the original comment was the fact they were allowed to attack in the first place when they set no defense ..that's the issue i have and the only issue i have ...if you don't set a defense you should be locked out of Attacking period and not get an opportunity for any type of kill awards when the other player who did set a defense is not going to be allowed to get those awards because they cant attack. Either they need to make it were they cant attack at all , or make it were even if you fight someone with no defense you get the awards IE credits as if you did defeat them.
That’s all you want is 600k credits?
1.8M over the course of a GA if it happens 3 times. Its happened to some of my guildmates twice in one bracket before.
But no, its not just the credit loss. It also allows the slacker to earn more credits because he set no D and can use his whole roster to beat teams. And more importantly, as you said attacking is fun, and you deprive the other player of that.
Look, there are only 3 answers to why people dont set Defense:
1. To deprive the other player of credits;
2. To, as you said, "have fun" attacking with their whole roster, and as a result deprives the other player of the same fun of attacking; or
3. They dont care and just want last place rewards for doing absolutely nothing, while at the same time depriving 3 other players they face in their bracket of the fun of attacking.
All 3 of those answers hurt the other player, no matter what your selfish reasons for doing it are.
No matter the intent the result is griefing the other player in some fashion, and the other player can do absolutely nothing about it.
You want to mail it in? Fine. I'll take the win. Wish my current opponent would set crap teams. But the other player should not be harmed by it and you should not be rewarded for it.
the original comment was the fact they were allowed to attack in the first place when they set no defense ..that's the issue i have and the only issue i have ...if you don't set a defense you should be locked out of Attacking period and not get an opportunity for any type of kill awards when the other player who did set a defense is not going to be allowed to get those awards because they cant attack. Either they need to make it were they cant attack at all , or make it were even if you fight someone with no defense you get the awards IE credits as if you did defeat them.
That’s all you want is 600k credits?
1.8M over the course of a GA if it happens 3 times. Its happened to some of my guildmates twice in one bracket before.
But no, its not just the credit loss. It also allows the slacker to earn more credits because he set no D and can use his whole roster to beat teams. And more importantly, as you said attacking is fun, and you deprive the other player of that.
Look, there are only 3 answers to why people dont set Defense:
1. To deprive the other player of credits;
2. To, as you said, "have fun" attacking with their whole roster, and as a result deprives the other player of the same fun of attacking; or
3. They dont care and just want last place rewards for doing absolutely nothing, while at the same time depriving 3 other players they face in their bracket of the fun of attacking.
All 3 of those answers hurt the other player, no matter what your selfish reasons for doing it are.
No matter the intent the result is griefing the other player in some fashion, and the other player can do absolutely nothing about it.
You want to mail it in? Fine. But the other player should not be harmed by it and you should not be rewarded for it.
I don't know why someone always have to quarrel that he got a free win? I could not be happier when enemy does not set a defense or he does not attack at all. It is their choice and I get a free win. It mostly happens when I have much better units then enemy. He sees that he has no chance so he does nothing. Why should he be punished even more just becouse he does not want to fight pointless battle?
Maybe people want to concentrate on attack to advance on quests without having to worry about Revans and Trayas. They advance in quests, you get free rewards like zetas. Everybody wins.
As there is no sandbox or practise type area in the game, GA is where a lot of people can try new teams, see how toons work together, see how the powers of those toons actually work, etc
Just make setting a defense act as a multiplier for the points you get for attacking. So people can choose not to do it but it makes it much more difficult to win for them
then the crys of , how did a auto defense beat me , the player had no input! no they need to flat out remove no defense and make it where when you sign up you set your defense right then and there to complete the sign up phase , once set up then you have 24 hours to make changes between each phase that way you always play against player inputted defenses and not AI generated
Why would they get to play how they want and we don’t ?
Because GA has poor design and is not a fun part of the game. I usually don’t set defenses because I don’t think it’s a good setup: so I just crush my opponents teams using every character I have. Hate me if you want, I’m just taking advantage of GA. I still lose, but I’m most definitely having more fun.
What you do is play the game mode while actively preventing your opponent (who by the way did not create the game mode, and did not choose to get matched to you) to play the game. Basically your having fun by ruining the fun of others. You seem to be pretty proud of that, it’s sad to me but there will always be negative people in life.
You could keep all your best teams for offense and put the weaker teams on defense, it would change nothing for you but everyone would have fun instead of just you.
Another way to fix it, would be to allow the attackers to pick an empty zone, select a team and get an instant victory.
That way, credits and achievements(that give great gear and mats) are still earned.
