'd like my G12 zIPD rolled back to G8 and the zeta returned. I'd like my Bast rolled back. I want my two Ben zetas back.
Unless I missed something, I have not seen CG address the impacts to these side toons that were part of the counters being nerfed.
I understand that counters are very important for some players, but if it only changes gac for a small group of players, there is no need to change matchmaking and take the risk to disturb what’s working for the large majority of players. Again, I have no data, but CG have and will, so wait & see.
On match making, I agree with you. I don't like the current system, but I like the changes being requested here less.
My point was to illustrate that even if the nerfs don't hurt the majority of players, it will hit some of us VERY hard (tangibly and intangibly).
I will try to add my 5 cents in this discussion, hoping that the devs (and those with decision making power) will take them into account:
- I understand that they want to push the GL farming, but their excuse over "defense mechanisms" does not convince anyone. They can e.g. buff some GLs to evade "cheap counters" (like they did with SEE without nerfing the troopers directly). Nerfing Thrawn for example stops many counters that require "expensive" units anyway (like DRevan, Wat, Malak at high relic levels and with good mods). Furthermore, they can push GL farming via other means (like tying R9 rewards or a new mode to GLs only).
- Giving back materials from R8 to R7 as compensation is a joke. For example I reliced Thrawn and Traya to R4/R5 just for countering GLs and climb in Arena until I get my GL. This investment is now a dead weight for GAC matchmaking, as they worked just fine at R0. They can at least revert the nerfed toons to R0.
- What will happen to the TW/GAC modes, which are the favourite modes of many players? Unless some change in matchmaking happens, it will be the account/guild with most GLs that wins 90% of the time. These modes will become just a chore or source of frustration.
Hope that someone (Doja, Crumb) can sincerely answer these questions.
In gac, I still dont understand why it’s game over if you have less GLs, even without counters. I didn’t find a situation where it would be the case yet.
About the nerfed counters: I don’t have any data, I can only judge with my gac history since April 2020 and my first GL. In more than a year, i had less than 5 opponents who managed to one shot my GL with a counter. Maybe it’s a div thing (I had 5 to 6m gp), but this nerf might not change how Gac will play for the majority of players. If so, then there is no reason to change anything (but allowing a higher devolving of nerfed characters than the actual offer seem fair). I guess CG will have data after a couple of Gac post nerf and will be able to see if there is a problem, like a spike in win% for the side with the most GLs.
GL counters are huge for those that want super high scores. The ability to get 60 vs Rey with Vader+Wat and then solo something with SEE for 63/64 made farming and learning the counters worth the investment.
And, like OP said, there are auxiliary toons that are not being rolled back. I'd like my G12 zIPD rolled back to G8 and the zeta returned. I'd like my Bast rolled back. I want my two Ben zetas back.
Unless I missed something, I have not seen CG address the impacts to these side toons that were part of the counters being nerfed.
I understand that counters are very important for some players, but if it only changes gac for a small group of players, there is no need to change matchmaking and take the risk to disturb what’s working for the large majority of players. Again, I have no data, but CG have and will, so wait & see.
About the auxiliary toons, that’s a fair point imo. I don’t know how it could be compensated, maybe something like a ‘get out of gear’ card that will allow each player to choose and devolve one non-prerequisite character could help soften the blow. I know I’m defending the RA because I like the game CG created so I trust them to make the right decisions, but I agree that even if r8 to r7 for gas/Vader and back to r5 for dt was a step in the right direction (that they never did before), they could do better with a change of this magnitude.
If counters were only a thing for a very small percentage of players, would CG then bother with such an extensive nerf and round of changes?
I don’t know for sure, but seems unlikely.
In gac, I still dont understand why it’s game over if you have less GLs, even without counters. I didn’t find a situation where it would be the case yet.
About the nerfed counters: I don’t have any data, I can only judge with my gac history since April 2020 and my first GL. In more than a year, i had less than 5 opponents who managed to one shot my GL with a counter. Maybe it’s a div thing (I had 5 to 6m gp), but this nerf might not change how Gac will play for the majority of players. If so, then there is no reason to change anything (but allowing a higher devolving of nerfed characters than the actual offer seem fair). I guess CG will have data after a couple of Gac post nerf and will be able to see if there is a problem, like a spike in win% for the side with the most GLs.
