Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
If you read my post you would understand my suggestion is that the bot deals with Ban requests made manually by players and any that it cannot determine goes to an actual person. Therefore a Ban request would have to be made for the Bot to Ban the players and the person who set 3po wat hoda would then also have to report the player for them to be banned.
Alternatively this could be something the bot has picked up on it's own which would make it impossible to determine wheather or not the player had malicious intent which makes the debate pointless anyway.
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
That is true, however there is no good tactical case for taking these three valuable toons from their respective squads (weakening them) and setting them together on defense in a squad which from their kits will either instantly flee or defend but be unable to do any damage, thus falling to any halfway decent attacking squad. There's just no legitimate upside to it.
As we are all beta testing as we go along, who’s to say that the instant retreating characters, all going at once didn’t just class as a draw as no damage was done, thereby giving an unbeatable defence team. It’s possible that people could have thought that and then placed it to see...
I didn’t, as I tried it in GW to see what happened, although I actually tried it with shore hyoda and 3po, just to see if it came up as a loss or a draw..
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
That is true, however there is no good tactical case for taking these three valuable toons from their respective squads (weakening them) and setting them together on defense in a squad which from their kits will either instantly flee or defend but be unable to do any damage, thus falling to any halfway decent attacking squad. There's just no legitimate upside to it.
i already laid out why it could be thought of as a defensive team, but I will repeat myself. If you are looking for banner efficiency, you need any team you can find that steals banners in some way. This team could be viewed as a banner stealer by either (1) the user placing the team not knowing they would all escape and thus thinking their placement of dots on the attackers would steal 1-3 banners or (2) the user placing the team hoping that the opponent wastes multiple useful characters on the team without knowing they could have gotten an easy 64. These are both reasonable things to expect to have happen, and I would argue they are atleast as likely as someone maliciously placing a team to get an opponent banned (why would someone do that, I doubt they ban them immediately, meaning you would still lose the round).
Sure, each of these characters are generally useful, but some people have different rosters developed. I know from personal experience, I have nowhere for 3po in 3v3, so I place him in a random def team. Sure, wat and hoda are great, but if you have a better developed team that you use more than you need to find ways to maximise your roster.
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
If you read my post you would understand my suggestion is that the bot deals with Ban requests made manually by players and any that it cannot determine goes to an actual person. Therefore a Ban request would have to be made for the Bot to Ban the players and the person who set 3po wat hoda would then also have to report the player for them to be banned.
Alternatively this could be something the bot has picked up on it's own which would make it impossible to determine wheather or not the player had malicious intent which makes the debate pointless anyway.
You see how the bot is important?
My bad, I guess I assumed this post implied an automatic process
I've escalated this to the team responsible for Fraud/Cheating. They will review to confirm but it appears that auto-retreating teams were causing some false positives. Thanks for the heads up folks.
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
If you read my post you would understand my suggestion is that the bot deals with Ban requests made manually by players and any that it cannot determine goes to an actual person. Therefore a Ban request would have to be made for the Bot to Ban the players and the person who set 3po wat hoda would then also have to report the player for them to be banned.
Alternatively this could be something the bot has picked up on it's own which would make it impossible to determine wheather or not the player had malicious intent which makes the debate pointless anyway.
You see how the bot is important?
My bad, I guess I assumed this post implied an automatic process
I've escalated this to the team responsible for Fraud/Cheating. They will review to confirm but it appears that auto-retreating teams were causing some false positives. Thanks for the heads up folks.
I'm not sure where you got that from all that gives us is confirmation it is an issue with the bot and not someone manually reviewing it. When you are having a debate you really need to read what people post more carefully.
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
Set retreat team
Wait for it to get killed
Report opponent for cheating
This has been discussed as a strategy in discord definitely and I beleive on reddit too but not on the forums so some of u may not know if you just read this site.
People will always "game the system" that's why it's important devs think outside the box when implementing new stuff
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
If you read my post you would understand my suggestion is that the bot deals with Ban requests made manually by players and any that it cannot determine goes to an actual person. Therefore a Ban request would have to be made for the Bot to Ban the players and the person who set 3po wat hoda would then also have to report the player for them to be banned.
