Draw in Guild Wars

2Next

Replies

  • Kyno
    31571 posts Moderator
    LukazAbMon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Here is what I see:
    1st suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins.

    This would end with both the attacking and defensive team being removed and I guess no points awarded.
    - I lose a chance for points but get the advantage of not having to actually beat the team to get past them. If this was done and my guild completes the zone we get points for clearing the zone, even though we didnt.

    2nd suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins.

    This would end with both teams being restored, as if the battle never happened, no points awarded.
    - I couldn't win, but lose nothing. I get the advantage of basically playing with a team until I win for full points. The defense gets nothing for not letting me win, which is also an advantage for me. At any point in a match if I'm not going to win. I just let it time out to a draw and attack again, this is an advantage because i get to play only the match with the best RNG for me.

    3rd suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins
    This would lead to an endless timer

    - You cant win within the time allotted for the game mode, so you get the advantage of extra time. The defense now loses the advantage of "getting points" that you couldn't beat, because you would lose points in this scenario in the current scheme.

    Any of the changes you are suggesting, dont fix a problem as much as they give even more advantage to the offensive guild. In all likelihood ending in more TW ties, due to less of the little point differences per match.

    Part of the issue with any changes to the "draw mechanism" is that any player can force this to happen. This basically gives them an "out" to take should the match not go the way they want. This negates part of the points system which is what I keep referring to as a benefit.
    About 1st and 2nd suggestions we now have figured out that they are worse than 3rd. But what about the 1st offer I wrote about this initially, but the 2nd proposal is worse only because it would be possible to play till the best times. And I also wrote about it in one of my answers. This will be the only way, because no points after recovery, no one will get - it is also easy to understand, and it should be taken into account by the developers. 3-its proposal will not lead to an endless timer-the timer will be replenished only 1 time. Well, it is quite easy to understand - you create the impression of an infantile-thinking person. Although I respect you as a moderator, but do not need to interfere in every post with ill-conceived claims.

    if you only extend it by 1 min, how does it not end in a draw, as you said, you added the time so it would end in a win or a lose....but it could still end in a tie.

    Firstly, i will say, you have not said anything that changes what i have stated, so it is not likely that what I am saying is the ill-conceived part of this post. what you are looking for is an advantage against teams you cannot beat. There is a reason the timer is there, its to make it a challenge to beat them, there is a reason that once you use a team no matter the outcome, you dont get access to them any more, again to make this game mode a challenge.

    As a player you should take into account the rules of engagement for the game mode and do your best to understand them and the background for why they are there.

    On a final note: As a moderator I am asking that you be more mindful about how you speak to other forum goers. You seem to want to try and insult people that do not agree with you, this is not a good way to respond to posts. This may also land you in trouble as time goes on. Please refrain from making any personal comments about anyone on the forum.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    If you don't wipe out the defending team, the defenses hold and your attack fails. You can always attack with another team but the one you already used for an attack failed should not have another go - it already fought and lost.

    Both a draw and a defeat is a victory for the defending team. Seen from the defending point of view: Why shouldn't it be treated equally? The defending team did its job in either case.

    Again:
    There is no problem. Your suggestions can (and will) be abused.
    That's it-at the moment, because of this problem (which is obvious, but the blind do not see it), we are forced to attack the remaining in the protection of the squad with their other units despite the fact that our disappears. This is the problem at the moment. And its VERY EASY to SEE. You just don't want to understand it, and stand your ground. That it will be possible to attack that group which at us TAKE away NOT for WHAT is not advantage, and only return of group which at us take away. That is, fixing the problem in any way. This is what I've been asked to solve, and not to get his stupid, ill-considered criticism. I'm leaning towards option 3 for now. But to listen to your discontent, I'm tired. Unhappy with something - just don't write, and walk past. Stupid forum, almost all posts have to write, and still no one is clear.

  • LukazAbMon wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    If you don't wipe out the defending team, the defenses hold and your attack fails. You can always attack with another team but the one you already used for an attack failed should not have another go - it already fought and lost.

    Both a draw and a defeat is a victory for the defending team. Seen from the defending point of view: Why shouldn't it be treated equally? The defending team did its job in either case.