Maybe this nerf will not affect so much the divisions above 6-7M GP, but for sure the rest of the divisions.
Let's assume two opponents at lower-mid divisions: the first has X GLs and the second X+1. Instead of the"bad half" of the GL requirements the first one has one more top tier team than the second. If (at the best case) a GL can be countered by two top tier teams, the GL owner immediately has an advantage that the remaining teams that can be used are of higher quality (since the number of top tier teams is finite).
Needless to say that the opponent with the extra GL will use it most of the times in Defense, so full clearing (and in extension reaching kyber) for the first opponent instantly becomes more difficult.
In TW this problem is accentuated by the number of extra GLs of the opponent guild...
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
If he was 0-3, it means he’s not a counter guy so won’t be affected by the nerf coming to the game. He built his roster the way he liked it, maybe he only wants to gear the characters he likes and don’t like to be forced to relic characters. He chose to relic about 50 characters instead of gearing up prerequisites for 4 more GLs. Maybe it wasn’t the best strategic decision for gac
Gl have some bad prerequisites to make them ‘cost’ more gp. However, I found the cost of high relic levels too high compared to how it makes a character better. It’s usually where players have unfavorable mm: they relic’d characters too high while other chose to have a broader roster with low relics characters. It’s probably linked to the gp formula, but it punishes overgearing characters a lot.
I don’t know if it’s in the game at the moment, but to help beginners, it would be helpful to introduce them to GLs when they unlock relics for the first time, showing them the possibility to use their relic material for gearing prerequisites for these very powerful units.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
The poor “shmoe” really only has himself to blame.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
Fact check:
I checked the swgoh.gg profiles of your group from round 3 of the last GAC…
At this point, I checked the Round 1 guy’s GAC history from that Round - all auto set defences and sure enough only SLKR appeared as a GL. So they’ve unlocked JML since your first round.
But I stand by my earlier statement: if someone is going to have 95 g13 toons, most of whom are r7+, matchmaking is not going to be kind to them. And if they just let the game auto set their defence all the time, going 0-3 isn’t a big surprise.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
Fact check:
I checked the swgoh.gg profiles of your group from round 3 of the last GAC…
At this point, I checked the Round 1 guy’s GAC history from that Round - all auto set defences and sure enough only SLKR appeared as a GL. So they’ve unlocked JML since your first round.
But I stand by my earlier statement: if someone is going to have 95 g13 toons, most of whom are r7+, matchmaking is not going to be kind to them. And if they just let the game auto set their defence all the time, going 0-3 isn’t a big surprise.
You have wayyyyy too much time on your hands. (Although, how did you see the whole history of each GAC and everyone else in each group?) And at the end of the day, my point is still GL's should have a more significant parameter in matchmaking. Whether anyone agrees with it or not, just how I feel. Along with having a GAC version available that doesn't include GL's if you want to play a non-GL GAC.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
If he was 0-3, it means he’s not a counter guy so won’t be affected by the nerf coming to the game. He built his roster the way he liked it, maybe he only wants to gear the characters he likes and don’t like to be forced to relic characters. He chose to relic about 50 characters instead of gearing up prerequisites for 4 more GLs. Maybe it wasn’t the best strategic decision for gac
Gl have some bad prerequisites to make them ‘cost’ more gp. However, I found the cost of high relic levels too high compared to how it makes a character better. It’s usually where players have unfavorable mm: they relic’d characters too high while other chose to have a broader roster with low relics characters. It’s probably linked to the gp formula, but it punishes overgearing characters a lot.
I don’t know if it’s in the game at the moment, but to help beginners, it would be helpful to introduce them to GLs when they unlock relics for the first time, showing them the possibility to use their relic material for gearing prerequisites for these very powerful units.
After the new divisions expanded the needs "reliced too high" is not necessarily the case, "reliced too many" came into equation. Is that a sin now too? Reliced too many, thus bad player etc.
