Non GL vs GL

Please don't.

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243439" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2243430" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243410" wrote:
I cannot be proven wrong. Nobody can. Go ahead. Try to prove a negative. The only reason I'm still on here is because we're finishing out a TW, which are much more fun than gac, I might add.

You can and you have been.

Do go on.....

and on, and on, and on....

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243384" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2243346" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243312" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2243307" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243283" wrote:
....
I can't win. That's not fair.

Unfortunately, you cannot win due to your own choices, and that has nothing to do with fair.

- each player is subject to the same rules - That is what makes it fair.
- each player has to play with the roster they have built and the choices they have made - none of those choices force anyone into a sub category to limit who they may or may not face - that is also fair.
- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.


If GAC is a mode you would like to do better in, your best bet is to make changes within your control. There are many great suggestions in this thread on how you can improve your roster. It is unlikely they will make this change, and if they did decide to make this change, it is unlikely to be any time soon, so you should stick with what is in your control (your roster).

This is the closest anyone has come because you responded in earnest, but no I'm still not wrong.

I have corrected my choices, and the problem has only gotten worse. Why not restructure the divisions so people who invest in GAC characters play each other? Why not scale down rewards for those who don't want to engage in farming those characters but still want to compete in some capacity? I'll even take zero rewards! I don't see how that would be unfair for the players who have invested in GAC. They would be with their own kind. I have no business competing with them.

Would it be so bad if everyone had a fair shot? Tell me why that's fundamentally bad.

You have a few posts that are in somewhat absolute terms, and others have posted evidence that can contradict that, so in some ways you are incorrect in the general sense.

Nothing in this game is on the micro timescale, everyone is given a fair shot, as you can always correct, make changes, and improve your situation. Why changes like this can be seen as fundamentally bad: 1 -

- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.

2- changes like this are drastic in the short term to reward players who have not or do not work thought the long term process. this is fundamentally bad for a game built on the long game.

as to your other points:
- they will never reward players for not moving forward, engaging in content, and generally speaking trying to not "build their way out of it" (I know you are not asking for rewards, but I think you can see what I mean)
- the idea is that they take all players with X investment and have them face players in the same group - that is fair, and allows a players choices to shine through. that doesnt' mean you need GLs, but when building a roster, each decision has many points to be weighed on, and if GAC is important to you, then you need to make choices accordingly.


Choices have weight, and some of that comes from game modes like GAC, they are not likely to make changes that would reduce the value/weight of a decision. They want choices to feel important and impactful. Players who have gone down the path of a GL had a fair amount of fluff they had to add to get there, some faced hard times due to how they did it or the choices they made along the way. We have all been there but if you stick with a good plan you can get through that, even if it feels worse a few times along the way.

I agree wholeheartedly with this and I'm happy somebody is actually trying, so thanks for that.

I admit some of my posts may have been in absolute terms. I'm one man fighting an army here, and it is easy to get ahead of my skis at times. However, the relatively few ways in which I am incorrect, in the general sense, hold no bearing against the validity of my original opinion. GL rosters should not be paired with GL rosters (correction non-GL*). That is how I and many other people feel, and the only way to prove that wrong is to try it and see it fail.

People have tried it, and done it successfully. GLs can be beat by non GL teams. Pairing players with and without, is a valid point, but is in no way an indisputable argument one way or the other by any means. So while they could make changes to the algorithm to account for this, they dont necessarily need to.

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243384" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2243346" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243312" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2243307" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243283" wrote:
....
I can't win. That's not fair.

Unfortunately, you cannot win due to your own choices, and that has nothing to do with fair.

- each player is subject to the same rules - That is what makes it fair.
- each player has to play with the roster they have built and the choices they have made - none of those choices force anyone into a sub category to limit who they may or may not face - that is also fair.
- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.


If GAC is a mode you would like to do better in, your best bet is to make changes within your control. There are many great suggestions in this thread on how you can improve your roster. It is unlikely they will make this change, and if they did decide to make this change, it is unlikely to be any time soon, so you should stick with what is in your control (your roster).

This is the closest anyone has come because you responded in earnest, but no I'm still not wrong.

I have corrected my choices, and the problem has only gotten worse. Why not restructure the divisions so people who invest in GAC characters play each other? Why not scale down rewards for those who don't want to engage in farming those characters but still want to compete in some capacity? I'll even take zero rewards! I don't see how that would be unfair for the players who have invested in GAC. They would be with their own kind. I have no business competing with them.

