Give us the option for GAC.

"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.

"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.

"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 feel that I should add that I am making an assumption as well - the opposite of yours - that the rewards will drop. They did improve the rewards from raids when they restructured those, so if they did implement the OP's suggestion without cutting the rewards for choosing one or the other, or even increased them, then I wouldn't mind being able to choose. But without that guarantee, I'd rather have the current sytem personally.

"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.

Why do I need to show that the status quo is better? OP wants the change, and OP is the one that is supposed to show that the change will be for the better. Otherwise why pay the cost to change?

And how is it that stating that the status quo is just fine is irrelevant to the discussion? In any discussion about whether some changes need to happen to something, an assessment on the status quo is very relevant to the discussion.

Speaking of relevance to the discussion, up to this point in this reply of yours, you have made numerous posts in the thread, all of which seem to be in some sort of self appointed sheriff-in-town capacity. How is that addressing the OP's issue or relevant to the discussion?

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2457332" wrote:

"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.

That's all fine. I'll just note that "more fun" is not the same as "better".

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457354" wrote:
Why do I need to show that the status quo is better? OP wants the change, and OP is the one that is supposed to show that the change will be for the better. Otherwise why pay the cost to change?

Good point. If a change is neutral, I agree that it shouldn't change. I suppose I should reword my request. If you think OP's suggestion is worse or no better than the status quo, can you explain why?

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457354" wrote:
And how is it that stating that the status quo is just fine is irrelevant to the discussion? In any discussion about whether some changes need to happen to something, an assessment on the status quo is very relevant to the discussion.

What matters to this discussion is the status quo relative to the change, not in a vacuum. I agree that the status quo is "fine". I would quit or at least take a break if it weren't.

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457354" wrote:
Speaking of relevance to the discussion, up to this point in this reply of yours, you have made numerous posts in the thread, all of which seem to be in some sort of self appointed sheriff-in-town capacity. How is that addressing the OP's issue or relevant to the discussion?

You're right. Me calling people out for going off topic is not relevant to the discussion. However, in some instances, such as yourself and nfidel, I did finally get some constructive feedback against my opinion that I think has merit. So I'm glad I prodded because my horizons were broadened and my stance has softened.

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457306" wrote:
I'll just note that "more fun" is not the same as "better".

Generally, yes, sure. However, in this case, all else being assumed equal (though I have been convinced that's a big assumption on my part), "fun" is my primary concern.

"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?

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2457355" wrote:

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2457354" wrote:
Why do I need to show that the status quo is better? OP wants the change, and OP is the one that is supposed to show that the change will be for the better. Otherwise why pay the cost to change?

Good point. If a change is neutral, I agree that it shouldn't change. I suppose I should reword my request. If you think OP's suggestion is worse or no better than the status quo, can you explain why?

This might sound like splitting hair, but I'm gonna try anyway because I think the distinction is important, yet often neglected in these forums. OP's suggestion is just an idea, and a fairly abstract one at that. That the idea itself sounds wonderful (who wouldn't like more choices?) is not the same as that it will make a better game by the time it actually finds it way into the game. The devil is in the details. As I tried to think through what needs to actually happen to implement this, I ran into points I couldn't see good ways around. One of those I just put in the other reply I just made. Another potential problem I can think of is that a smaller matchmaking pool can lead to more uneven matches.

So to answer your question, I don't know that I can say that OP's suggestion itself is no good. It is the cost, and the uncertainty of how much it would cost, that makes it no better than the status quo.