Alternatively this could be something the bot has picked up on it's own which would make it impossible to determine wheather or not the player had malicious intent which makes the debate pointless anyway.
You see how the bot is important?
My bad, I guess I assumed this post implied an automatic process
I've escalated this to the team responsible for Fraud/Cheating. They will review to confirm but it appears that auto-retreating teams were causing some false positives. Thanks for the heads up folks.
I'm not sure where you got that from all that gives us is confirmation it is an issue with the bot and not someone manually reviewing it. When you are having a debate you really need to read what people post more carefully.
I got it from this thread, the one you are reading right now. I already apologized for misunderstanding what you wrote, but if you want to start with personal comments about my reading skills (after you failed to read the thread) than I guess I will peace out of discussion with you.
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
That is true, however there is no good tactical case for taking these three valuable toons from their respective squads (weakening them) and setting them together on defense in a squad which from their kits will either instantly flee or defend but be unable to do any damage, thus falling to any halfway decent attacking squad. There's just no legitimate upside to it.
i already laid out why it could be thought of as a defensive team, but I will repeat myself. If you are looking for banner efficiency, you need any team you can find that steals banners in some way. This team could be viewed as a banner stealer by either (1) the user placing the team not knowing they would all escape and thus thinking their placement of dots on the attackers would steal 1-3 banners or (2) the user placing the team hoping that the opponent wastes multiple useful characters on the team without knowing they could have gotten an easy 64. These are both reasonable things to expect to have happen, and I would argue they are atleast as likely as someone maliciously placing a team to get an opponent banned (why would someone do that, I doubt they ban them immediately, meaning you would still lose the round).
Sure, each of these characters are generally useful, but some people have different rosters developed. I know from personal experience, I have nowhere for 3po in 3v3, so I place him in a random def team. Sure, wat and hoda are great, but if you have a better developed team that you use more than you need to find ways to maximise your roster.
The only offense that squad has is Wat's DOTs. Sure they have potentially decent regen but that's all. A simple offensive B-team could burn through that with no fear of losing more than a bit of protection (assuming they don't have protection regen).
So best case you cost your opponent 3 banners and a B-squad at a cost of 3 A-squad toons you could use to be more efficient elsewhere. Worst case you cost your opponent nothing and simply sacrifice three A-squad toons for nothing
There is no significant tactical advantage to setting this squad and there is arguably considerable downside for any player who could use those toons effectively elsewhere.
As much as this is an unsportsmanlike act against another player ... it does have an amusing side to it. People who dream up this kind of stuff would do well as fault tree analysts.
Players are using a strategy to utilize the cheating bot, of which they have limited knowledge.
Or
Players were colluding with eachother for max points and set easy teams to beat. They stumbled into auto ban territory and are now in shock over it.
In every example I've seen of this the player that set the Wat/3PO/Yoda team set no other defenses. I'm not sure how that could be collusion.
Players are using a strategy to utilize the cheating bot, of which they have limited knowledge.
Or
Players were colluding with eachother for max points and set easy teams to beat. They stumbled into auto ban territory and are now in shock over it.
Hilarious that the attacker, or anyone for that matter is getting banned for this lol.
Oh yes, laugh a minute. Ha, ha, ha. Why don't you stick your head in the toilet and flush, I hear that's funny too, ha ha.
Meaning their bot to detect cheaters is not functioning properly....so what’s the issue with what I said?
As for setting that defense compared to setting no defenses or just one and the rest is empty...if the coding was proper and didn’t false flag attackers as cheating, then this wouldn’t be an issue because it’s better for full points rather than random raw power teams or nothing at all.
You sound like you have some pent up aggression if you’re getting so worked up over this. Did you get hit with the ban hammer over this? Such a shame...
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It’s not their issue, it’s CG’s. It’s like if a school had spray paint sitting right next to a wall. They enabled it, and probably knew the damage it could cause. Also you can’t prove that every person did it to ban their opponent.
