"crzydroid;c-2363047" wrote:
"Lumiya;c-2362776" wrote:
Something I just don't get: Ever since GAC has been changed, we were told over and over again that GP is not the right way to measure the value of a roster. That your skill, your mods etc are what makes you better or worse.
We are theoretically getting matched against day 1 accounts for that very reason!
And yet now all of a sudden, CG uses our GP to value our roster again to tell us, if we are good enough.
These definition swings are giving me whiplash.
If we are being told over and over that we can/should punch up in GAC with the right roster/toons/mods etc., then why are we not able to try the same in PG? Or Conquest for that matter btw. This is a huge contradiction and the lack of consistency makes this just depressing.
There might be some who now would say, well it is 4M GP minimum to be able to play hard Conquest so it is fair to have the same requirements for PG.
This argument might have been true before the GAC changes, because until that point the measurement by CG for roster strength was GP. But it is not anymore after the change. You can't use different measurements in the same game about the strenght of a roster that contradict each other just because it suits you better and expect everyone to just accept or understand it! It doesn't work that way!
Edit to add:
Basically we are matched agains players with Conquest characters and we are being told the reason for that is because GP doesn't matter or reflect a roster's strength. Yet we are not allowed to get the Conquest characters so we can have a fair chance against these players and are being told the reason for that is because GP matters.
An interesting interpretation of the GAC changes. I feel like the announcements were fairly clear that their intention was that people grow their roster. Getting rid of GP divisions was to prevent "sandbagging," (their words), by which they meant people who would gear units no higher than necessary and thereby get better matchups. In other words, those people who are now punching up. Their intention with the changes was always to get people to gear more and increase their rosters. You can only punch up so far before you hit a wall, and that's what they want.
Wouldn't acquiring a new character (CAT) be considered roster growth? With GP removed as a deciding factor from matchmaking and division placement in GAC there is no longer any reason for a player to squelch roster growth - in fact, the opposite is true. And if CG wants rosters growing, why put a 1+ year old character behind a GP wall? We all already have plenty of motivation to grow our rosters, new players and veterans both - that IS part of the draw of the game - collecting characters.
Respectfully, crzydroid, I think Lumiya is making a really valid point - in some regards GP is respected (PG, Conquest, TW rewards), and in other regards it's dismissed as meaningless (GAC). So the question is - what is the real motivation for the 4mGP requirement? What is achieved by gating a character (that's a year old now and has already enjoyed a period of exclusivity) behind GP? I know you don't have the answers, but as players many of us are just trying to make sense of what is going on in a game we all enjoy and devote a lot of our time to.
Capital Games Team