Would it be so bad if everyone had a fair shot? Tell me why that's fundamentally bad.

You have a few posts that are in somewhat absolute terms, and others have posted evidence that can contradict that, so in some ways you are incorrect in the general sense.

Nothing in this game is on the micro timescale, everyone is given a fair shot, as you can always correct, make changes, and improve your situation. Why changes like this can be seen as fundamentally bad: 1 -

- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.

2- changes like this are drastic in the short term to reward players who have not or do not work thought the long term process. this is fundamentally bad for a game built on the long game.

as to your other points:
- they will never reward players for not moving forward, engaging in content, and generally speaking trying to not "build their way out of it" (I know you are not asking for rewards, but I think you can see what I mean)
- the idea is that they take all players with X investment and have them face players in the same group - that is fair, and allows a players choices to shine through. that doesnt' mean you need GLs, but when building a roster, each decision has many points to be weighed on, and if GAC is important to you, then you need to make choices accordingly.


Choices have weight, and some of that comes from game modes like GAC, they are not likely to make changes that would reduce the value/weight of a decision. They want choices to feel important and impactful. Players who have gone down the path of a GL had a fair amount of fluff they had to add to get there, some faced hard times due to how they did it or the choices they made along the way. We have all been there but if you stick with a good plan you can get through that, even if it feels worse a few times along the way.

Some elements of your argument seem vague.

1. You refer to "changes" but do not specify. Changes I have suggested? I have given some thoughts, but I am arguing a matter of principle and am not interested in getting into specifics. I feel that you are selecting extreme elements of my argument and attacking only those. Let me help you understand what I am saying. If, hypothetically, changes to GAC did not affect those players who are GAC-oriented would it still be unfair in your opinion? There are already divisions. Why shouldn't I be competing in one that truly pushes me to do better rather than makes me quit?

I wasnt trying to be vague, I was only referring to the change that GLs only be paired with other GL owners, as that was the OP, and other points you are discussing with others. I was trying to stick to the heart of your OP.

I think they do need to make division changes, but that is a little bit of a different conversation, and doesnt help you, as GLs are present in many ranges of GP, and you would stll face your original problem.

Quitting just like roster development choices are a very personal choice, and players will do what they will with those choices.

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243384" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2243346" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243312" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2243307" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243283" wrote:
....
I can't win. That's not fair.

Unfortunately, you cannot win due to your own choices, and that has nothing to do with fair.

- each player is subject to the same rules - That is what makes it fair.
- each player has to play with the roster they have built and the choices they have made - none of those choices force anyone into a sub category to limit who they may or may not face - that is also fair.
- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.


If GAC is a mode you would like to do better in, your best bet is to make changes within your control. There are many great suggestions in this thread on how you can improve your roster. It is unlikely they will make this change, and if they did decide to make this change, it is unlikely to be any time soon, so you should stick with what is in your control (your roster).

This is the closest anyone has come because you responded in earnest, but no I'm still not wrong.

I have corrected my choices, and the problem has only gotten worse. Why not restructure the divisions so people who invest in GAC characters play each other? Why not scale down rewards for those who don't want to engage in farming those characters but still want to compete in some capacity? I'll even take zero rewards! I don't see how that would be unfair for the players who have invested in GAC. They would be with their own kind. I have no business competing with them.

Would it be so bad if everyone had a fair shot? Tell me why that's fundamentally bad.

You have a few posts that are in somewhat absolute terms, and others have posted evidence that can contradict that, so in some ways you are incorrect in the general sense.

Nothing in this game is on the micro timescale, everyone is given a fair shot, as you can always correct, make changes, and improve your situation. Why changes like this can be seen as fundamentally bad: 1 -

- Players have gone through great lengths to build rosters that help them excel at GACs, and some even to the detriment of play in other areas - Changes to this now would not be fair to them.

2- changes like this are drastic in the short term to reward players who have not or do not work thought the long term process. this is fundamentally bad for a game built on the long game.

as to your other points:
- they will never reward players for not moving forward, engaging in content, and generally speaking trying to not "build their way out of it" (I know you are not asking for rewards, but I think you can see what I mean)
- the idea is that they take all players with X investment and have them face players in the same group - that is fair, and allows a players choices to shine through. that doesnt' mean you need GLs, but when building a roster, each decision has many points to be weighed on, and if GAC is important to you, then you need to make choices accordingly.


