Rock, Paper,....?

"Beeblebrox;d-201510" wrote:
Hmm, so, let's recap:
April 10th: CG state that they are aiming for a variety of competitive teams, and are targetting a close-to rock-paper-scissors situation rather than hugely dominant individual squads

April 16th: CG rework a brand new character that's less than a week old so that they can specifically prevent a variety of competitive teams and support a pay-wall meta

....yeah, and you wonder why the huddled masses of non-whale players don't trust a word CG says!!

Ur not realizing the whole thing they said future and it will take time so probably the next few months when a new meta team comes out to change it to 3. Plus it wasent technically part of the road ahead but the description and talking before the road ahead started it does say when the road starts.

Just for the record, the whales don't trust CG either. That's why many are quitting. We've lost a couple from our launch guild in the past few months. Just saying. Lies and deceit anger all customers - not just f2p and lower paying ones.

"Nauros;c-1836193" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-1836190" wrote:

"leef;c-1836179" wrote:
well, the change basically only counters sith (namely palp lead with perhaps some of the same characters you'd typically find in a DRevan/malak team).
so there's that

...except that really only Sith teams were viable counters to Drevan+Malak squads. As far as I'm aware the only other slightly viable option is Bounty Hunters (of course I could be wrong and missing some??)

Are they really somewhat viable? Prepare for a BH nerf soon...

Arghh, no, delete comment, delete comment. Ummm, yeah the only counter is umm the Tuskens, phew, fixed!
:D

I’m certainly no CG apologist but this change makes sense. Malak required more resources (F2P or $) than any single toon to date. To have him easily countered by toons that most already would have worse consequences. Would you invest heavily in a future toon if you knew there was a 50/50 shot that any scrub with a mediocre squad could trounce you?

Personally I thought the weeks just prior to Malak were great. A lot of diversity in arena. However, if the developers insist upon power creep then it at least needs to work.

None of this matters, I have a safe source that confirmed Jedi Luke is coming in 3 months and he will have a very simple kit with only one basic attack

When Jedi Luke enters the battle, he take a bonus turn (before Han Solo)
If you pay US$ 10 all enemies are instantly defeated
If you don't, Jedi Luke is stunned until the end of the battle and all allies lose 50 speed

"SmashItUp;c-1836207" wrote:
None of this matters, I have a safe source that confirmed Jedi Luke is coming in 3 months and he will have a very simple kit with only one basic attack

When Jedi Luke enters the battle, he take a bonus turn (before Han Solo)
If you pay US$ 10 all enemies are instantly defeated
If you don't, Jedi Luke is stunned until the end of the battle and all allies lose 50 speed

That's not at all accurate. We all know that your "source" left off at least 1 zero....

"Nauros;c-1836182" wrote:

"leef;c-1836179" wrote:
well, the change basically only counters sith (namely palp lead with perhaps some of the same characters you'd typically find in a DRevan/malak team).
so there's that

The change sends the message that they are willing to micromanage the meta if players come up with something they don't like, and that is a much bigger problem than one team becoming useless in arena.

i order to achieve a somewhat rock/paper/scissors meta they'd have to micromanage the meta anyway, so i feel like that's a moot point.
I'd also like to point out that this kind of behaviour by the devs isn't exactly without precedent, usually not in favour of the "have nots".

biggest whale in our alliance just quit too due to the Malak fiasco, he has every character maxed out except Malak, wouldnt like to even guess what he has spent on this game but says that was the last straw from CG/EA

The other thing that is frustrating about this "newer-ish" model (basically, the single-character dominant model that CG has been running with for 20+ months now) - is that the entire thing is built on a false premise.

CG clearly believes (again, incorrectly) that Star Wars fans will only spend if they are forced to by a prescribed meta. The fact is, many of us were strongly supporting the game years ago - before the meta was nearly this prescribed. In fact, many of us STOPPED coughing up money, precisely because we felt like we were being "told" how to spend it by the prescribed meta releases.

Whatever. It's Carrie's game now, and apparently she is content to ru(i)n it however she pleases. Even if that means promising variety and balance in one post, then 6 days later telling her team to do the opposite.

"Nikoms565;c-1836271" wrote:
The other thing that is frustrating about this "newer-ish" model (basically, the single-character dominant model that CG has been running with for 20+ months now) - is that the entire thing is built on a false premise.

CG clearly believes (again, incorrectly) that Star Wars fans will only spend if they are forced to by a prescribed meta. The fact is, many of us were strongly supporting the game years ago - before the meta was nearly this prescribed. In fact, many of us STOPPED coughing up money, precisely because we felt like we were being "told" how to spend it by the prescribed meta releases.

Whatever. It's Carrie's game now, and apparently she is content to ru(i)n it however she pleases. Even if that means promising variety and balance in one post, then 6 days later telling her team to do the opposite.

The fact that some players stopped spending because of how they run things doesn't necessarily mean it would have been better if they didn't release meta dominant characters.
One could assume they those players would have continued to spend if they didn't (only) release meta dominant characters, but would the players who kept spending all along also keep spending if they did NOT release meta dominant characters?
Too many unknowns to base any argument on imo. Especially because "we" don't have the data but they do and they're the "experts", so i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.