"Swordd;c-1236656" wrote:
There is no reason this had to be one way or the other. They could have arranged the table starting from each side moving towards a final battle in the middle, allowing you to play LS defending Hoth and DS advancing on Hoth. This seems ridiculously obvious, and I am a bit flummoxed that they didn't think of this. So much for "every toon matters."
And I say this as a primarily light-side player who has most of the toons needed for specific missions. The way they set it up works just fine for me, but I'm not at all surprised that so many folks are irritated right now. This is the biggest game content addition since raids were introduced, and to effectively exclude an entire faction is just bizarre and tone-deaf.
We are in the same boat, and I feel the same way. There has been too much light side/Rebel love. I like light side, and I'm sitting pretty well for this, and I understand that the nature of the movies means that there are more named Rebels.
But the light side tilt is hard to defend.
There are 16 (soon to be 19) more light side toons than dark. Even the B and C list light side factions (like Jawas, and Ewoks) have important uses, good synergy, and special events. While the dark side sports some of the worst factions in the game. (Nightsisters, Seperatists, Bounty Hunters, Tuskans, etc)
And I had the same idea about starting a board from opposite sides, using both, and meeting in the middle. That would have been great. Not trying to steal your thunder with that idea, but as you said it's "ridiculously obvious."
Not trying to be too critical of this game mode yet. It looks like a lot of fun. The rewards look great. I'm excited to get into it. I'm 90% positive looking at Territory Battles. But I hope that this marks the end of Rebel love for a bit, and the beginning of some major dark side reworks, character additions, and at some point a dark side focused Territory Battles map. And that's coming from someone who has been desperate to see Mace get a beastly rework for over a year.