Replies
If you read my post you would understand my suggestion is that the bot deals with Ban requests made manually by players and any that it cannot determine goes to an actual person. Therefore a Ban request would have to be made for the Bot to Ban the players and the person who set 3po wat hoda would then also have to report the player for them to be banned.
Alternatively this could be something the bot has picked up on it's own which would make it impossible to determine wheather or not the player had malicious intent which makes the debate pointless anyway.
You see how the bot is important?
No it is not better because the attacker is at risk of getting banned unjustly.
Oh yes, laugh a minute. Ha, ha, ha. Why don't you stick your head in the toilet and flush, I hear that's funny too, ha ha.
As we are all beta testing as we go along, who’s to say that the instant retreating characters, all going at once didn’t just class as a draw as no damage was done, thereby giving an unbeatable defence team. It’s possible that people could have thought that and then placed it to see...
I didn’t, as I tried it in GW to see what happened, although I actually tried it with shore hyoda and 3po, just to see if it came up as a loss or a draw..
i already laid out why it could be thought of as a defensive team, but I will repeat myself. If you are looking for banner efficiency, you need any team you can find that steals banners in some way. This team could be viewed as a banner stealer by either (1) the user placing the team not knowing they would all escape and thus thinking their placement of dots on the attackers would steal 1-3 banners or (2) the user placing the team hoping that the opponent wastes multiple useful characters on the team without knowing they could have gotten an easy 64. These are both reasonable things to expect to have happen, and I would argue they are atleast as likely as someone maliciously placing a team to get an opponent banned (why would someone do that, I doubt they ban them immediately, meaning you would still lose the round).
Sure, each of these characters are generally useful, but some people have different rosters developed. I know from personal experience, I have nowhere for 3po in 3v3, so I place him in a random def team. Sure, wat and hoda are great, but if you have a better developed team that you use more than you need to find ways to maximise your roster.
My bad, I guess I assumed this post implied an automatic process
I'm not sure where you got that from all that gives us is confirmation it is an issue with the bot and not someone manually reviewing it. When you are having a debate you really need to read what people post more carefully.
Set retreat team
Wait for it to get killed
Report opponent for cheating
This has been discussed as a strategy in discord definitely and I beleive on reddit too but not on the forums so some of u may not know if you just read this site.
People will always "game the system" that's why it's important devs think outside the box when implementing new stuff
I got it from this thread, the one you are reading right now. I already apologized for misunderstanding what you wrote, but if you want to start with personal comments about my reading skills (after you failed to read the thread) than I guess I will peace out of discussion with you.
So best case you cost your opponent 3 banners and a B-squad at a cost of 3 A-squad toons you could use to be more efficient elsewhere. Worst case you cost your opponent nothing and simply sacrifice three A-squad toons for nothing
There is no significant tactical advantage to setting this squad and there is arguably considerable downside for any player who could use those toons effectively elsewhere.
Isnt it like if you have 1 ally they dont retreat?
Bruh this game
Ban them for setting a defense?
Yeah AIGHT LMAOO
At some point the changed it to "allied combatant" instead of ally. Atleast I am pretty sure it was a change, but cant be 100% sure.
In every example I've seen of this the player that set the Wat/3PO/Yoda team set no other defenses. I'm not sure how that could be collusion.
Lol collusion! How do you feel about shard chats?
Meaning their bot to detect cheaters is not functioning properly....so what’s the issue with what I said?
As for setting that defense compared to setting no defenses or just one and the rest is empty...if the coding was proper and didn’t false flag attackers as cheating, then this wouldn’t be an issue because it’s better for full points rather than random raw power teams or nothing at all.
You sound like you have some pent up aggression if you’re getting so worked up over this. Did you get hit with the ban hammer over this? Such a shame...
It’s not their issue, it’s CG’s. It’s like if a school had spray paint sitting right next to a wall. They enabled it, and probably knew the damage it could cause. Also you can’t prove that every person did it to ban their opponent.