GAC on life support

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2361577" wrote:
You "making K1 once" would be irrelevant to my suggestion. But yes, there may be people bad enough at GAC that they'd be better off not participating.

K1 is just one example. It is relevant and applicable to all divisions because you said "33% win rate in whatever GAC division is deemed appropriate for their GP."

I'm not talking about actually bad players, but people who don't do better than your reward threshold (e.g. 33%), not necessarily because they are bad. It could even be that they have done so well that they are catapulted into a division they don't belong, roster wise. The point is, if there is an opt out option that comes with better rewards, they would take it for the better rewards and less work.

So that shows the fundamental flaw of any opt out scheme - it has to pay out better than the rewards for joining and doing the bare minimum, otherwise people would just not opt out. But then it has to be not so much better that people who would have otherwise participated are incentivized to just opt out. That's a tricky line to draw. And it has to be done not just once, but every time after a season, based on the latest data. Would CG want to do this? Would we trust CG to do this right? I doubt both.