So, because I participated in the attack phase and lost, but my opponent did nothing I lost the round. The better rewards end up going to the non-participant? Not cool.
So, because I participated in the attack phase and lost, but my opponent did nothing I lost the round. The better rewards end up going to the non-participant? Not cool.
Shouldn’t be possible if you both set the same amount of defense. You don’t gain banners otherwise except for attacking
? Exactly my thought too. Same rewards for deploying the same number of defensive teams. If the opponent doesn't attack at all you'll win by just defeating one single team of theirs.
If you attacked and didn't win a single fight then you'd tie and the rewards go to the higher GP I believe. It's what happened with the glitch rewards.
He has 10,000 more GP; I guess that was it. Still doesn't seem like a good system. As long as you have higher GP you can get top rewards even if you don't really do anything; kind of silly to put it mildly.
He has 10,000 more GP; I guess that was it. Still doesn't seem like a good system. As long as you have higher GP you can get top rewards even if you don't really do anything; kind of silly to put it mildly.
Your E N T I R E roster couldn’t win one battle against any of the six squads they deployed—you even get to pick which one you want to hit. Why do you deserve first place based on tiebreakers? Shouldn’t defense mean something?
So, because I participated in the attack phase and lost, but my opponent did nothing I lost the round. The better rewards end up going to the non-participant? Not cool.
Sounds like there was no need to attack because he had the better defense
My defense was just as strong as his. Our rosters were similar in the sense that we could each field five strong teams, but there's nothing left in the rest of our rosters that can come close to challenging those defense teams. Still, I tried. I felt like that should count for something.
My defense was just as strong as his. Our rosters were similar in the sense that we could each field five strong teams, but there's nothing left in the rest of our rosters that can come close to challenging those defense teams. Still, I tried. I felt like that should count for something.
I'm not sure how i feel about the tie breaker, it doesn't seem like a bad idea, but i'm sure they could find a better way.
your defense may be solid, but it would seem that your plan was not. this game mode is only in part about the offensive phase. the other half is your defensive plan and the balance of how you use your roster between the 2.
My defense was just as strong as his. Our rosters were similar in the sense that we could each field five strong teams, but there's nothing left in the rest of our rosters that can come close to challenging those defense teams. Still, I tried. I felt like that should count for something.
I'm not sure how i feel about the tie breaker, it doesn't seem like a bad idea, but i'm sure they could find a better way.
your defense may be solid, but it would seem that your plan was not. this game mode is only in part about the offensive phase. the other half is your defensive plan and the balance of how you use your roster between the 2.
He has 10,000 more GP; I guess that was it. Still doesn't seem like a good system. As long as you have higher GP you can get top rewards even if you don't really do anything; kind of silly to put it mildly.
Well, apparently you didn't do enything that worked towards a win either during the attack phase. A battle, that doesn't reward any banners is worthless in this regard. If anything, it might even put you in a weaker position to win in your next attempt, if you leave the opponent team loaded with TM.
My defense was just as strong as his. Our rosters were similar in the sense that we could each field five strong teams, but there's nothing left in the rest of our rosters that can come close to challenging those defense teams. Still, I tried. I felt like that should count for something.
Apparently you didn't find the right balance between offense and defense.
My defense was just as strong as his. Our rosters were similar in the sense that we could each field five strong teams, but there's nothing left in the rest of our rosters that can come close to challenging those defense teams. Still, I tried. I felt like that should count for something.
If he set 5 good defensive teams, why didn't you attack the 6th defensive team?
So, because I participated in the attack phase and lost, but my opponent did nothing I lost the round. The better rewards end up going to the non-participant? Not cool.
Are you sure, your opponent didn't receive second place as well? In TW bith guilds get second place rewards only in case of a tie.
You really feel like you deserve the win eventhough you couldn't win a single battle?
then again why should the other guy win the event even though he couldnt win a single battle either?
Neither should win imo, but that's not an option. It's just that it seems silly to me to complain about this since the OP clearly doesn't deserve the rewards for winning.
That the other guy got them for doing nothing is irrelevant. Many others have gotten the win because their opponent didn't place teams on def, this guy is just as "lucky" as those guys.
The way I see it it's like a boxing match. If the other guy doesn't show up, you win by default. But if you're both pretty evenly matched then there's not going to be a k.o., so the winner is the one who does the most damage. Winning because you weighed in a few pounds heavier and then did nothing in the ring is dumb. If my opponent had won because he attacked my teams and did more damage, I would say he deserved it. But winning simply for being a little bigger and nothing else, in an arena set-up like this makes no sense to me.
