"Liath;c-1749153" wrote:
"FerLandrossa;c-1749146" wrote:
"Liath;c-1749134" wrote:
Your suggestion is "git gud" without acknowledging that to develop a roster "ideal" for GA is impossible because you can't actually do anything to reset character upgrades you made over a year ago to help your guild for territory battles.
Nope. You are still completely ignoring what I actually said.
Nah, I read it. You're ignoring that you can't downgrade those toons. The gap can't be worked on because it can't be undone.
I’m not ignoring it because I specifically addressed it. My point is that in spite of the fact that you can’t downgrade those characters, you can nonetheless improve your chances in GA over time by improving your roster and making those fluff characters a smaller and less relevant percentage of your GP.
Tell me this. You say that matchmaking should only count 70 characters because only 70 characters matter in GA. That’s *your* argument right? So if only 70 characters matter and everything else is irrelevant, then isn’t it the case that if you have the ideal 70 characters to use all completely maxed out, it makes no difference what else you have or don’t have? So if you compare two people, and one has 70 great characters maxed and then 20 less-great characters at g10-11 and the rest at g1; and the second has the same great 70 characters maxed and then every other character at g6-8; and they have the same GP. According to you, this would be a fair and even match right? So then isn’t it necessarily true that if you max out those 70 characters, you’ve made up for any fluff issue?
But you are always carrying that 'fluff'.
I agree you can improve your chances like you state. But you can't ever get rid of it.
Yes, you can work to minimise it, and avoid investing in any more 'useless' toons like the plague.
But it will always disadvantage you.
They have created an element in the game that disadvantages investment of excess gear and currency, particularly past investment that you can't change. I highly doubt this is intentional and it actively discourages investment.
It can and should be better than this.
