Get this 100% Turnmeter coinflip mechanic out of this game!

Replies

  • NicWester
    6534 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    jejuzang wrote: »
    ZatyraJinn wrote: »
    It's so blatantly obvious that the first toon that hits 100% should go first

    Yes. The one that crosses the finish line first wins. And if toons are reaching it at the same exact time then the fastest should go first because obviously they are faster. The EXACT same time...

    Why is this so complicated to understand?

    It's not complicated to understand. We get it. We also hate it. Stop thinking that the only reason someone could disagree with you is that they're too dumb to understand what you're saying. This solution has problems of its own--solo'ing entire sections of raids, making teams unable to act, being too predictable, tripling down on mods.

    What folks don't get is that their "obvious" solution is never revolutionary. I guarantee you that at some point in Sacramento there was a big dry erase board with all kinds of markers that had your solution crossed out a long time ago for being too flawed.

    There's no "easy" solution to any of this. There's no solution that's going to make everyone happy. This is the solution that works best and has the fewest drawbacks. If you want something with zero randomness go play chess, because this isn't that. You're basically that person who goes to a steakhouse and orders a catfish, then gets upset when they're told it's not served.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Fanatic
    169 posts Member
    No. Dont't make assumptions. Samuel L has some great quotes about assuming and assumptions. I prefer some randomness. Balance of probability.

    Then don't make statements that implies otherwise, such as:
    The randomness negates strategy. Completely.

    and
    However, losing because of a coin flip, is flawed.

    Or don't make statements that are hyperbole to "prove" your point.

    Don't like the random order of toons at 100% TM? Do you hate the mechanic of AoO's and readied actions in D&D 3.x editions?
    Randomness that negates everything else is not a good mechanic.

    I agree, fortunately this game doesn't have that. How about a strategy (oh my) of using raid han to stun vader before he goes? Or using a rex lead to counter the dark side TM gain, or making sure your thrawn has your very fastest speed mods so he can act. These will all work to varying degrees of success depending on your opponents squad and speeds. I rarely end up in a situation where 1 character on each side are at 100% TM at the same time, and extremely rarely for 4+ to hit it.

    Does it sometimes happen? Sure. If I'd payed better attention could I have made adjustments to the team I was fielding to change that outcome? Absolutely.
  • Dralkyr
    449 posts Member
    With everything, it looks like keeping it RNG-dependent might be the best to avoid undesired side effects but add some wording to specific toons/abilities that toon x goes next (Thrawn and others like that). Change the wording to make it clear that the selected toon will "jump the line," as it were, but regular TM gain should probably remain RNG dependent.
  • jejuzang
    708 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    jejuzang wrote: »
    ZatyraJinn wrote: »
    It's so blatantly obvious that the first toon that hits 100% should go first

    Yes. The one that crosses the finish line first wins. And if toons are reaching it at the same exact time then the fastest should go first because obviously they are faster. The EXACT same time...

    Why is this so complicated to understand?

    It's not complicated to understand. We get it. We also hate it. Stop thinking that the only reason someone could disagree with you is that they're too dumb to understand what you're saying. This solution has problems of its own--solo'ing entire sections of raids, making teams unable to act, being too predictable, tripling down on mods.

    What folks don't get is that their "obvious" solution is never revolutionary. I guarantee you that at some point in Sacramento there was a big dry erase board with all kinds of markers that had your solution crossed out a long time ago for being too flawed.

    There's no "easy" solution to any of this. There's no solution that's going to make everyone happy. This is the solution that works best and has the fewest drawbacks. If you want something with zero randomness go play chess, because this isn't that. You're basically that person who goes to a steakhouse and orders a catfish, then gets upset when they're told it's not served.

    Dont we already solo the raids? Whats wrong with that?

    Make toons that prevent TM gain from anything other than speed. Better yet, change the rules for the raids. But for PVP we NEED consistent rules. Not randomness. Getting beat on randomness is the worst
  • EA_Cian
    971 posts EA Staff (retired)
    Hey folks, disagreement over things is okay but let's try to be mindful of each others' opinions and keep it respectful. Thanks!
  • The only instance in which the coinflip mechanic bothers me is when I use thrawns TM swap with another too at 100% TM and thrawn goes first.
  • Fanatic wrote: »
    No. Dont't make assumptions. Samuel L has some great quotes about assuming and assumptions. I prefer some randomness. Balance of probability.

    Then don't make statements that implies otherwise, such as:
    The randomness negates strategy. Completely.

    and
    However, losing because of a coin flip, is flawed.