    Again:
    There is no problem. Your suggestions can (and will) be abused.
    That's it-at the moment, because of this problem (which is obvious, but the blind do not see it), we are forced to attack the remaining in the protection of the squad with their other units despite the fact that our disappears. This is the problem at the moment. And its VERY EASY to SEE. You just don't want to understand it, and stand your ground. That it will be possible to attack that group which at us TAKE away NOT for WHAT is not advantage, and only return of group which at us take away. That is, fixing the problem in any way. This is what I've been asked to solve, and not to get his ****, ill-considered criticism. I'm leaning towards option 3 for now. But to listen to your discontent, I'm tired. Unhappy with something - just don't write, and walk past. **** forum, almost all posts have to write, and still no one is clear.

    You do realize that , A, your “solution” is flawed, and B, several folks here have very politely tried to tell you that,

    You are trying to fix something that is not broke, and apparently , based on your grammar, you are not a native English speaker. Possibly something is being lost in the translation to you. TW as is currently is working properly worth the squad you use being only available for one use, REGARDLESS , of win or lose. OR timeout. You would be well served to inquire about proper squad comps and counter squads. That is the answer you seem to be needing.
  • Waqui
    8554 posts Member
    LukazAbMon wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    If you don't wipe out the defending team, the defenses hold and your attack fails. You can always attack with another team but the one you already used for an attack failed should not have another go - it already fought and lost.

    Both a draw and a defeat is a victory for the defending team. Seen from the defending point of view: Why shouldn't it be treated equally? The defending team did its job in either case.

    Again:
    There is no problem. Your suggestions can (and will) be abused.
    That's it-at the moment, because of this problem (which is obvious, but the blind do not see it), we are forced to attack the remaining in the protection of the squad with their other units despite the fact that our disappears. This is the problem at the moment. And its VERY EASY to SEE. You just don't want to understand it, and stand your ground. That it will be possible to attack that group which at us TAKE away NOT for WHAT is not advantage, and only return of group which at us take away. That is, fixing the problem in any way. This is what I've been asked to solve, and not to get his ****, ill-considered criticism. I'm leaning towards option 3 for now. But to listen to your discontent, I'm tired. Unhappy with something - just don't write, and walk past. **** forum, almost all posts have to write, and still no one is clear.

    A. Ease down on the personal attacks. If you react this poorly to polite criticism and cannot handle it without resolving to personal attacks, then posting on forums like these is not for you. You WILL be criticized when coming up with such poor suggestions.
    B. I do understand the current design. I simply don't regard it a problem. It is perfectly fair and also fun and challenging the way it's designed.
    C. You have a different view, which is fine. But it's easy to see (your words) that your suggestions are severely flawed.
    D. Yes, it's criticism. There's nothing wrong with polite criticism. Critcism is not uncommon in discussions. Poor suggestions should and will be criticized. Making up problems where there is non should and will be criticized as well.
    E. Yes, I would be unhappy if your suggestions were to be implemented. Of course I don't just 'walk by' as you put it. F. You put you poor suggestions up for discussion. Now, discuss them. That's what people do. Don't resolve to personal attacks, simply because you cannot defend your point of view with good arguments.
  • Maybe you should take your own advice:
    Unhappy with something - just don't write, and walk past

    Unhappy with Draws - just don't write and walk past.
    You yourself said Draws are rare too, why kick up such a big fuss over a small thing that's rare? Just don't write and walk past.

    K, thanks, bye.
  • I am the Creator of this topic, and I have to fend off other people's discontent, as I am currently in the solution of this issue. Unlike other forum members, which, if you do not like this theme, you can easily get around, and generally not to interfere. I ask to speak on a subject, and to offer advice on the decision, instead of writing any discontent in my address, and in the address of this subject. But I think wrong - just because I respond to most messages. But I have to do it, because I am the Creator of this theme. In fact, YOU're wrong. And I've written many times why. But to your thinking does not reach.
  • And yet - the insult is the humiliation of anyone. I write only about the mental abilities of those to whom you write many times, and they still do not understand. Such an obvious problem with the intellect, so no humiliation, and therefore insults, not here. I'm just stating a fact.
  • LukazAbMon wrote: »
    I am the Creator of this topic, and I have to fend off other people's discontent, as I am currently in the solution of this issue. Unlike other forum members, which, if you do not like this theme, you can easily get around, and generally not to interfere. I ask to speak on a subject, and to offer advice on the decision, instead of writing any discontent in my address, and in the address of this subject. But I think wrong - just because I respond to most messages. But I have to do it, because I am the Creator of this theme. In fact, YOU're wrong. And I've written many times why. But to your thinking does not reach.

