Investigate other GLs too - they can undersize

Replies

  • Ultra wrote: »
    pånøs wrote: »
    It's not simply about the squad being undersized. GLs can (and should be able) to beat other GLs. It's more so that a GL + Conquest character is the current pinnacle, and they should not be defeated by a GL in a much weaker squad.

    Thanks for chipping in, are we then expecting to see changes that prevent Iden Versio as well?

    Afaik that team only works without piett so it’s not the most ideal LV team

    Piett is way too much of an ask for GAC anyway.
  • Veers Piett DT Range and Iden deletes

    LV Maul Storm Tooper Royal Guard Vader

    Without them taking a turn. A non GL taking out a GL without the GL taking a turn
    How is it possible for that trooper team to start before LV? He should at least be fastest and go first, no?

  • Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Veers Piett DT Range and Iden deletes

    LV Maul Storm Tooper Royal Guard Vader

    Without them taking a turn. A non GL taking out a GL without the GL taking a turn
    How is it possible for that trooper team to start before LV? He should at least be fastest and go first, no?

    g3d5qecggkgj.jpg

    He is the fastest but she starts with 100% TM if there are no other leaders on her team. They probably forgot to add the clause "if no GL present"
  • Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Veers Piett DT Range and Iden deletes

    LV Maul Storm Tooper Royal Guard Vader

    Without them taking a turn. A non GL taking out a GL without the GL taking a turn
    How is it possible for that trooper team to start before LV? He should at least be fastest and go first, no?

    g3d5qecggkgj.jpg

    He is the fastest but she starts with 100% TM if there are no other leaders on her team. They probably forgot to add the clause "if no GL present"

    Why must you give them ideas…. They do a good enough job of nerfing characters and actively destroying theory crafting on their own lol
  • Ultra
    9313 posts Moderator
    Veers Piett DT Range and Iden deletes

    LV Maul Storm Tooper Royal Guard Vader

    Without them taking a turn. A non GL taking out a GL without the GL taking a turn

    LV takes a turn, and Gideon counters that IIRC, that IT lineup doesn't work against every LV team
  • Ultra
    9313 posts Moderator
    pånøs wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    pånøs wrote: »
    It's not simply about the squad being undersized. GLs can (and should be able) to beat other GLs. It's more so that a GL + Conquest character is the current pinnacle, and they should not be defeated by a GL in a much weaker squad.

    Thanks for chipping in, are we then expecting to see changes that prevent Iden Versio as well?

    Afaik that team only works without piett so it’s not the most ideal LV team

    This is the same argument like pre-SLKR buff, "just don't use red", now is "just use piett". According to your post, any less than "ideal" GL team should drop by non GL. Is this personal opinion or coming from CG?

    my opinion is my own lol

    I'm not a developer, i'm a player
  • Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Veers Piett DT Range and Iden deletes

    LV Maul Storm Tooper Royal Guard Vader

    Without them taking a turn. A non GL taking out a GL without the GL taking a turn
    How is it possible for that trooper team to start before LV? He should at least be fastest and go first, no?

    g3d5qecggkgj.jpg

    He is the fastest but she starts with 100% TM if there are no other leaders on her team. They probably forgot to add the clause "if no GL present"

    She doesn't get the 100% TM if there is another ally with the leader tag (Veers and Piett) or if Dark is present. I watched the stream. LV went. Maul went. Piett went. Iden went. Then the train started. And if played well with decent RNG, will run the table without LV team taking another turn.
  • Gale_Toral wrote: »
    Regarding the SLKR Nightsister issue. Zombie should only revive if the leader is a Nightsister. No change to SLKR that way.

    Except that nerfs the CPit team using Daka, Zombie, and SLKR

  • TNT117 wrote: »
    Which I understand, I do, but can we not buff LV more instead of nerfing other teams?

    We don't like to make changes to kits post-launch if we can avoid it. So, it's not done lightly...which means I'm sure all options were considered.

    Let me start by saying destroying theory comps is the absolute worst possible thing you can do in games like this. These games lose a lot of their fun if all it boils down to is run the latest toons in their own faction. Being able to mix and match and come up with cool, weird comps that do neat things is WHY this type of game is fun.

    To the actual comment:
    Isn't that (changing a kit) what is about to happen? The real problem is, you're going to NERF existing toons/comps, making them less viable overall and infuriating the player base. Like others have pointed out, the only actual "problem" here is it is an older GL beating the new "pride and joy" (that has proven time and again to be lackluster at best). Same as before: BOOST the toon you don't want to lose (that, honestly, needs to be boosted anyway); don't NERF other toons. The player base spent time, resources, and money building up these toons, learning these kits, and devising these comps. That's literally what this game is supposed to be. When you NERF existing toons, especially WELL after their release, you crap all over our efforts. I won't go so far as to say nerfing is ALWAYS the wrong answer, but it is definitely the wrong answer more often than not, especially when it's way, way, WAY past the release of the kit.