Also why are we talking about counters in terms of counter players, there might be a smidge of counter players who refuse to get gls and just want to counter them, but...is that the general case in large, at larger divisions who simply doesn't have/build counters to gls may it be for gac or/and tw?
This game is a little bit of everything. Most of the content is pretty dtale and boring after a year, bit GAC is by far the most fun thing going. The format, especially 3v3 is excellent, because there are so many degrees of freedom. But if you kill balance by making very few toons/teams so heavily dominant, you remove all those degrees of freedom that make the game mode so interesting, and the "best of" strategies become immediately apparent and stagnate the entire game mode.
Without many viable alternatives, the game mode that was the thing a lot of us play the rest of the game for becomes just another box to check, and now it truly is a simple collecting and resource management game.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
Fact check:
I checked the swgoh.gg profiles of your group from round 3 of the last GAC…
At this point, I checked the Round 1 guy’s GAC history from that Round - all auto set defences and sure enough only SLKR appeared as a GL. So they’ve unlocked JML since your first round.
But I stand by my earlier statement: if someone is going to have 95 g13 toons, most of whom are r7+, matchmaking is not going to be kind to them. And if they just let the game auto set their defence all the time, going 0-3 isn’t a big surprise.
You have wayyyyy too much time on your hands. (Although, how did you see the whole history of each GAC and everyone else in each group?) And at the end of the day, my point is still GL's should have a more significant parameter in matchmaking. Whether anyone agrees with it or not, just how I feel. Along with having a GAC version available that doesn't include GL's if you want to play a non-GL GAC.
It didn’t take that long. Right now on your GAC history page we can see 3 rounds, and each match within those rounds (so 9 matches total). It’s easy to see earlier rounds by changing the number in the url on swgoh.gg. By looking at your 3 opponents, you just need to find them on swgoh.gg and you can check their opponents to complete the set.
The main reason I looked is it seemed unlikely to me that someone could mismanage their roster to the extent that they had 1 GL and faced 7 people with 5 GLs.
I’m not saying people “deserve” to be given such a draw in GAC, but when someone has 95 g13, an enormous amount of them at r7 or higher, I don’t think it’s completely unfair for them to be outmatched.
After all - with the guy in question - how many people with a comparable g13 count do you think there are in the game with only 2 GLs? There can’t be many.
And this is my stance on the matter: we are all free to build our rosters as we choose, but there needs to be consequences. If someone chooses to relic 60+ characters that don’t give them access to a GL, I don’t think they should be protected from people that relic characters exclusively to give them access to GLs.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
If he was 0-3, it means he’s not a counter guy so won’t be affected by the nerf coming to the game. He built his roster the way he liked it, maybe he only wants to gear the characters he likes and don’t like to be forced to relic characters. He chose to relic about 50 characters instead of gearing up prerequisites for 4 more GLs. Maybe it wasn’t the best strategic decision for gac
Gl have some bad prerequisites to make them ‘cost’ more gp. However, I found the cost of high relic levels too high compared to how it makes a character better. It’s usually where players have unfavorable mm: they relic’d characters too high while other chose to have a broader roster with low relics characters. It’s probably linked to the gp formula, but it punishes overgearing characters a lot.
I don’t know if it’s in the game at the moment, but to help beginners, it would be helpful to introduce them to GLs when they unlock relics for the first time, showing them the possibility to use their relic material for gearing prerequisites for these very powerful units.
After the new divisions expanded the needs "reliced too high" is not necessarily the case, "reliced too many" came into equation. Is that a sin now too? Reliced too many, thus bad player etc.
I probably wasn’t clear. I think the gp increase of high relic level could be tweaked, because it doesn’t reflect the strength of the character imo and it weighs heavily on matchmaking, even if it’s probably on par with the amount of resources needed. It’s not a ‘git good and stop relicing people at r7’ statement. About ‘reliced too many’, I don’t see how it’s a problem with matchmaking. Now, if you chose to relic 40 characters and you didn’t include a couple of GLs’ prerequisites in there, it was your strategic choice. It’s like g12 40 characters without unlocking Journey guide characters out of it. That’s why I’m advocating for a GL tutorial (if it’s not already in the game, I have no idea) when players unlock relics for the first time, so they can make an informed decision on how they want to spend those precious resources.
