Non GL vs GL

*Quits. Next day GL comes out with r8 sth requirement.*

"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.

"Kyno;c-2243460" wrote:

"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.

"Kyno;c-2243460" wrote:

"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.

"Kyno;c-2243460" wrote:

"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.

Well good. It looks like we found at least some common ground, somewhere in there. None of this is my problem anymore though I'll be deleting my account shortly. Been thinking about it for a while. I would donate my mats to you if I could for your effort. Good luck.

You can't delete your account.

"Kyp_Durron88;c-2243294" wrote:

"avihas;c-2243213" wrote:
When I eat a lot of candies, eventually I'll get a tooth ache. Now, I can say It's not fair, or I can adjust my eating habits.
You made your choices. We all were. Now you complain why because of your decisions, you don't win as much.
Furthermore- you refuse to listen to the ways correcting your decisions.

Guess what? people don't relic Rose Tico, RP, Phasma, C3PO & Darth Sidious because the like it- they do it, they invest over 400k gp in order to get an advantage in Arena/GAC/Assaults and now Conquest too.

No matter how you decide to invest your resources, it come with a price. And you can pretend you don't know the price because the mechanics of GAC matchmaking was well known for over a year. You demand everyting will bend to you will and called it fair, but no, fair is letting people know how GAC matchmaking work, how the game works, and then give everyone the option to choose their own path. Everyone started from the very same point, and each one develop his rosters & ship by gis own free will. That's fair

That is a terrible analogy. How does eating candy and getting sick have anything to do with fair competition?

I can just as easily say you demand everything to bend to your will. I'm just saying I have a point. When people try to tell me I'm wrong, we then have a problem.

The analogy is you relic a character because you like the character, the kit or whatever, that's the candy. But eating candies will make you sick, or in the game prespective, will make your matchmaking harder.

I'm not demanding everything bending to my will, I just aware of the mechanics behind the matchmaking and acknowledge everything I do come with a price.
For example, when the first pair of GLs (GLylo & GLey) came out I skipped it. I don't like the characters in the movie and like even less the characters in the movies or in the game I need to farm/gear/relic in order to get those GLs. I preferred to incress the depth of my rosters over inflating it with characters I don't like. The price was I started to face in time more and more GLs and my battles against it were tougher. So what did I do? I used strategy and develop counters to overcome this gap. And guess what? at least with part of the battles it was a success- I won about half (as far as I remember) of my battles against GLs when I got none.
When the knew pair of GLs came out, I finally found a GLs I want with requirement I can accept, so now I have GLuke and I'm on my way for GLEE.

Belive me I've done my fair share in mistakes in the game (farming the wrong characters, forgeting to place a defense and more). The difference is I know it's on me, and I don't blam others or say it's not fair.

You geared/reliced a characters that it's effectiveness in this game mode id limited, and are not part of any GL atm, That's on you. By all means, get the best out of those characters and enjoy with it, but don't blame your matchmaking because of your decisions.

It seems we are done here. Closed.