The no d can then take their ball home.
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
I've had at least one person each GA not set up D so far. I'm mid range GP and it's a bummer when it happens. I just have to sit and wait 24 hours for my "prize". Generally, the person I'm against doesn't even attack which is is even more boring. I get the whole we aren't buddies angle, but if you don't play to win you aren't really playing and should get ZERO rewards. No participation trophies allowed.
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
This
This is exactly the problem with the current setup - you're incentivised to screw over your opponent in this way. You're further making the case for it to be changed.
The auto-defence is imo the best way forward. However, since implementing that seems to be problematic for CG then an alternative could be adding in a 100k credit bonus per defence set. That way if your opponent sets nothing, then you BOTH lose out on 600k or w/e. Probably wouldn't completely fix the problem but at least you'd be able to take some comfort in the fact that they're screwing themselves over too.
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
They shouldn't definitely get more, they should have the possibility to get more..... You want to dictate what the other player gets then man up, set some defence and fight him for credits and rewards..... If you don't like GA, then don't sign up...... Period....
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
They shouldn't definitely get more, they should have the possibility to get more..... You want to dictate what the other player gets then man up, set some defence and fight him for credits and rewards..... If you don't like GA, then don't sign up...... Period....
Not letting others dictate how you play =/= wanting to dictate what the other player gets
forced auto deploy is NOT a good idea, it's going to far
if you introduce that it's not a game no more, it's a dictature, it's fas cism, let the people play like they want, if they don't want to set defense let them do
forced auto deploy is NOT a good idea, it's going to far
if you introduce that it's not a game no more, it's a dictature, it's fas cism, let the people play like they want, if they don't want to set defense let them do
lol what? A forced auto deploy wouldn't hurt you in any way, shape or form. In fact, since most of the people setting no defence seem to be doing it 'in protest' at a game mode they don't like, then I can only imagine they're not even going in to GA to see (why would you check the status of a game mode you've decided not to play?) so wouldn't even notice.
forced auto deploy is NOT a good idea, it's going to far
if you introduce that it's not a game no more, it's a dictature, it's fas cism, let the people play like they want, if they don't want to set defense let them do
lol what? A forced auto deploy wouldn't hurt you in any way, shape or form. In fact, since most of the people setting no defence seem to be doing it 'in protest' at a game mode they don't like, then I can only imagine they're not even going in to GA to see (why would you check the status of a game mode you've decided not to play?) so wouldn't even notice.
Forced auto-deploy means that it takes characters that you could use on attack to get more credits and sticks them on defense. It also means that your opponent is now getting credits and completing GA quests. It may not directly harm you, but if everyone else is getting credits and gear and you are not, then you are being indirectly harmed.
the original comment was the fact they were allowed to attack in the first place when they set no defense ..that's the issue i have and the only issue i have ...if you don't set a defense you should be locked out of Attacking period and not get an opportunity for any type of kill awards when the other player who did set a defense is not going to be allowed to get those awards because they cant attack. Either they need to make it were they cant attack at all , or make it were even if you fight someone with no defense you get the awards IE credits as if you did defeat them.
That’s all you want is 600k credits?
Look, there are only 3 answers to why people dont set Defense:
1. To deprive the other player of credits;
2. To, as you said, "have fun" attacking with their whole roster, and as a result deprives the other player of the same fun of attacking; or
3. They dont care and just want last place rewards for doing absolutely nothing, while at the same time depriving 3 other players they face in their bracket of the fun of attacking.
There are actually people who just forget or think the game will automatically set whatever they used in the last GA.
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
They shouldn't definitely get more, they should have the possibility to get more..... You want to dictate what the other player gets then man up, set some defence and fight him for credits and rewards..... If you don't like GA, then don't sign up...... Period....
Not letting others dictate how you play =/= wanting to dictate what the other player gets
No.... It's not the same, it's not the same at all..... Like it or not, GA is designed as a competitive gameplay mode.... If you don't want to compete, then don't join.....
Denying rewards to your competitors by not setting defence is poor sportsmanship at best....
forced auto deploy is NOT a good idea, it's going to far
if you introduce that it's not a game no more, it's a dictature, it's fas cism, let the people play like they want, if they don't want to set defense let them do
Lol..... "****"..... Nobody forced anyone to hit the join button... If your going to join, then play....
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
They shouldn't definitely get more, they should have the possibility to get more..... You want to dictate what the other player gets then man up, set some defence and fight him for credits and rewards..... If you don't like GA, then don't sign up...... Period....