    Sorry, but the problem is of EA sees none of us "interfering", they might think "Hey! People like this idea! No one complained about it!". As a stakeholder in this game, i have a right to interfere with your opinons on the forums. This allows EA to know who likes and dislikes the issue at hand (Assuming they read the forums, but whatever). I have a "responsibility" to interfere if i want EA to know i want.

    If you don't want to see our opinons,
    a. Block anyone who posts on your thread
    b. PM developers directly

    Now, you have clearly stated your position. We have pointed out
    a. problems with that position
    b. probelms with your solutions
    c. alternative ways of thinking about the position
    .

    In this case, you have every right to disagree with our opinons, just as we have the right to do the same to you. However, neither of us are objectively right: This is very much of a preference issue regarding playstyles.

    Finally, you do NOT have the responsibility to reply to all of us. We will NOT feel slighted if you ignore us.
  • swgohfan29 wrote: »
    LukazAbMon wrote: »
    I am the Creator of this topic, and I have to fend off other people's discontent, as I am currently in the solution of this issue. Unlike other forum members, which, if you do not like this theme, you can easily get around, and generally not to interfere. I ask to speak on a subject, and to offer advice on the decision, instead of writing any discontent in my address, and in the address of this subject. But I think wrong - just because I respond to most messages. But I have to do it, because I am the Creator of this theme. In fact, YOU're wrong. And I've written many times why. But to your thinking does not reach.

    Sorry, but the problem is of EA sees none of us "interfering", they might think "Hey! People like this idea! No one complained about it!". As a stakeholder in this game, i have a right to interfere with your opinons on the forums. This allows EA to know who likes and dislikes the issue at hand (Assuming they read the forums, but whatever). I have a "responsibility" to interfere if i want EA to know i want.

    If you don't want to see our opinons,
    a. Block anyone who posts on your thread
    b. PM developers directly

    Now, you have clearly stated your position. We have pointed out
    a. problems with that position
    b. probelms with your solutions
    c. alternative ways of thinking about the position
    .

    In this case, you have every right to disagree with our opinons, just as we have the right to do the same to you. However, neither of us are objectively right: This is very much of a preference issue regarding playstyles.

    Finally, you do NOT have the responsibility to reply to all of us. We will NOT feel slighted if you ignore us.

    Of course, there are helpful and polite participants whose answers are normal. You included.
    This topic started out basically, with a normal response, this topic is quickly made once again arguing.
  • You are trying to fix something that is not broke, and apparently , based on your grammar, you are not a native English speaker. Possibly something is being lost in the translation to you.

    Perhaps this is the problem of Yandex-translator, which I translate. I do so to be able to answer faster. I am from Russia.
    But it is necessary not only to understand that mistakes in translation are possible, but also to take them into account.

  • EA_Cian
    971 posts EA Staff (retired)
    Let's please get back on track here folks and quit it with the dismissal of other folks opinions/points
  • Tanzos
    219 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    New suggestion:

    If there's a draw, your remaining characters are retreated like in the Raids and you can use them again at the health they retreated with. So getting a draw with 5 guys remaining vs 1 of theirs, mean you can go back in and finish them off cause you clearly had the upper hand. BUT you lose the first time attack bonus.

    Or if you draw with only 1 guy remaining you can use that character on a different team but at their health level.

    Saying if you can't win in 5 minutes you don't deserve the win is a flawed idea, the game constantly changes with complex strategies and real life time is an immeasurable factor in "victory". If I think too long about my moves or somebody asks me a question while I'm in a match may drain the time I have to win. If those variables were different my team could've easily won. So it's not that if my team can't win in 5 minutes I don't deserve it, It may be that my team CAN win in 5 minutes but something else got in the way of giving me that chance to win. Which I understand is not the game's problem but it is our problem as players.

    A very minor one.
  • Kyno
    31571 posts Moderator
    Tanzos wrote: »
    New suggestion:

    If there's a draw, your remaining characters are retreated like in the Raids and you can use them again at the health they retreated with. So getting a draw with 5 guys remaining vs 1 of theirs, mean you can go back in and finish them off cause you clearly had the upper hand. BUT you lose the first time attack bonus.

    Or if you draw with only 1 guy remaining you can use that character on a different team but at their health level.

