@CG please please please GAC is in need of serious help. This is the premier game mode for most players and the reason many of us play the game and it has lost its fun factor except for the very top.IMO 3 greens very positive things came from the GAC changes from 6 months ago. 1- The change in crystal distribution from arena to GAC 2- the elimination of controlling account bloat and 3- competitive fights at the top streamed for fans to watch and/or participate in.But the down side to the changes is MASSIVE! And the problem isn’t resolving itself over time. In fact it is getting worse. The middle and lower ends of GAC (which 95%+ of us fall into) are seeing larger and larger GP gaps. The smaller GP account is usually the account the wants a good fight and is playing to win. But I never beat an account 2-3 times my GP. Instead he loses to me. There is a difference between those two statements. If the larger account wants to play or half way knows how to play, then that account will win. But if they attack once and collect their under-placed league rewards, move up to face a bigger account and this boring vicious cycle continues. It has been 4 months since I have faced someone anywhere close to my GP. Where is the fun in that?Now I am not one to rant for the sake of ranting so I will suggest some ideas for improvement and hope others will add their ideas for you to consider. I hope you listen to our plea as fans of SW and this game and try something. We need competition, we need fun.Ideas to help improve GAC:Give players that don’t want to play, but want rewards an option to opt out of GAC and give then a lesser reward package than those that participate Put a cap on GP differentials in the lower leagues. Make it so in a league the skill rating isn’t the only determining factor. Let the 5mm accounts in a league play other 5mm accounts, 4mm accounts play 4mm accounts in that same league, so on and so forth.Keep Kyber or maybe the top 2-3 tiers of Kyber as it is with no GP differential gaps. Let the cream rise to the top.These are just some of my thoughts. I would love to hear ideas from the rest of the community.Best regards - Inquisitor CT

Joining GAC is optional to begin with. If someone doesn't want to play but still join because they want the rewards, they would simply not opt out even if you give them the "option".

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2361366" wrote:Joining GAC is optional to begin with. If someone doesn't want to play but still join because they want the rewards, they would simply not opt out even if you give them the "option".I think the OP is suggesting that an opt out is as reward beneficial as being tumour to lower divisions. It's a fair point.I don't think GAC is on life support though!

"Disruptor92;c-2361369" wrote:While I appreciate your post and how nicely written it is, I just don't think your ideas would work or be fair. Matching by GP is just not a good thing as we know from the past. I think the OP is not suggesting 'general' matching by GP. Just those that are not playing as part of the system are matched by GP.If 7/6 million accounts don't play they'll end up at the bottom of Carbonite 5. Then what? New accounts first games are vs these Bozos. Even if they win, that's a terrible experience.Something does need to be done about the opt outs.

GA sucks IMO so they can just scrap it all

"LordDirt;c-2361380" wrote:GA sucks IMO so they can just scrap it allagree. 12 stressful/time-consuming matches that just keep on going.the BURN OUT aghhhhh

GAC on life support | EA Forums

Scruminator
Seasoned Newcomer
3 years ago
"LordDirt;c-2361478" wrote:
They should just give crystals based on GP and be done with GA. As you grow your roster you get more crystals. GA is pretty much just something in the way of this.

Yikes, sounds like an awful idea… no thanks
AntarioXP
3 years ago
Why not put a drop limit based on GP? If you have 4m GP, you can't drop back to carb5, but only to Arod5 for example.
CCyrilS
3 years ago
I
"Antario;c-2361505" wrote:
Why not put a drop limit based on GP? If you have 4m GP, you can't drop back to carb5, but only to Arod5 for example.

Then people continue to collect A5 rewards even though they deserve to get less?

There needs to be a way to limit how far they can drop, while still continuing to reduce rewards.
TargetEadu
3 years ago
"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2361470" wrote:
"TargetEadu;c-2361402" wrote:
"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2361383" wrote:
"harvestmouse;c-2361368" wrote:
"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2361366" wrote:
Joining GAC is optional to begin with. If someone doesn't want to play but still join because they want the rewards, they would simply not opt out even if you give them the "option".

I think the OP is suggesting that an opt out is as reward beneficial as being tumour to lower divisions. It's a fair point.

I don't think GAC is on life support though!

I'm honestly having a hard time parsing that sentence.

I think the idea is it’s healthier for GAC to give people an incentive to not sign up at all if they’re not going to put in the effort, vs what we have now with people joining and not putting in effort but still giving lower division players a hard time.

In my opinion, I don’t see a great way of fixing people’s enjoyment without breaking someone else’s. Skill here is a mix of effort and roster, so if you’re smaller in GP you need to - and often can - make it up in effort (whether into your development or your battling). That’s how GAC is meant to work, and it lets you put in less effort if you want to. You’ll just get less rewards.

"harvestmouse;c-2361427" wrote:
"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2361383" wrote:

I'm honestly having a hard time parsing that sentence.

Problem: The further down players fall, the harder their teams are to beat.

