Give us the option for GAC.
Give us the option to choose between 3 vs 3 and 5 vs 5 at each GAC sign up. Let those of us that want to do 5 vs 5 play 5’s and those that want to do 3 vs 3 play 3’s.
Forum Discussion
"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2457349" wrote:"nfidel2k;c-2457348" wrote:"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2457332" wrote:"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457306" wrote:
It is known that lots of folks simply sign up and skip battles in 3v3 because they don't like it. They end up doing just fine in the game otherwise. It is a perfectly fine solution.
Not sure how good "just fine" is. But, in OP's opinion, it could be better. So, rather than explaining why the status quo is "just fine", can you tell me why it's better than OP's proposition? If not, your response is not relevant to the discussion."PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457306" wrote:
Maybe most of us prefer 5v5 better because kits/teams are designed for 5v5, but that is the point of 3v3 - to get us out of the comfortable zone. There are many other things CG put in the game that are not meant to be liked but to challenge us outside of our comfortable zone. 3v3 is actually one of the things that come with lesser costs if skipped. Just a temporary income drop which you'll be able to mostly earn back later.
I agree that paying 3v3 little to no mind, which I have done for a while, is essentially revenue neutral. But, GAC is more to me than a source of income in game, so telling me I get the same rewards is not sufficient. Because with OP's suggestion, I would get the same income AND have more fun.
You are assuming that the rewards would stay the same. Most likely they would be reduced, as splitting the GAC into two ladders means two groups of rewards, which would essentially double the payouts. Unless you think that 3v3 and 5v5 would be run independent of eachother yet ranked together?
I would love separate ladders now, but that's a different discussion.
I think I see what you're saying, and I had not considered it before. Assuming there were 2 ladders , now there would be 2 #1 players each season. I don't see any other impacts to rewards beyond the season ending rewards. If there were only one ladder, that could lead to other unfair outcomes as well.
How CG would choose to manage such a change could impact my approval of the change. Great point, thank you.
Don't you think how CG would choose to manage such a change would impact not only your approval of the change, but, more importantly, whether they would make such a change to begin with?
They would have to split SR into two, because performances in 3v3 and 5v5 are not comparable. The reward tiers would have to split as well. In order to keep the total payouts the same, each league would have to break into 2 smaller ones, adding up to the same size as before. But in what ratio? The most natural answer would be to take the ratio of the 5v5 and 3v3 populations at the end of signup. However that ratio is likely different from the ratio from the last season, which means some people are going to find themselves in different leagues at the beginning of a new season. How would their complaints be addressed, if they got demoted?