    Saying if you can't win in 5 minutes you don't deserve the win is a flawed idea, the game constantly changes with complex strategies and real life time is an immeasurable factor in "victory". If I think too long about my moves or somebody asks me a question while I'm in a match may drain the time I have to win. If those variables were different my team could've easily won. So it's not that if my team can't win in 5 minutes I don't deserve it, It may be that my team CAN win in 5 minutes but something else got in the way of giving me that chance to win. Which I understand is not the game's problem but it is our problem as players.

    A very minor one.

    This is part of the point you are missing OP. You make no reference to the "attempts" in your description of the solutions.

    Attempts are how points are derived when you win, from your posts it sounds like you want a full reset with no accounting for attempts. This is why much of your solutions seem ill conceived and show a possible lack of understanding of the game mechanics.

    Many of the issues like this arrive from players over committing on defense and not leaving themselves viable counter teams to what they are going to face, or not having good mod setups on teams they are going to lose. This will leave you in a situation where the draw is more likely.

    Every team can be beaten in 5 mins, you may not have the right team to counter them but that doesnt change this fact.
  • Waqui
    8554 posts Member
    Tanzos wrote: »
    New suggestion:

    If there's a draw, your remaining characters are retreated like in the Raids and you can use them again at the health they retreated with. So getting a draw with 5 guys remaining vs 1 of theirs, mean you can go back in and finish them off cause you clearly had the upper hand. BUT you lose the first time attack bonus.

    Or if you draw with only 1 guy remaining you can use that character on a different team but at their health level.

    Saying if you can't win in 5 minutes you don't deserve the win is a flawed idea, the game constantly changes with complex strategies and real life time is an immeasurable factor in "victory". If I think too long about my moves or somebody asks me a question while I'm in a match may drain the time I have to win. If those variables were different my team could've easily won. So it's not that if my team can't win in 5 minutes I don't deserve it, It may be that my team CAN win in 5 minutes but something else got in the way of giving me that chance to win. Which I understand is not the game's problem but it is our problem as players.

    A very minor one.

    How about:
    If the defending teams holds its ground for 5 minutes, it reaches its objective and hence is considered the victor?

    And also:
    If the attacking team wins, it may be that the defending team COULD have won, but something else got in the way of giving it the chance to win.

    As it is now, you can use one team to soften up the opponent before you go in with another team to finish it up. F.ex. you can attack with a team with IPD and some secondary characters, that can protect it until it blows up Traya. With your suggestions the remaining characters can retreat after Traya was blown up, and then they can be used in another similar attack. It's better than the original suggestion, but still:

    If the attacker is allowed to retreat with its remaining characters, fill the team up to a full team of 5, and then attack again, how is that fair towards the defender, who cannot do the same? Defending teams are fixed once assigned for defense. Defenders can't reinforce in the same way. It gives an unfair advantage to the attacker.
  • Tanzos
    219 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    New suggestion:

    If there's a draw, your remaining characters are retreated like in the Raids and you can use them again at the health they retreated with. So getting a draw with 5 guys remaining vs 1 of theirs, mean you can go back in and finish them off cause you clearly had the upper hand. BUT you lose the first time attack bonus.

    Or if you draw with only 1 guy remaining you can use that character on a different team but at their health level.

    Saying if you can't win in 5 minutes you don't deserve the win is a flawed idea, the game constantly changes with complex strategies and real life time is an immeasurable factor in "victory". If I think too long about my moves or somebody asks me a question while I'm in a match may drain the time I have to win. If those variables were different my team could've easily won. So it's not that if my team can't win in 5 minutes I don't deserve it, It may be that my team CAN win in 5 minutes but something else got in the way of giving me that chance to win. Which I understand is not the game's problem but it is our problem as players.

    A very minor one.

    How about:
    If the defending teams holds its ground for 5 minutes, it reaches its objective and hence is considered the victor?

    And also:
    If the attacking team wins, it may be that the defending team COULD have won, but something else got in the way of giving it the chance to win.

    As it is now, you can use one team to soften up the opponent before you go in with another team to finish it up. F.ex. you can attack with a team with IPD and some secondary characters, that can protect it until it blows up Traya. With your suggestions the remaining characters can retreat after Traya was blown up, and then they can be used in another similar attack. It's better than the original suggestion, but still:

    If the attacker is allowed to retreat with its remaining characters, fill the team up to a full team of 5, and then attack again, how is that fair towards the defender, who cannot do the same? Defending teams are fixed once assigned for defense. Defenders can't reinforce in the same way. It gives an unfair advantage to the attacker.

