Remove post

You have about 50% chance of winning. They'll play and you'll lose or they'll not play and you'll win. If they're there, it's because they lost before against rosters close to yours.

Doesn't change the fact that it's not fun for original poster.

Can't please eveyone

"TVF;c-2392762" wrote:
Can't please eveyone

Just because you think the current GAC system is better than the old doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be improved.

At least with the old matchmaking you didn't end up with a scenario where you have 0 control of the outcome.

There’s a big difference between assuming the outcome and controlling it.

You control the outcome by doing the two things you do against every opponent, regardless of their GP. Set your defenses, and make your attacks.

And just remember that if he’s 6.1 million GP facing off against a 1.8 million GP account, he’s doing something very, very wrong. Like not attacking at all.

Lol, there is no controlling the outcome. You either win because they don't attack or get curb stomped. I fail to see how this makes for a good experience.

"RodFarva34;c-2392766" wrote:
At least with the old matchmaking you didn't end up with a scenario where you have 0 control of the outcome.

Haha most of my opponents in the old system would completely disagree with you.

"RodFarva34;c-2392766" wrote:
At least with the old matchmaking you didn't end up with a scenario where you have 0 control of the outcome.

Under the old system plenty of my opponents got matched against me and had no control over the outcome. I had managed my roster in a way that game me an advantage over most other players I got matched with.

I prefer not having to have such a tight control over my roster. I'm fine with the higher loss rate now. I stuck some extra gear on geos so I can earn guild tokens more consistently, for example. That extra gp with poor pvp use under the old system would have been a bad move.

He can’t squeeze 6.1 million GP into a three-man squad. Or a five-man squad. You’re focusing on the wrong thing.