If my GAC match up has GL now and I don't how much more pointless will it be after the nerf? Or will the number of GLs per player factor in to the matching process?
There is no way the number of GLs will be factored in to matchmaking, and nor should it.
After these changes go into effect and it’s proven via the data that you NEED a GL to counter another GL, why not? If someone with no GL’s gets paired up with someone who has one or two GL’s how is that fair when CG has nerfed the non GL counters people have built up?
It’s not my decision to make, but throughout the history of the game they have never taken specific roster composition into account so it is naive to assume they’ll begin to do so now.
They have never done such drastic changes to characters either. Changes we got in the past were minor compared to these.
Also Imperial Troopers were WAI against SEE according to CG in the past and now they are changing that.
History doesn't have a lot weight in this case IMO.
We shall see. I think it’s naive to expect them to change matchmaking so that GL count is reflected.
Especially because it would not encourage unlocking GL at all.
There are plenty of incentives to getting a GL and as more content comes out, the list will only get longer. But yes this conversation has come up.
Hi Kyno , can you give us at least a hint, about outcome of this conversation?
Conversations are usually an ongoing process until something is announced.
To add to the conversation: a gl count into matchmaking has a high chance to produce very similar fights, because matchmaking will still be a thing. The ‘no GLs but old metas’ will face each other, at low division all the ‘let’s unlock kylo first’ willl face each other, the GL focus rosters with almost only prerequisites will also face each other. So you’ll have a much higher chance to face very similar roster, which means very similar fights; it could get boring pretty quickly imo.
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
If he was 0-3, it means he’s not a counter guy so won’t be affected by the nerf coming to the game. He built his roster the way he liked it, maybe he only wants to gear the characters he likes and don’t like to be forced to relic characters. He chose to relic about 50 characters instead of gearing up prerequisites for 4 more GLs. Maybe it wasn’t the best strategic decision for gac
Gl have some bad prerequisites to make them ‘cost’ more gp. However, I found the cost of high relic levels too high compared to how it makes a character better. It’s usually where players have unfavorable mm: they relic’d characters too high while other chose to have a broader roster with low relics characters. It’s probably linked to the gp formula, but it punishes overgearing characters a lot.
I don’t know if it’s in the game at the moment, but to help beginners, it would be helpful to introduce them to GLs when they unlock relics for the first time, showing them the possibility to use their relic material for gearing prerequisites for these very powerful units.
After the new divisions expanded the needs "reliced too high" is not necessarily the case, "reliced too many" came into equation. Is that a sin now too? Reliced too many, thus bad player etc.
I probably wasn’t clear. I think the gp increase of high relic level could be tweaked, because it doesn’t reflect the strength of the character imo and it weighs heavily on matchmaking, even if it’s probably on par with the amount of resources needed. It’s not a ‘git good and stop relicing people at r7’ statement. About ‘reliced too many’, I don’t see how it’s a problem with matchmaking. Now, if you chose to relic 40 characters and you didn’t include a couple of GLs’ prerequisites in there, it was your strategic choice. It’s like g12 40 characters without unlocking Journey guide characters out of it. That’s why I’m advocating for a GL tutorial (if it’s not already in the game, I have no idea) when players unlock relics for the first time, so they can make an informed decision on how they want to spend those precious resources.
You know that gls weren't out for quite a while when relics were out I hope. How is it my strategic choice when cg alters the deal by putting out the most major counters (which is tied to gl count difference being a problem or not) right now?
The problem is that formerly "good" rosters that had lots of relics and viable GL counters are now "bad," by arbitration, and there is no recompense for literal years of work on them. It isn't like the account holder can now shift resources already spent, despite CG changing the way the game operates and shifting the impact of those resources already spent.
They should reset and refund all gear levels. But they won't. Because this is a money grab.
Tell me how resetting gear levels would be a problem for anything but their expected increase in profits.
... GAC is by far the most fun thing going. The format, especially 3v3 is excellent, because there are so many degrees of freedom. But if you kill balance by making very few toons/teams so heavily dominant, you remove all those degrees of freedom that make the game mode so interesting ...