Not letting others dictate how you play =/= wanting to dictate what the other player gets
No.... It's not the same, it's not the same at all..... Like it or not, GA is designed as a competitive gameplay mode.... If you don't want to compete, then don't join.....
Denying rewards to your competitors by not setting defence is poor sportsmanship at best....
poor sportsmanship at worst*
You're not the gatekeeper of who gets to join GA, nor the one who can dictate how others play. Like it or not, GA designed in a way which leaves room to net set defense.
I like GA. I do however fully understand if a player choses to not set a def, which is why i don't care about it.
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
They shouldn't definitely get more, they should have the possibility to get more..... You want to dictate what the other player gets then man up, set some defence and fight him for credits and rewards..... If you don't like GA, then don't sign up...... Period....
Not letting others dictate how you play =/= wanting to dictate what the other player gets
No.... It's not the same, it's not the same at all..... Like it or not, GA is designed as a competitive gameplay mode.... If you don't want to compete, then don't join.....
Denying rewards to your competitors by not setting defence is poor sportsmanship at best....
poor sportsmanship at worst*
You're not the gatekeeper of who gets to join GA, nor the one who can dictate how others play. Like it or not, GA designed in a way which leaves room to net set defense.
I like GA. I do however fully understand if a player choses to not set a def, which is why i don't care about it.
I never claimed to be the gatekeeper of anything..... Just because the design allows you to do something doesnt make it the right thing to do.....
Some of us are more respectful and mindful of our fellow players than to deny them resources and competition in a competitive game mode.....
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
They shouldn't definitely get more, they should have the possibility to get more..... You want to dictate what the other player gets then man up, set some defence and fight him for credits and rewards..... If you don't like GA, then don't sign up...... Period....
Not letting others dictate how you play =/= wanting to dictate what the other player gets
No.... It's not the same, it's not the same at all..... Like it or not, GA is designed as a competitive gameplay mode.... If you don't want to compete, then don't join.....
Denying rewards to your competitors by not setting defence is poor sportsmanship at best....
poor sportsmanship at worst*
You're not the gatekeeper of who gets to join GA, nor the one who can dictate how others play. Like it or not, GA designed in a way which leaves room to net set defense.
I like GA. I do however fully understand if a player choses to not set a def, which is why i don't care about it.
Thats just it. If you dont set a D, then you are dictating how the other player gets to play, and he can do nothing about it. You then become the "gatekeeper that is dictating how the other person gets to play."
You are in effect saying: I get to play however I want and you cant control me. But you are deprving the other player of playing how they want and controlling them.
Should be patched. There really is no logical or reasonable argument against it.
I think it should award the credits for setting up a defense but put them in escrow and then release them for battles won on offense for each round. I know it won't happen that way and probably not the best solution but would be better than how it is now
in every sport you have the choice to not play a match in a championship... and nobody will say to the players "if you dont want to play that one, dont enter the championship"
in football, basketball, hockey...etc... you can declare a forfait because your team is not ready to play
in karate , judo, jujitsu... every fight you can say : no, i dont play this match, you won this one it's ok i retire...
but you still continue your sport, and to compete, it's just a decision you can make if you dont feel it, or if you're mismatched and dont want to be killed by the monster you see in front of you
so why would you force players to fight every match by forcing an auto-deploy of toons and get killed
everyone has the choice to set defense or not, that's called freedom, if you don't respect that, your wrong
then the crys of , how did a auto defense beat me , the player had no input! no they need to flat out remove no defense and make it where when you sign up you set your defense right then and there to complete the sign up phase , once set up then you have 24 hours to make changes between each phase that way you always play against player inputted defenses and not AI generated
If you lose to an auto set defense , you deserve to lose , pretty simple. The AI in no way shape or form is better than an actual person lol.
and you fail to see the point a auto defense has no player input in selecting the squads a player may have taken his best teams and kept them on offense while the AI might select a sith Team you cant beat on def. Again no Player input means the player shouldnt be in the event period to get the awards. Maybe not a problem for those with 3m power and a whole arsenal of characters to choose from , but for those of us with 900k to 1.2m with limited number of squads available it becomes a problem.
The auto set defenses are just teams of 5 made from the roster of the player starting at the highest power and going down. it doesn't select "teams" just places 5 toons and then moves to the next 5. this may end up with 1 or 2 actual teams as things line up but it is unlikely.
Don't know, wouldn't it be more fun if it picked starting from the bottom going up?
