Give us the option for GAC.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2457304" wrote:
Restating the status quo and not addressing OP. Classic forums

3v3 isn't going away and complaining about it won't change that. Rehashing the same years-old gripes doesn't deserve serious engagement.

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457306" wrote:

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.

Point of order: I don't want to get all "serious" but, last I checked "games" were meant to be "fun".

If I wanted to get out of my "comfortable zone", I'd do a relationship quiz w/ my GF, sign up for a class that will challenge me to learn something new, or, hit the gym, etc etc.

I really don't want my casual phone game to take me out of my comfortable zone, its supposed to provide me entertainment/comfort.

*

Clearly a good portion of the population doesn't like 3v3 given all these threads.

With GI 6 months ago & Leia-Tier2 in the last week, I can tell you exactly how I feel about the RNG & lack of balanced events in this game that do the opposite of "make me comfortable, entertained, or have fun" but the worlds I'd use would violate forums rules. o:)

"TVF;c-2457308" wrote:
3v3 is a part of the game. There's nothing to address.

Squad Crystals was part of the game, it got addressed. Just saying.



With all that said, I'd really like to see them change up GAC to have 2 zones of 5v5, 1 zone of 3v3, & 1 Fleet zone.
And the "rotation" would be that each GAC the positions change around.
It would give us more than 2 options since the pattern could vary quite a bit and shake up the typical attack patterns.

The only downside from this, I think, would be some difficulty in the new Perma-Defenses set up that saves options, but, frankly with how often the Datacron sets change as well as your #/level of them, I feel like you need to be checking your defenses pretty often anyway.

"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.

"Jarvind;c-2457321" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2457304" wrote:
Restating the status quo and not addressing OP. Classic forums

3v3 isn't going away and complaining about it won't change that. Rehashing the same years-old gripes doesn't deserve serious engagement.

I didn't see anyone here suggest that 3v3 should go away.

"Dapper7425_;c-2457335" wrote:
As someone said, do sandbag bro
Lose the 9 rounds of 3v3
Then you will play the 9 rounds of 5v5 vs easier opponents and you will enjoy

OP, I want to do X.

This guy, just do Y instead, problem solved.

These forums are amazing XD

To maximize profit, you need to do X and Y.

I only want to to Y.

No.

"Gabe9876543210;c-2457344" wrote:
To maximize profit, you need to do X and Y.

I only want to to Y.

No.

So, for your post, X and Y are 3v3 and 5v5? If so, yet another response that is nothing more than restating the status quo. Why is OP's suggestion bad for the player? Bad for CG? Bad for the game as a whole?

"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?

"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.

"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.

Yes, but it would affect daily payouts as well, because they are based on division. There would be two Kyber 1s, 2s, etc. And whether they considered a flat reduction to rewards or something like cutting the size of the divisions, either way you slice it it would mean a cut for a lot of people. Unless you manage to hit a similar rank in both leagues, which is basically the current system.