While I agree with your larger point, I'm surprised to hear that you prefer 3v3 and are upset by these changes. To me, these changes will make the 5v5 meta game more like 3v3. The counters in 3v3 are, for the most part, fewer in number and much less reliable than their 5v5 counterparts.
Recognize your point and don't disagree. My enjoyment of 3v3 has been influenced by my luck in not seeing uncounterabke GLs, yet. But, that would surely make it less fun. As yet, 3v3 for me has been more varied than 5v5. So, at the end of the day, I just want as many degrees of freedom as possible with regards to viable rosters and teams. Variety is the spice of life, and the spice must flow.
You may not know me, but you know of me. I'm the player in the game that has been loyal since the beginning. I'm not a whale, or a kracken, more like a sea turtle who rides the waves and enjoys the ebbs and flows of the game. This post isn't mean to be read in spite, or with the voice of anger, but more just of earnest concern and worry.
What SWGOH has come to be is something that no one could have expected. You dwarfed other games in the Star Wars franchise, and continue to bring in new players every day. You have created some great game mechanics in the team interactions and synergies and while things may not always work as expected, its been a fun interaction between developer and user, to say the least.
Currently, we are crossing over a threshold that has been looooooong overdue. You finally have created the ceiling that we as players never thought would arrive with the GL's and now you realize you want them to be the end all be all which is great! Now that you have your limits set you theoretically can build all sorts of new game modes within these borders. Yes, it did come at a cost, because you realized you had created some characters that were too powerful for what you were intending. Nerfs are no fun and everyone realizes this. This is something that happens within many games, this isn't the first nerf and probably still won't be the last should this game continue on, but here's where my concerns are.
Why should we as a player base continue to play your game? You have actively told us in the past that you do not like to communicate to us when you have no real "news" for us. Lately, the only news you've given to us beyond a new ship or GL, is that you WILL NOT be making new content in the ways that we've seen in the past. In theory, this means that you're creating something new.....right? Something that allows us to use our rosters in ways we've been asking for, for years now I'd hope. However, currently, no one on your side has come out to express such things, and I have to ask why that's the case? I am not the only player who has hope for you, but you have to throw us a bone! I have no idea what you have cooking, but any kind of reaffirmation that you have a long-term plan would do wonders to help your dying community here. Offering us new things to spend our money on is a great idea on paper for your company, but there is literally no existing content to use them on that we don't already have something for. A new ship? GREAT! We'd love to have more ships for the meta, it's true.....but again, that's the ONLY thing we use ships for: Arena, GAC, TW, and TB. Content that has been around for quite some time and honestly is getting stale. Likewise for GL's, so again, its fun to have a new toy, but at this point, it feels more like I'm dipping my fry into honey mustard instead of ketchup now. Like wooo, it's a fun new flavor, but in the end, it's still the same result. Give us something new CG give us a new dish a new menu to pick from. If it's a ways out in development, communicate that to us! We'd love to see it, and at least then we might have a reason to invest in these new characters.
As of right now though, it's just the same old, same old, with only added nerfs, and that leaves a poor taste in the mouth. Guilds continue to get bad match up's in TW, GAC isn't much better...even after the added changes. Guilds have been running the same TB's and not even being able to max it out even this long after its release. Yes that is what you intended, as you said, it was "end game content" but to what point? Even this "end game content" doesn't help alleviate the gear crunch and as a player, I can tell you it feels like we're your enemy at this point. We've had to beg for your communication and involvement with us, and the only things you offer us are more ways for us to spend money. The harder you close your hand on our wallets, the more of us you're going to lose. I don't want that, the community doesn't want that, and you of course don't want that. So I just ask, with whatever you having cooking back in that kitchen, please make it with the love and care that I first experienced when I started this game almost 6 years ago now.
The problem is that formerly "good" rosters that had lots of relics and viable GL counters are now "bad," by arbitration, and there is no recompense for literal years of work on them. It isn't like the account holder can now shift resources already spent, despite CG changing the way the game operates and shifting the impact of those resources already spent.
They should reset and refund all gear levels. But they won't. Because this is a money grab.
Tell me how resetting gear levels would be a problem for anything but their expected increase in profits.