    Or don't make statements that are hyperbole to "prove" your point.

    Don't like the random order of toons at 100% TM? Do you hate the mechanic of AoO's and readied actions in D&D 3.x editions?
    Randomness that negates everything else is not a good mechanic.

    I agree, fortunately this game doesn't have that. How about a strategy (oh my) of using raid han to stun vader before he goes? Or using a rex lead to counter the dark side TM gain, or making sure your thrawn has your very fastest speed mods so he can act. These will all work to varying degrees of success depending on your opponents squad and speeds. I rarely end up in a situation where 1 character on each side are at 100% TM at the same time, and extremely rarely for 4+ to hit it.

    Does it sometimes happen? Sure. If I'd payed better attention could I have made adjustments to the team I was fielding to change that outcome? Absolutely.

    Right!
  • Xerrath
    165 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    there is no real correct answer with this too many characters can reach 100 tm due to and ability that either they themselves or a teammates caused to happen. Fo has tm on crits, Rex being crit, thrawn debuffs, the list goes on. The only exceptions are those directly influenced by an ability with a cooldown ie thrawn tm swap, Foo tm 100 and so on those abilities should bypass the tm system in general and force the given character to go immediately. Other than that the rng system we have now is prob our best bet
  • I agree, it's ridiculous. 70% of my arena is zEP, it isn't even about mods anymore it's just RNG once you have +100 or more speed
  • Caiaphas
    109 posts Member
    GMYoda should put a swift end to EP-led teams. Traya lead might still be tough (as it should be), but the EP leads at least should start to dwindle.
    At the very least, GMYoda puts an end to the RNG aspect of the current meta
  • scuba
    12138 posts Member
    Caiaphas wrote: »
    GMYoda should put a swift end to EP-led teams. Traya lead might still be tough (as it should be), but the EP leads at least should start to dwindle.
    At the very least, GMYoda puts an end to the RNG aspect of the current meta

    Someone is optimistic.
  • The issue is power creep. They’ve created too many characters who rely on gaining tm mechanics and now they’re reaping what they’ve sowed. I haven’t had fun in arena in months and my overall game participation has lagged.

    I know I’m not the only one who feels this way
  • Mirkraag
    111 posts Member
    edited July 2018
    Why doing this non sense ? As the IA always have the advantage it will go before you everytime even when you are cleary faster.

    It would make much more sense to make the character that reach the 100% first going first and if two makes it at the same time the fastest go first. Easy and fair.

    Stop the random stuff it is tiring, thanks
    Post edited by Kyno on
  • BulYwif
    1977 posts Member
    right. Especially for the toons giving 100% TM, like Thrawn Grand Admiral's Command, CLS's Call to Action or FOO's Marching Order. When it's the toon's turn, the 100% TM must advantages the toons who's playing, AI or not AI.
  • Must be talking about ships stage 5e normal! Tarkin ship goes 1st everytime no matter what you do!
  • So, taking D&D for a bad example - anything that increases randomness is going to make it harder on the players verse the enemies. There's always another enemy, right. But you, the "experiencer" (Read Tron: 'USER!') of the events, are tied pretty tight to the outcomes of the dice roll. Pretty sure you can find this in every DMG from 2.0 to Next.
    Taking a Casino as another, albeit better, example - they work with a huge pool of randomness - for them - they make money every day because the numbers are in their favor. For the individual, there's a lot of variance (which is the high, I guess) and their perception is very different then the top down look.
    This is about ships 2.0 as well - is that leaving everything full random is going to, in general, benefit the AI. More then that, well, you all see the bias. We are human, after all.
    Numbers, user interface, player engagement, and %'s or whatever CG uses to make the game torture - as randomness increases in a game the frustration is going to go up with it.
    TL;DR and my Point: Some rule, some logic, as to who goes next in these various scenario's is going to be better for us, the player. A good start, which has been stated a few times, is that maybe active TM gain from an action/ability (Thrawn, FOO) gets bumped up over TM gains from passive abilities across the board.
    #AcolyteShootsTwice
  • Mzee
    1658 posts Member
    This has become a real growing issue since the Palpatine, and Vader rework. It is also a huge issue in ships since the big ship rework. I frequently lose to someone in ships getting completely crushed, and then I will try again, and win easily sometimes without losing a single ship. The impact this coin flip has is just far too much.