Choices have weight, and some of that comes from game modes like GAC, they are not likely to make changes that would reduce the value/weight of a decision. They want choices to feel important and impactful. Players who have gone down the path of a GL had a fair amount of fluff they had to add to get there, some faced hard times due to how they did it or the choices they made along the way. We have all been there but if you stick with a good plan you can get through that, even if it feels worse a few times along the way.

2. Again, changes like what? All players in GAC are rewarded regardless of trajectory, long and short-term. I am not saying that players should not work toward long-term goals.

As to your other points:

Do you speak for them? I agree that they should not reward players for not "building their way out of it." I wouldn't have played this long if I didn't already know that. I never asked for no rewards. You misunderstood me there.

I understand that they group players based on investment. I am not arguing against that whatsoever. I agree with everything you have been saying in principle. I have a problem with how they are quantifying such investment considering how much more powerful GLs are. I am saying matchmaking "could" be better. I hear everyone else saying "No it's perfect." Do you think matchmaking is perfect?

I am not arguing that they should make any fundamental changes to matchmaking. I just think that something could be done where incentive stays the same and we are all competing within the framework you described. I believe that the value/weight of a decision is important, I want choices to be impactful, and I want the opportunity to rise out of adversity. Hard times are part of that. I would not be complaining if I did not understand that. In my case, it's too hard, and I am so far behind that it is actually getting steadily worse despite investing in GAC. Great mechansim for getting me to give up my money though, right? That's why I'm done with this game.

2- changing MM to only pair players GL with GL, and not with not. Removing one of the driving factors for developing your roster more is not playing towards that long term goal.

I didnt misunderstand, as I said I didnt mean direct rewards. But in a sense, if you get "easier matches" because you dont have a GL, regardless of your total GP, you are being "rewarded".

I do not speak directly for them, but I am expressing a core tenet that they are always driving for.

Absolutely things could be different and any changes (ones listed and not listed in this thread) could make things better for some and not so much for others. The system here is fair in its simplicity and harder to exploit due to that fact. It allows players to make choices and have them be felt on the battle field, as exhibited here.

The excess GP added by finishing all the needed toons for a GL, is a very big cost on the player getting there. There is a fair balance there, and also the fact that there is a period of time where all that work in progress slows other development and even MM depending how you do it.

No the system is not perfect, but changes are also not needed, as it's not broken and can easily be planned into and out of most (is not all) decisions.

You can't delete your account.

But if you don't have one, why are you paired with those who do? Making GAC possible, at the very least, would be a much better draw no?

I'm not getting a GL to make my matches harder while my potential opponents can fight other people that took Phoenix to r7 instead of unlocking a GL.

Sorry, but you are not right. It's been known for nearly 2 years how the matchmaking works. You are responsible for your roster development and if you are regularly pulling GLs without having one, you have a problem on that front. It's not the matchmaking that's wrong.

Show us your roster and that of your opponent. Justice lies in details.

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2241737" wrote:
But if you don't have one, why are you paired with those who do? Making GAC possible, at the very least, would be a much better draw no?

No - first off, if you've been "playing since the beginning" why don't you have a GL? Second, there are non-GL counters to GL, so if you had made better decisions in building your roster (either for GLs or to counter them), you wouldn't have an issue with your GAC matchups.

GAC has been around for quite some time - how matchups are determined is fairly well understood and is fine.

Oh I know I'm wrong given that it's just how matchmaking is set up. I have a r7 Stormtrooper Han. That should explain everything right there. What I don't understand is why they would set up matchmaking that way in the first place. It may be the way it is, but it doesn't have to be. I think we can all agree that diverse rosters make this game interesting.

"Nikoms565;c-2241863" wrote:

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2241737" wrote:
But if you don't have one, why are you paired with those who do? Making GAC possible, at the very least, would be a much better draw no?

No - first off, if you've been "playing since the beginning" why don't you have a GL? Second, there are non-GL counters to GL, so if you had made better decisions in building your roster (either for GLs or to counter them), you wouldn't have an issue with your GAC matchups.

GAC has been around for quite some time - how matchups are determined is fairly well understood and is fine.

Better question is why would I have a GL? Have you seen the requirements?

Also, just because GAC has been around awhile does not mean I'm wrong. It's never been fair. All I'm asking is why?

You say I'm wrong but you have nothing to back up your convictions. I was just paired with someone who has 2 maxed out GLs. How is that fair?