Replies
1.8M over the course of a GA if it happens 3 times. Its happened to some of my guildmates twice in one bracket before.
But no, its not just the credit loss. It also allows the slacker to earn more credits because he set no D and can use his whole roster to beat teams. And more importantly, as you said attacking is fun, and you deprive the other player of that.
Look, there are only 3 answers to why people dont set Defense:
1. To deprive the other player of credits;
2. To, as you said, "have fun" attacking with their whole roster, and as a result deprives the other player of the same fun of attacking; or
3. They dont care and just want last place rewards for doing absolutely nothing, while at the same time depriving 3 other players they face in their bracket of the fun of attacking.
All 3 of those answers hurt the other player, no matter what your selfish reasons for doing it are.
No matter the intent the result is griefing the other player in some fashion, and the other player can do absolutely nothing about it.
You want to mail it in? Fine. I'll take the win. Wish my current opponent would set crap teams. But the other player should not be harmed by it and you should not be rewarded for it.
Should be patched.
should be fixed 100%
Setting no defense stops all that
This could be solved in two ways:
1. No defense -> no attack.
2. Taking a "free" territory gives you the full reward, as a battle that end with 5 toons at full health and protection.
What you do is play the game mode while actively preventing your opponent (who by the way did not create the game mode, and did not choose to get matched to you) to play the game. Basically your having fun by ruining the fun of others. You seem to be pretty proud of that, it’s sad to me but there will always be negative people in life.
You could keep all your best teams for offense and put the weaker teams on defense, it would change nothing for you but everyone would have fun instead of just you.
That way, credits and achievements(that give great gear and mats) are still earned.
The no d can then take their ball home.
This is exactly the problem with the current setup - you're incentivised to screw over your opponent in this way. You're further making the case for it to be changed.
The auto-defence is imo the best way forward. However, since implementing that seems to be problematic for CG then an alternative could be adding in a 100k credit bonus per defence set. That way if your opponent sets nothing, then you BOTH lose out on 600k or w/e. Probably wouldn't completely fix the problem but at least you'd be able to take some comfort in the fact that they're screwing themselves over too.
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
They shouldn't definitely get more, they should have the possibility to get more..... You want to dictate what the other player gets then man up, set some defence and fight him for credits and rewards..... If you don't like GA, then don't sign up...... Period....
Not letting others dictate how you play =/= wanting to dictate what the other player gets
if you introduce that it's not a game no more, it's a dictature, it's fas cism, let the people play like they want, if they don't want to set defense let them do
lol what? A forced auto deploy wouldn't hurt you in any way, shape or form. In fact, since most of the people setting no defence seem to be doing it 'in protest' at a game mode they don't like, then I can only imagine they're not even going in to GA to see (why would you check the status of a game mode you've decided not to play?) so wouldn't even notice.
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
There are actually people who just forget or think the game will automatically set whatever they used in the last GA.
No.... It's not the same, it's not the same at all..... Like it or not, GA is designed as a competitive gameplay mode.... If you don't want to compete, then don't join.....
Denying rewards to your competitors by not setting defence is poor sportsmanship at best....
Lol..... "****"..... Nobody forced anyone to hit the join button... If your going to join, then play....
poor sportsmanship at worst*
You're not the gatekeeper of who gets to join GA, nor the one who can dictate how others play. Like it or not, GA designed in a way which leaves room to net set defense.
I like GA. I do however fully understand if a player choses to not set a def, which is why i don't care about it.
I never claimed to be the gatekeeper of anything..... Just because the design allows you to do something doesnt make it the right thing to do.....
Some of us are more respectful and mindful of our fellow players than to deny them resources and competition in a competitive game mode.....
Thats just it. If you dont set a D, then you are dictating how the other player gets to play, and he can do nothing about it. You then become the "gatekeeper that is dictating how the other person gets to play."
You are in effect saying: I get to play however I want and you cant control me. But you are deprving the other player of playing how they want and controlling them.
Should be patched. There really is no logical or reasonable argument against it.
in football, basketball, hockey...etc... you can declare a forfait because your team is not ready to play
in karate , judo, jujitsu... every fight you can say : no, i dont play this match, you won this one it's ok i retire...
but you still continue your sport, and to compete, it's just a decision you can make if you dont feel it, or if you're mismatched and dont want to be killed by the monster you see in front of you
so why would you force players to fight every match by forcing an auto-deploy of toons and get killed
everyone has the choice to set defense or not, that's called freedom, if you don't respect that, your wrong
Don't know, wouldn't it be more fun if it picked starting from the bottom going up?