  • Caiaphas wrote: »
    GMYoda should put a swift end to EP-led teams. Traya lead might still be tough (as it should be), but the EP leads at least should start to dwindle.
    At the very least, GMYoda puts an end to the RNG aspect of the current meta

    How so? If anything they just added another squad that relies on TM gain.
  • Maybe we could get a compromise?

    (1) TM is queued at 100%, and toons are queued in the order they reach it
    (2) If multiple toons reach 100% tm at the same time, RNG decides their order in the queue
    (3) TM swaps (like Thrawn's) swaps positions in queue - allowing the swapped toon to take the #1 position in queue.

    Example:
    Team A toon 1 and Team B toon 1 both reach 100% tm at the same time. RNG determines 1A goes first (1A is 1st in queue, 1B is second in queue). 1A uses an ability that brings all of Team A to 100% tm. Team A 2-5 are sorted by RNG into queue positions 2-5, but 1B is still in 1st position in the queue and takes the next turn.
  • They could also just rework a couple of the affected skills, for example Thrawn's swap, Vader's Culling Blade, etc.. so that instead of rewarding 100% TM they award an immediate turn. Then after that just make it a FIFO queue.

    IMO RNG is almost always just a lazy way of generating a facade of difficulty. RNG is easier than AI, so RNG it is!
  • Didn't read past the 1st page, but couldn't they rewrite Vader's culling blade and Thrawn's command to read, "give next turn?" What if they made it a different mechanic besides TM gain. You could have some abilities that grant TM and some that grant next turn. It wouldn't take a lot of extra writing to explain the difference and it would at least eliminate some of the randomness. It isn't going to resolve every TM tie, but you'd at least know those abilities were going to were going to work as expected.
    maximum effort

    Angels Reborn
  • Why not just make it such that on offense u will go first. Rather than having a massive ffa party when 9-10 toons are at 100% tm (think rex cleansing against zep lead).

    Even stupid things like using thrawn to swap tm with another 100% tm toon (eg cls) so i can dispel a taunt to fracture sion - but lo and behold it’s still thrawn’s turn! Can’t they just make it such that whoever thrawn swaps tm with goes next?
  • leef wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    It's a flawed, lazy, and plain bad mechanic. Any excuse to not change it shows laziness on their part because THEY mentioned it so they knew it was flawed.
    You are the type of person that will be the first to complain if they removed the coinflip mechanic and start noticing that you are losing more often than before

    Nope. And nope. I've played strategy games all my life. I would most definitely lose less.

    If I lose due to under geared, under starred, bad strategy, miscounting skill timers, using the wrong skill at the wrong moment, or fighting an opponent I shouldn't that's on me. Live and learn. However, losing because of a coin flip, is flawed. And frustrating. Anyone who actually tries and plans out their squads turn order and plans according to that order and contingencies based off said order knows this as obvious. Yes you can't plan for everything. But when you can be in complete control and your whole squad is at full TM and then 1 opposing character gets full TM and gets a turn cause of a coin flip and that cascades down from there to a loss... is ridiculous. There's a small sect who like random and chaos... That's their chance to win. I don't prefer to rely on chance or luck. It's a lazy and not a good functional way of conducting or producing a winning stratagem.

    You make it seem like there's no possibility to set up your team in such a way that there's very little left to chance. I don't like coin flips either that's why i avoid them as much as possible. You're not in complete controll when the enemy team can potentially screw up your turn order.

    Rex vs Zep teams is a classic example of ffa rng coinflip mayhem.
  • Fanatic wrote: »
    No. Dont't make assumptions. Samuel L has some great quotes about assuming and assumptions. I prefer some randomness. Balance of probability.

    Then don't make statements that implies otherwise, such as:
    The randomness negates strategy. Completely.

    and
    However, losing because of a coin flip, is flawed.

    Or don't make statements that are hyperbole to "prove" your point.

    Don't like the random order of toons at 100% TM? Do you hate the mechanic of AoO's and readied actions in D&D 3.x editions?
    Randomness that negates everything else is not a good mechanic.

    I agree, fortunately this game doesn't have that. How about a strategy (oh my) of using raid han to stun vader before he goes? Or using a rex lead to counter the dark side TM gain, or making sure your thrawn has your very fastest speed mods so he can act. These will all work to varying degrees of success depending on your opponents squad and speeds. I rarely end up in a situation where 1 character on each side are at 100% TM at the same time, and extremely rarely for 4+ to hit it.

    Does it sometimes happen? Sure. If I'd payed better attention could I have made adjustments to the team I was fielding to change that outcome? Absolutely.