Your opponent showed up (= setting defense). You just didn’t land a hit (= defeat a enemy squad). Don’t get your point. You messed by not beating a single enemy squad. Don’t claim a win if you don’t deserve it
The way I see it it's like a boxing match. If the other guy doesn't show up, you win by default. But if you're both pretty evenly matched then there's not going to be a k.o., so the winner is the one who does the most damage. Winning because you weighed in a few pounds heavier and then did nothing in the ring is dumb. If my opponent had won because he attacked my teams and did more damage, I would say he deserved it. But winning simply for being a little bigger and nothing else, in an arena set-up like this makes no sense to me.
It's like a boxing match yes, except that the two of you decided to stand at the two extreme corners of the boxing ring and start shadowboxing. Obviously no damage was done, and the only way to award the win is to see who had the nicer shadowboxing technique (i.e. strategy), which in this case your opponent did.
For everyone who thinks I'm sore because I didn't win, let me be clear: I'm not.
But I believe I have a legitimate problem about the way the result was decided. A tie would have been fine, and appropriate - I don't get why they can't have a split rewards option for ties. But if you have to have a winner, then make the other guy attack and do some damage for it.
For everyone who thinks I'm sore because I didn't win, let me be clear: I'm not.
But I believe I have a legitimate problem about the way the result was decided. A tie would have been fine, and appropriate - I don't get why they can't have a split rewards option for ties. But if you have to have a winner, then make the other guy attack and do some damage for it.
People are less likely to force a tie if they will still lose.
For everyone who thinks I'm sore because I didn't win, let me be clear: I'm not.
But I believe I have a legitimate problem about the way the result was decided. A tie would have been fine, and appropriate - I don't get why they can't have a split rewards option for ties. But if you have to have a winner, then make the other guy attack and do some damage for it.
You seriously don't deserve the win more than the other guy.
Furthermore it's not like this will happen to you again, or to any player for more than once.
First ... do not complain ... read: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/189068/title-update-14-12-4-2018
"Tiebreakers: In the rare occasion of the event ending with tied banners, the player with the higher GP will win. In the extremely rare chance of equal Banners and equal GP, a random player wins."
Second ... do not call for a tie and complain if you get one ... in TW with a tie both get second place rewards ... you got second place rewards ... everything is fine
If a tie would give both first place noone would fight anymore.
Replies
Shouldn’t be possible if you both set the same amount of defense. You don’t gain banners otherwise except for attacking
Your E N T I R E roster couldn’t win one battle against any of the six squads they deployed—you even get to pick which one you want to hit. Why do you deserve first place based on tiebreakers? Shouldn’t defense mean something?
I'm not sure how i feel about the tie breaker, it doesn't seem like a bad idea, but i'm sure they could find a better way.
your defense may be solid, but it would seem that your plan was not. this game mode is only in part about the offensive phase. the other half is your defensive plan and the balance of how you use your roster between the 2.
QFT
We all know what hermit yoda thinks about trying...
Best comment today
And with this comment, we should close this thread
Well, apparently you didn't do enything that worked towards a win either during the attack phase. A battle, that doesn't reward any banners is worthless in this regard. If anything, it might even put you in a weaker position to win in your next attempt, if you leave the opponent team loaded with TM.
Apparently you didn't find the right balance between offense and defense.
then again why should the other guy win the event even though he couldnt win a single battle either?
Are you sure, your opponent didn't receive second place as well? In TW bith guilds get second place rewards only in case of a tie.
Neither should win imo, but that's not an option. It's just that it seems silly to me to complain about this since the OP clearly doesn't deserve the rewards for winning.
That the other guy got them for doing nothing is irrelevant. Many others have gotten the win because their opponent didn't place teams on def, this guy is just as "lucky" as those guys.
It's like a boxing match yes, except that the two of you decided to stand at the two extreme corners of the boxing ring and start shadowboxing. Obviously no damage was done, and the only way to award the win is to see who had the nicer shadowboxing technique (i.e. strategy), which in this case your opponent did.
Tough luck dude.
But I believe I have a legitimate problem about the way the result was decided. A tie would have been fine, and appropriate - I don't get why they can't have a split rewards option for ties. But if you have to have a winner, then make the other guy attack and do some damage for it.
People are less likely to force a tie if they will still lose.
Furthermore it's not like this will happen to you again, or to any player for more than once.
"Tiebreakers: In the rare occasion of the event ending with tied banners, the player with the higher GP will win. In the extremely rare chance of equal Banners and equal GP, a random player wins."
Second ... do not call for a tie and complain if you get one ... in TW with a tie both get second place rewards ... you got second place rewards ... everything is fine
If a tie would give both first place noone would fight anymore.