‘Literal years of work’ when the first gl was released in late March 2020 with a major kylo buff to avoid some counters a few months later and the vador rework late June 2020 ? While I agree they could do better than what they actually offer to compensate the nerfs, let’s not get carried away…
Replies
- I understand that they want to push the GL farming, but their excuse over "defense mechanisms" does not convince anyone. They can e.g. buff some GLs to evade "cheap counters" (like they did with SEE without nerfing the troopers directly). Nerfing Thrawn for example stops many counters that require "expensive" units anyway (like DRevan, Wat, Malak at high relic levels and with good mods). Furthermore, they can push GL farming via other means (like tying R9 rewards or a new mode to GLs only).
- Giving back materials from R8 to R7 as compensation is a joke. For example I reliced Thrawn and Traya to R4/R5 just for countering GLs and climb in Arena until I get my GL. This investment is now a dead weight for GAC matchmaking, as they worked just fine at R0. They can at least revert the nerfed toons to R0.
- What will happen to the TW/GAC modes, which are the favourite modes of many players? Unless some change in matchmaking happens, it will be the account/guild with most GLs that wins 90% of the time. These modes will become just a chore or source of frustration.
Hope that someone (Doja, Crumb) can sincerely answer these questions.
In gac, I still dont understand why it’s game over if you have less GLs, even without counters. I didn’t find a situation where it would be the case yet.
About the nerfed counters: I don’t have any data, I can only judge with my gac history since April 2020 and my first GL. In more than a year, i had less than 5 opponents who managed to one shot my GL with a counter. Maybe it’s a div thing (I had 5 to 6m gp), but this nerf might not change how Gac will play for the majority of players. If so, then there is no reason to change anything (but allowing a higher devolving of nerfed characters than the actual offer seem fair). I guess CG will have data after a couple of Gac post nerf and will be able to see if there is a problem, like a spike in win% for the side with the most GLs.
GL counters are huge for those that want super high scores. The ability to get 60 vs Rey with Vader+Wat and then solo something with SEE for 63/64 made farming and learning the counters worth the investment.
And, like OP said, there are auxiliary toons that are not being rolled back. I'd like my G12 zIPD rolled back to G8 and the zeta returned. I'd like my Bast rolled back. I want my two Ben zetas back.
Unless I missed something, I have not seen CG address the impacts to these side toons that were part of the counters being nerfed.
I understand that counters are very important for some players, but if it only changes gac for a small group of players, there is no need to change matchmaking and take the risk to disturb what’s working for the large majority of players. Again, I have no data, but CG have and will, so wait & see.
About the auxiliary toons, that’s a fair point imo. I don’t know how it could be compensated, maybe something like a ‘get out of gear’ card that will allow each player to choose and devolve one non-prerequisite character could help soften the blow. I know I’m defending the RA because I like the game CG created so I trust them to make the right decisions, but I agree that even if r8 to r7 for gas/Vader and back to r5 for dt was a step in the right direction (that they never did before), they could do better with a change of this magnitude.
On match making, I agree with you. I don't like the current system, but I like the changes being requested here less.
My point was to illustrate that even if the nerfs don't hurt the majority of players, it will hit some of us VERY hard (tangibly and intangibly).
If counters were only a thing for a very small percentage of players, would CG then bother with such an extensive nerf and round of changes?
I don’t know for sure, but seems unlikely.
Maybe this nerf will not affect so much the divisions above 6-7M GP, but for sure the rest of the divisions.
Let's assume two opponents at lower-mid divisions: the first has X GLs and the second X+1. Instead of the"bad half" of the GL requirements the first one has one more top tier team than the second. If (at the best case) a GL can be countered by two top tier teams, the GL owner immediately has an advantage that the remaining teams that can be used are of higher quality (since the number of top tier teams is finite).
Needless to say that the opponent with the extra GL will use it most of the times in Defense, so full clearing (and in extension reaching kyber) for the first opponent instantly becomes more difficult.
In TW this problem is accentuated by the number of extra GLs of the opponent guild...