    “Rarely” is probably an exaggeration, especially if you say “try using raid han” and “try using rex” to counter EP.

    Put it simply, opposing zDN will inflict healthdown on han, and then rex if your rex goes next. Then, depending on how fast your opponent’s toons are, u can have anywhere between 1-3 opposing toons at 100% tm while u have 4 at 100% yourself. To have your toons go in the correct order after that AND have the opponent go after is about equivalent to getting a 29 speed secondary on your mods.
  • swgohfan29
    1140 posts Member
    Didn't read past the 1st page, but couldn't they rewrite Vader's culling blade and Thrawn's command to read, "give next turn?" What if they made it a different mechanic besides TM gain. You could have some abilities that grant TM and some that grant next turn. It wouldn't take a lot of extra writing to explain the difference and it would at least eliminate some of the randomness. It isn't going to resolve every TM tie, but you'd at least know those abilities were going to were going to work as expected.

    yes, they could, but they dont, so they dont and shouldnt work that way now.

    @Eddiemundie
    Why not just make it such that on offense u will go first. Rather than having a massive ffa party when 9-10 toons are at 100% tm (think rex cleansing against zep lead).

    Even **** things like using thrawn to swap tm with another 100% tm toon (eg cls) so i can dispel a taunt to fracture sion - but lo and behold it’s still thrawn’s turn! Can’t they just make it such that whoever thrawn swaps tm with goes next?

    Beacuse thats a huge advanatge for offense, really. And because the in game description shows thrawn swapping TM and not turns.
  • swgohfan29 wrote: »
    Didn't read past the 1st page, but couldn't they rewrite Vader's culling blade and Thrawn's command to read, "give next turn?" What if they made it a different mechanic besides TM gain. You could have some abilities that grant TM and some that grant next turn. It wouldn't take a lot of extra writing to explain the difference and it would at least eliminate some of the randomness. It isn't going to resolve every TM tie, but you'd at least know those abilities were going to were going to work as expected.

    yes, they could, but they dont, so they dont and shouldnt work that way now.

    @Eddiemundie
    Why not just make it such that on offense u will go first. Rather than having a massive ffa party when 9-10 toons are at 100% tm (think rex cleansing against zep lead).

    Even **** things like using thrawn to swap tm with another 100% tm toon (eg cls) so i can dispel a taunt to fracture sion - but lo and behold it’s still thrawn’s turn! Can’t they just make it such that whoever thrawn swaps tm with goes next?

    Beacuse thats a huge advanatge for offense, really. And because the in game description shows thrawn swapping TM and not turns.

    There seem to be two sides in the Thrawn discussion. One appears to be very literal in their interpretation of the kit description, the other seems to imbue the kit description with intent (I'm firmly in this camp).

    Either way, I don't understand why there's so much opposition to what seems to be the intent - the target of Grand Admiral's Command is the next to to take a turn. It makes absolutely zero sense that a 'Turn Meter Swap' results in anything else, especially in those circumstances where the same toon who just took a turn (Thrawn) takes the next turn. Surely, I'm assuming intent here, but there's a big difference between passive turn meter gains (those imbued via leadership or unique) with active turn meter transfer (Thrawn, FOO, and CLS albeit to himself).

    Hopefully, the new 'Bonus Turn' mechanic introduced with Yoda's rework (the Ataru ability) puts this issue to bed for the most part. While a more deterministic method of identifying "who's next" would be ideal and allow for more strategic play with more consistent outcomes, I'd happily put up with "100% TM Soup" if declarative TM swaps functioned in a way conducive to strategy.

  • But none of it is conducive to strategy... That's the issue.
  • This is only an issue if you’re running palpatine leads vs palpatine leads or rex teams to counter them. Once I started running grandmaster yoda lead in arena, I haven’t noticed it as much

    Don’t chase the meta
  • Sometimes it's still annoying. Today for example, my CLS got fractured, I used thrawns TM swap on him (hes sitting at 100% TM and sti l "fractured") and my entire team, went before him. Even thrawn 2 more times and ended up finishing the fight with CLS still "fractured"(killed their thrawn last).
  • Sometimes it's still annoying. Today for example, my CLS got fractured, I used thrawns TM swap on him (hes sitting at 100% TM and sti l "fractured") and my entire team, went before him. Even thrawn 2 more times and ended up finishing the fight with CLS still "fractured"(killed their thrawn last).

    Fracture doesn't end until opposing Thrawn's turns is over.
Sign In or Register to comment.