More playtime, less frustration: suggestion for ALL Territory Battles
So here's an idea that I've been mulling for a while.
What if once you assigned a squad to a TB mission, you were stuck with that, just as now.
But unlike now, if you wanted to do so, you were allowed to play any given mission up to 3 times, with only one of your attempts counting. Maybe it would save only the best one, maybe it would save only the last attempt even if worse than the others. But the point is you get multiple tries. If desired, certain special missions (like Acklay or whatever) or even all special missions could be exempt. But all combat missions would give you three tries, if you wanted to take them.
Why would this be good?
Well, first it would give people something to do. We play the game because we like to play the game. Playing is good. Fun is good. This is optional, but if people like the combat missions, they can have more to do in the game without substantially changing the game economy.
Second, it would minimize (but not eliminate) concerns over one freak RNG occurrence sabotaging a run. For the most part your runs should be similar (and in those cases would have no effect on final TB rewards). But occasionally when a toon gets one-shotted it's hard to know if this was a bizarre, rare RNG-dictated occurrence or if your squad really isn't good enough, doesn't have enough survivability, etc. By playing up to 3 times, you're less likely to have a freak RNG occurrence sabotage your run. In these cases you would earn a few more TPoints. Not very often, but occasionally this would, in fact, make a difference in your guild's final star count. So there's an effect on rewards, but it's minimal.
Third, we don't have a sandbox, so it's hard to figure out strategies playing a given mission one time per month. But if we wanted to and were able to, we could try battles one right after the other, remembering what we just tried, and choosing different tactics on purpose to see how they compare. This would be interesting. It would engage the players' brains. And for a lot of us it would be fun.
While minimizing freak RNG and maximizing your opportunities to optimize your strategies over time, you should perform slightly better than having only one shot at a battle per month. But I don't think this would at all reduce the motivation to gear up toons or acquire new ones. If you know that you've optimized your strategy and you know you've minimized RNG, the only things left to improve are your squad composition, gear levels, and ability levels.
Why would this be bad:
To start with, Coding: Any time you ask for more programming, you run the risk of bugs. I'm not one to judge how good a programmer is, my experience with professional programming was a couple years of work that I did a couple decades ago, and not on games. So I'm not saying anything negative about CG's coders, but whether or not they're the best in the world, we've seen that even the SWGOH developers can make mistakes and include bugs. Do you want to risk that?
And in conclusion, Timing: right now you get your Territory Points right away. If the game is going to give you multiple tries at something, there' s going to have to be a delay, like you get up to 1 hour to make your 3 attempts. The timer starts once you begin your first run, but if you're happy with it you still don't get the TP until the hour is over. This can result in people spending toons on combat missions in territories where the guild is already guaranteed max stars, but the TP hasn't been awarded yet. This is one more thing to worry about for Guild Officers when they open and close territories.
I like this idea. I think it's probably not likely to be implemented, but I'm interested in what others think.
What if once you assigned a squad to a TB mission, you were stuck with that, just as now.
But unlike now, if you wanted to do so, you were allowed to play any given mission up to 3 times, with only one of your attempts counting. Maybe it would save only the best one, maybe it would save only the last attempt even if worse than the others. But the point is you get multiple tries. If desired, certain special missions (like Acklay or whatever) or even all special missions could be exempt. But all combat missions would give you three tries, if you wanted to take them.
Why would this be good?
Well, first it would give people something to do. We play the game because we like to play the game. Playing is good. Fun is good. This is optional, but if people like the combat missions, they can have more to do in the game without substantially changing the game economy.
Second, it would minimize (but not eliminate) concerns over one freak RNG occurrence sabotaging a run. For the most part your runs should be similar (and in those cases would have no effect on final TB rewards). But occasionally when a toon gets one-shotted it's hard to know if this was a bizarre, rare RNG-dictated occurrence or if your squad really isn't good enough, doesn't have enough survivability, etc. By playing up to 3 times, you're less likely to have a freak RNG occurrence sabotage your run. In these cases you would earn a few more TPoints. Not very often, but occasionally this would, in fact, make a difference in your guild's final star count. So there's an effect on rewards, but it's minimal.
Third, we don't have a sandbox, so it's hard to figure out strategies playing a given mission one time per month. But if we wanted to and were able to, we could try battles one right after the other, remembering what we just tried, and choosing different tactics on purpose to see how they compare. This would be interesting. It would engage the players' brains. And for a lot of us it would be fun.
While minimizing freak RNG and maximizing your opportunities to optimize your strategies over time, you should perform slightly better than having only one shot at a battle per month. But I don't think this would at all reduce the motivation to gear up toons or acquire new ones. If you know that you've optimized your strategy and you know you've minimized RNG, the only things left to improve are your squad composition, gear levels, and ability levels.
Why would this be bad:
To start with, Coding: Any time you ask for more programming, you run the risk of bugs. I'm not one to judge how good a programmer is, my experience with professional programming was a couple years of work that I did a couple decades ago, and not on games. So I'm not saying anything negative about CG's coders, but whether or not they're the best in the world, we've seen that even the SWGOH developers can make mistakes and include bugs. Do you want to risk that?
And in conclusion, Timing: right now you get your Territory Points right away. If the game is going to give you multiple tries at something, there' s going to have to be a delay, like you get up to 1 hour to make your 3 attempts. The timer starts once you begin your first run, but if you're happy with it you still don't get the TP until the hour is over. This can result in people spending toons on combat missions in territories where the guild is already guaranteed max stars, but the TP hasn't been awarded yet. This is one more thing to worry about for Guild Officers when they open and close territories.
I like this idea. I think it's probably not likely to be implemented, but I'm interested in what others think.
0
- 60.9K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
And if you complete it in the 3rd run, how would you know it wasn't simply a (in your own words) bizarre, rare RNG-dictated occurrence? By playing 3 times, you're more likely to have a freak RNG occurrence save the run for you.
I care less about someone accidentally completing a level that they should rarely complete than the other way round.
Besides, the point is to increase playtime and increase information. If you only play once a month and you succeed due to that same freak RNG, you won't know that you're not actually ready when next month comes around. If you're not close to completion on your first 2 attempts but everything aligns on that 3rd one, you're much more likely to have the information you need: you're not generally ready, but it can happen. And if you do nothing to improve and you fail 3 times in a row the next month, you have even more information.
Yet if you only play twice, once this month and once next, which is the outlier? The success or the failure? You simply don't know.
And, of course, there's literally no harm to letting someone complete a level that they would normally fail unless and until you allow so many successes in such difficult and rewarding events that it actually has an effect on the game economy. But even if you complete a level you might not otherwise, the odds that it actually results in a guild getting even one more star than they would otherwise is quite small. Over many, many guilds, it's bound to happen, but for most guilds there would be no effect, and only in rare cases where this procedure gives a single extra star, the difference in rewards is not enough to negatively effect the game economy.
More information is good. More playtime is good. Marginal improvement in success for players in the manner you're talking about isn't enough to sabotage the game economy, and therefore is ultimately neutral.
So therefore I do not share your concern and think that the change is justified. (Whether CG sees it the same way is, of course, a different matter)