That's a fairly common thing, but even during the third round of GAC this last month 7 of my group, including me, had all five GL's. One poor shmoe had only SLKR. So I felt bad for him because I knew before the first fight even happened he was going to be 0-3 and he was. So, GL's should have a much more significant parameter in GAC / TW matchmaking because there are those that still end up getting hosed.
If he was 0-3, it means he’s not a counter guy so won’t be affected by the nerf coming to the game. He built his roster the way he liked it, maybe he only wants to gear the characters he likes and don’t like to be forced to relic characters. He chose to relic about 50 characters instead of gearing up prerequisites for 4 more GLs. Maybe it wasn’t the best strategic decision for gac
Gl have some bad prerequisites to make them ‘cost’ more gp. However, I found the cost of high relic levels too high compared to how it makes a character better. It’s usually where players have unfavorable mm: they relic’d characters too high while other chose to have a broader roster with low relics characters. It’s probably linked to the gp formula, but it punishes overgearing characters a lot.
I don’t know if it’s in the game at the moment, but to help beginners, it would be helpful to introduce them to GLs when they unlock relics for the first time, showing them the possibility to use their relic material for gearing prerequisites for these very powerful units.
I checked the swgoh.gg profiles of your group from round 3 of the last GAC…
https://swgoh.gg/p/742656381/ (that’s you)
https://swgoh.gg/p/634587238/characters/ (That’s the guy who finished 0-3, who has all 5 GLs)
Maybe you picked the wrong round…
https://swgoh.gg/p/495816773/characters/ (That’s the guy who was 0-3 in round 4, who has 4 GLs)
https://swgoh.gg/p/548322829/ (That’s the guy who was 0-3 in round 2, who has 4 GLs)
https://swgoh.gg/p/361558284/characters/ (That’s the guy who was 0-3 in round 1, who has 2 GLs)
At this point, I checked the Round 1 guy’s GAC history from that Round - all auto set defences and sure enough only SLKR appeared as a GL. So they’ve unlocked JML since your first round.
But I stand by my earlier statement: if someone is going to have 95 g13 toons, most of whom are r7+, matchmaking is not going to be kind to them. And if they just let the game auto set their defence all the time, going 0-3 isn’t a big surprise.
You have wayyyyy too much time on your hands. (Although, how did you see the whole history of each GAC and everyone else in each group?) And at the end of the day, my point is still GL's should have a more significant parameter in matchmaking. Whether anyone agrees with it or not, just how I feel. Along with having a GAC version available that doesn't include GL's if you want to play a non-GL GAC.
After the new divisions expanded the needs "reliced too high" is not necessarily the case, "reliced too many" came into equation. Is that a sin now too? Reliced too many, thus bad player etc.
Without many viable alternatives, the game mode that was the thing a lot of us play the rest of the game for becomes just another box to check, and now it truly is a simple collecting and resource management game.
I dont like GAC so please speak for yourself not everyone.
I didn't know I commanded such authority in my statements by default.
Just for reference, you don't have to be included in, "a lot of us."
The main reason I looked is it seemed unlikely to me that someone could mismanage their roster to the extent that they had 1 GL and faced 7 people with 5 GLs.
I’m not saying people “deserve” to be given such a draw in GAC, but when someone has 95 g13, an enormous amount of them at r7 or higher, I don’t think it’s completely unfair for them to be outmatched.
After all - with the guy in question - how many people with a comparable g13 count do you think there are in the game with only 2 GLs? There can’t be many.
And this is my stance on the matter: we are all free to build our rosters as we choose, but there needs to be consequences. If someone chooses to relic 60+ characters that don’t give them access to a GL, I don’t think they should be protected from people that relic characters exclusively to give them access to GLs.
I probably wasn’t clear. I think the gp increase of high relic level could be tweaked, because it doesn’t reflect the strength of the character imo and it weighs heavily on matchmaking, even if it’s probably on par with the amount of resources needed. It’s not a ‘git good and stop relicing people at r7’ statement. About ‘reliced too many’, I don’t see how it’s a problem with matchmaking. Now, if you chose to relic 40 characters and you didn’t include a couple of GLs’ prerequisites in there, it was your strategic choice. It’s like g12 40 characters without unlocking Journey guide characters out of it. That’s why I’m advocating for a GL tutorial (if it’s not already in the game, I have no idea) when players unlock relics for the first time, so they can make an informed decision on how they want to spend those precious resources.