    This isn't a "broken" comp; it's a GL for a GL. Your company stated previously all GLs are supposed to be "on par". Guess what: this is a GL beating a GL. This is working as intended. Yes, I heard the "GL + Conquest toon" argument. I'm sorry; it's just not valid. It's fundamentally wrong for you to expect, in a game like this, that there should be no comp other than the latest that can beat the new shiny. I'll agree that it should not be as easy as "use the old meta" or "use this straight faction", but unique, interesting, cross-faction theory comps should not be discouraged by the friggin' DEVELOPERS of a game like this. SMH.

    Vader, Thrawn and Wat were nerfed when Rey could easily be beaten. Now they want to do the same when the new GL can be beaten as well. I'd agree it'd be better to buff the character than nerf since it's time and resources invested as you mentioned, but we know what route they'll go.
  • Ultra
    9313 posts Moderator
    edited January 13
    XgerNaph wrote: »
    Please just leave it be. If you insist on doing something, buff LV, don't nerf other teams/toons.
    Either Zombie gets nerfed or LV gets buffed

    I think they'll buff LV to get rid of more counters than just SLKR undersize
  • Which I understand, I do, but can we not buff LV more instead of nerfing other teams?

    We don't like to make changes to kits post-launch if we can avoid it. So, it's not done lightly...which means I'm sure all options were considered.

    Firstly - thanks for stopping by Doja Fett, at least someone from CG is listening to their customers.

    Secondly - I call **** on your comment that "We don't like to make changes to kits post-launch." That's absolute rubbish considering how many changes to kits post launch have been made in this game.

    Here's a thought for CG, and I'll put it in terms the decision makers there might understand - PROFIT.

    If you create a situation that isn't working as you hoped it might you need to fix it. You have two options.

    Option 1 is to 'nerf' (rework character kits post-launch) characters that players have spent time, money, resources etc. building. They have invested in those characters. If you nerf those characters all you are going to do is p!**** off your player base and alienate the very people who pay to play your game. The end result is you drive your customers away.

    Option 2 is to boost (rework character kits post-launch) the under-powered and 'not working as intended' characters. If you do this you encourage more players to invest in that character, giving them something they are willing to spend money on. As other commenters have said "LV isn't worth the investment". So make him worth the investment. Give your customer base something they want and are willing to spend on.

    If you want LV/Maul to be the pinnacle then make them the pinnacle. Just don't do it at the expense of your paying customers.

    How can you keep getting this wrong? We're not talking customer service here, we are talking about simple economic principles. If you alienate your customers you diminish your revenue and profit. It's **** basic. And yet you keep doing this over and over. Have you learnt nothing from previous nerfs that have driven whales and krakens away from this game?


    It is possible to do something a lot and not like it. I.e. conquest.
  • I think they will iron out LV.
  • Lv needs a bump up given the expenditure not necessarily for zombie. That said, how can this not have been tested? Zombie, much like jkr, thrawn, wat, has always been popular for theory crafting. Why any character is released without knowing how it stands up against the creative squads is baffling to me.
  • Gotta remember it's GL + Conquest unit vs. GL + loss of Nightsister team.
  • Xcien
    2435 posts Member
    CG, just give LV a buff rather than nerfing characters. Nobody appreciates the nerfing of characters, especially after they have poured time, resources, and sometimes money into those characters. It's only hurting sales by driving potential customers away.

    And once again, try to test your products for once so you don't have to go back and nerf the product later, like you did with QGJ's Omicron.
    I've found this whole experience to be very enlightening.

    Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback is appreciated.
  • pånøs wrote: »
    It's not simply about the squad being undersized. GLs can (and should be able) to beat other GLs. It's more so that a GL + Conquest character is the current pinnacle, and they should not be defeated by a GL in a much weaker squad.

    Thanks for chipping in, are we then expecting to see changes that prevent Iden Versio as well?

    Haven't heard anything from dev side regarding Iden. If I do, I'll be sure to let ya know.

    If they give you permission. No snark intended. You know more than you can say. Internal conversations are not always expressed here. I mention this so you are seen in the correct light here. We appreciate candor, and we know we won't always get what we want. I just want those here to have a clear picture. And not hang you out to dry when changes happen and you didn't let us know. It will be because the powers that be made a decision. And it may not be for public knowledge. Which sux for you, but that is life online.
  • It's not simply about the squad being undersized. GLs can (and should be able) to beat other GLs. It's more so that a GL + Conquest character is the current pinnacle, and they should not be defeated by a GL in a much weaker squad.

    It may or may not be the pinnacle, but moving the goal posts continuously on already established characters is a poor idea. The game has set a massive negative precedent that we can’t trust in characters we invest in since they may be nerfed around the corner. Sometimes it may be needed but I’ve seen zero positive from the Vader nerf as an example and it honestly sucks.

    Does this mean you’ll put new conquest characters in for established GLs?

    There needs to be better solutions than “oh this team and this character you spent 12months investing in is doing well? It’s because of this ability. Sweet glad you’re having fun, let’s just nerf and remove that fun. See! Great game 👍 “
Sign In or Register to comment.