Example: Player with 4 million gp attacks with any old team once, on auto to get minimum rewards. Never to hardly ever wins doing this and eventually falls to Carbonite 5.

New players reaching level 85 are then paired with this player. They have no way of having a meaningful match up.

The experience isn't what was intended for a competitive GAC battles ; especially for a new player this is pretty damaging.

Solution: Remove players that fall so far below their starting division due to continual lack of activity.

Either A: Group them together.
B: Let them opt out of going through farcical matches.

Well I understand what the problem is, and agree that it is a problem. I just don't see how any opt-out mechanism like what OP proposed would work. I mean, the point of opt out is that someone has to choose to stay out. People who join but do the bare minimum obviously choose to do that, so the only way for them opt out would be to make the rewards for staying out of GAC better than those for playing but doing bare minimum. That would just be unfair to the participating players.

Here’s the thing about fairness: the “problem” is the large-GP players who don’t put in effort and thus lead to unsatisfying wins for smaller players. Is getting rid of that fair? Because you’re getting rid of boring wins, but you’re also getting rid of a bunch of wins. So you’re trading enjoyment of the gamemode for the actual reward levels. That doesn’t seem fair.
wildmannz
3 years ago
The only way to achieve consistently fair match ups is some sort of handicapping system. Golf is one example where someone with a 2 handicap can play agaisnt a 15 handicap and they both feel as though they can win , or lose if they play badly. How this would work for SWGOH is a really tough question. The reality is GaC matches are not "fair" by design , so accept it and play the ones you can win and treat the mismatches as practise. The reason they will never be fair of course is the intention is not to make them fair , but to make you want to spend money so your on the right side of the unfairness. Until the Sugar hits gone and you need to spend again. As someone who finished second ranked one season and often went 11-1 or 12-0 as a FTP accepting this new norm of "6/6" has been tough. But it's either that or quit.
harvestmouse1
New Spectator
3 years ago
Well the problem here is that like golf we have a rating system. Our rating system is our division, where as golf it's how many shots you take.

So in our game a person with a 15 handicap, wouldn't be playing a person with a 5 handicap. So there's no need to handicap.

The scenario here is a golf no handicap match. Yet a person with a 2 handicap being drawn vs a person with a 20 handicap. The person with the 2 handicap is notorious for not showing up.....or showing up playing the first hole then going home. Every now and again they do play the full 18 and of course win comfortably.

The chances of the guy with a 20 handicap of winning are high, yet there's zero chance of having a fun competitive game...........is that how we want the game to be played?
RagingMonkey057
3 years ago
"Antario;c-2361505" wrote:
Why not put a drop limit based on GP? If you have 4m GP, you can't drop back to carb5, but only to Arod5 for example.

Any floor on how low a player can drop based on GP brings back the specter of roster bloat - that's why they won't do this. Anything that they do that respects GP puts players back in a situation where they have to control the size of their roster to maximize rewards. This is the opposite of what CG wants - CG wants people to spend money to grow their roster as big as possible.

I agree that something needs to be done to make the experience better for people in the lower divisions, but nearly anything that's based on GP is a bad, bad idea in my opinion.
NicWester
3 years ago
"harvestmouse;c-2361532" wrote:
The chances of the guy with a 20 handicap of winning are high, yet there's zero chance of having a fun competitive game...........is that how we want the game to be played?

It's a temporary problem, though. After a few of these match-ups, the lower-GP player will advance beyond the inactive players and into the promised land. Unfortunately, even though it's temporary this stretch of time will get longer the more and more inactive players there are.

Some sort of hybrid solution might be possible. Someone mentioned a floor earlier, so the solution might be to give a minimum guaranteed reward if someone doesn't sign up that's higher than the reward for going 0-3 in their current "floor." Of course, that'll only solve the problem of people who are inactive because they like the rewards but not the mode, and not do anything about the people who are inactive because they're jerks and just like the idea of new players seeing they're matched up against someone with 6m GP and despairing--which, I'm sure, is still a lot of people.
ccmoose
New Novice
3 years ago
I really dislike the suggestions of a handicap for larger rosters or a division floor based on GP.

My favorite suggestion I've seen in this thread is to provide an opt out option. Players who choose this can get rewards that scale to their GP and equate to 33% win rate in whatever GAC division is deemed appropriate for their GP.

People who don't want to play and opt out will get more crystals than they get now but less than if they actually participated. And they won't ruin the experience for those early- and mid-game players trying to climb the ranks.
harvestmouse1
New Spectator
3 years ago
"NicWester;c-2361548" wrote:
"harvestmouse;c-2361532" wrote:
The chances of the guy with a 20 handicap of winning are high, yet there's zero chance of having a fun competitive game...........is that how we want the game to be played?

It's a temporary problem, though. After a few of these match-ups, the lower-GP player will advance beyond the inactive players and into the promised land. Unfortunately, even though it's temporary this stretch of time will get longer the more and more inactive players there are.

It's temporary for that player. It's not a temporary problem though.