You know that gls weren't out for quite a while when relics were out I hope. How is it my strategic choice when cg alters the deal by putting out the most major counters (which is tied to gl count difference being a problem or not) right now?
They should reset and refund all gear levels. But they won't. Because this is a money grab.
Tell me how resetting gear levels would be a problem for anything but their expected increase in profits.
While I agree with your larger point, I'm surprised to hear that you prefer 3v3 and are upset by these changes. To me, these changes will make the 5v5 meta game more like 3v3. The counters in 3v3 are, for the most part, fewer in number and much less reliable than their 5v5 counterparts.
You may not know me, but you know of me. I'm the player in the game that has been loyal since the beginning. I'm not a whale, or a kracken, more like a sea turtle who rides the waves and enjoys the ebbs and flows of the game. This post isn't mean to be read in spite, or with the voice of anger, but more just of earnest concern and worry.
What SWGOH has come to be is something that no one could have expected. You dwarfed other games in the Star Wars franchise, and continue to bring in new players every day. You have created some great game mechanics in the team interactions and synergies and while things may not always work as expected, its been a fun interaction between developer and user, to say the least.
Currently, we are crossing over a threshold that has been looooooong overdue. You finally have created the ceiling that we as players never thought would arrive with the GL's and now you realize you want them to be the end all be all which is great! Now that you have your limits set you theoretically can build all sorts of new game modes within these borders. Yes, it did come at a cost, because you realized you had created some characters that were too powerful for what you were intending. Nerfs are no fun and everyone realizes this. This is something that happens within many games, this isn't the first nerf and probably still won't be the last should this game continue on, but here's where my concerns are.
Why should we as a player base continue to play your game? You have actively told us in the past that you do not like to communicate to us when you have no real "news" for us. Lately, the only news you've given to us beyond a new ship or GL, is that you WILL NOT be making new content in the ways that we've seen in the past. In theory, this means that you're creating something new.....right? Something that allows us to use our rosters in ways we've been asking for, for years now I'd hope. However, currently, no one on your side has come out to express such things, and I have to ask why that's the case? I am not the only player who has hope for you, but you have to throw us a bone! I have no idea what you have cooking, but any kind of reaffirmation that you have a long-term plan would do wonders to help your dying community here. Offering us new things to spend our money on is a great idea on paper for your company, but there is literally no existing content to use them on that we don't already have something for. A new ship? GREAT! We'd love to have more ships for the meta, it's true.....but again, that's the ONLY thing we use ships for: Arena, GAC, TW, and TB. Content that has been around for quite some time and honestly is getting stale. Likewise for GL's, so again, its fun to have a new toy, but at this point, it feels more like I'm dipping my fry into honey mustard instead of ketchup now. Like wooo, it's a fun new flavor, but in the end, it's still the same result. Give us something new CG give us a new dish a new menu to pick from. If it's a ways out in development, communicate that to us! We'd love to see it, and at least then we might have a reason to invest in these new characters.
As of right now though, it's just the same old, same old, with only added nerfs, and that leaves a poor taste in the mouth. Guilds continue to get bad match up's in TW, GAC isn't much better...even after the added changes. Guilds have been running the same TB's and not even being able to max it out even this long after its release. Yes that is what you intended, as you said, it was "end game content" but to what point? Even this "end game content" doesn't help alleviate the gear crunch and as a player, I can tell you it feels like we're your enemy at this point. We've had to beg for your communication and involvement with us, and the only things you offer us are more ways for us to spend money. The harder you close your hand on our wallets, the more of us you're going to lose. I don't want that, the community doesn't want that, and you of course don't want that. So I just ask, with whatever you having cooking back in that kitchen, please make it with the love and care that I first experienced when I started this game almost 6 years ago now.
Sincerely,
A concerned player
‘Literal years of work’ when the first gl was released in late March 2020 with a major kylo buff to avoid some counters a few months later and the vador rework late June 2020 ? While I agree they could do better than what they actually offer to compensate the nerfs, let’s not get carried away…