    In my suggestion, the attacker can't retreat. Only when they draw do their alive characters come back, like Hermit Yoda in the raid specifically, with reduced health and 0 turn meter.

    I also realize that it may cause a weird tactic of not taking a turn to draw if you mess up in the beginning to get all your characters back. But it would still feed turn meter to the defenders and lose the first attack bonus. Either way, it doesn't create a much of disadvantage to the defenders, but gives the offense a chance to use the characters that survived in these extremely rare scenarios.
  • Kyno
    31571 posts Moderator
    Tanzos wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    Tanzos wrote: »
    New suggestion:

    If there's a draw, your remaining characters are retreated like in the Raids and you can use them again at the health they retreated with. So getting a draw with 5 guys remaining vs 1 of theirs, mean you can go back in and finish them off cause you clearly had the upper hand. BUT you lose the first time attack bonus.

    Or if you draw with only 1 guy remaining you can use that character on a different team but at their health level.

    Saying if you can't win in 5 minutes you don't deserve the win is a flawed idea, the game constantly changes with complex strategies and real life time is an immeasurable factor in "victory". If I think too long about my moves or somebody asks me a question while I'm in a match may drain the time I have to win. If those variables were different my team could've easily won. So it's not that if my team can't win in 5 minutes I don't deserve it, It may be that my team CAN win in 5 minutes but something else got in the way of giving me that chance to win. Which I understand is not the game's problem but it is our problem as players.

    A very minor one.

    How about:
    If the defending teams holds its ground for 5 minutes, it reaches its objective and hence is considered the victor?

    And also:
    If the attacking team wins, it may be that the defending team COULD have won, but something else got in the way of giving it the chance to win.

    As it is now, you can use one team to soften up the opponent before you go in with another team to finish it up. F.ex. you can attack with a team with IPD and some secondary characters, that can protect it until it blows up Traya. With your suggestions the remaining characters can retreat after Traya was blown up, and then they can be used in another similar attack. It's better than the original suggestion, but still:

    If the attacker is allowed to retreat with its remaining characters, fill the team up to a full team of 5, and then attack again, how is that fair towards the defender, who cannot do the same? Defending teams are fixed once assigned for defense. Defenders can't reinforce in the same way. It gives an unfair advantage to the attacker.

    In my suggestion, the attacker can't retreat. Only when they draw do their alive characters come back, like Hermit Yoda in the raid specifically, with reduced health and 0 turn meter.

    I also realize that it may cause a weird tactic of not taking a turn to draw if you mess up in the beginning to get all your characters back. But it would still feed turn meter to the defenders and lose the first attack bonud. Either way, it doesn't create a much of disadvantage to the defenders, but gives the offense a chance to use the characters that survived in these extremely rare scenarios.

    TW is a competition of battles, any chance to use the same toons multiple times is a pretty big advantage.

    The strategy is to use teams that hold well on defense and balance that with making good counter teams, if I can use the same 5 toons to bring down 1 opponent from multiple teams and let someone or go back in myself and take down the rest with a weaker team, that kinda defeats the purpose.

    If i go in and mess up, i lose the battle and my team, that's the price i pay. It seems fitting.
  • Tanzos
    219 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    I also just realized that you could easily exploit teams by using a strong team and not finishing the fight on purpose, have them retreat and send in a terrible squad to finish them off . You lose the first attack but gain your super squad back... so... I take it all back.

    Nevermind.

    OP: It's fine the way it is, just deal with it when it happens unfortunately. Sorry
  • Here, the participants begin to offer different versions. That's correct.
  • You know, even if you just call a "Draw" a "Defeat" after the fight - it would be more correct. It's up to the developers to decide, I just suggest choosing the options for an easier, and faster solution.
  • I think the problem may just be in the word 'draw'. Insyead of a draw, call it a defeat, or mayve toss in a traya enrage at 5mins? All attackers get buff/heal immunity and do insane damage if your attackers last that long enough to do extra damage more power to you. The downside to an enrage is it could give a talzin zeta on d a shot at multiple revives in the 'overtime'
  • DuneFlint wrote: »
    I think the problem may just be in the word 'draw'.
    I'm talking about something in particular. Maybe the players do not care, and they do not consider it a mistake, but a point, as the developers wanted to do. But at least the most minimal error is still there. And it's in the word "Draw". If nobody wants to fix it at the root, we should replace the word "Draw" with the word "Lose" (And in the Arena is possible to do so).

Sign In or Register to comment.