Hi!
First off, let me just say I love GAC and think it is the most fun game mode in the game, however I feel there is some slight imbalance in the point distribution for each match.
Points come from:
"Defensive points":
- Placing Defense
"Offensive points":
- Defeating squads on offense (Offense Win)
- Capturing territories on offense (Conquer)
- First try/second try win bonus
- Surviving unit bonus
- Full Health Bonus
- Full protection bonus
- Unused slot bonus
This heavy balance towards offensive points leads to a very high focus on "full clearing" your opponent rather than placing the correct defense to prevent them from clearing your territories, this makes (in my experience) most GAC-matches very one-dimensional and predictable (most people bring their strongest teams on offense to ensure a full clear so that even if they lose, they bring home a respectable amount of points).
My suggestion to add diversity to GAC-strategy would be to add points for "remaining defensive squads". This way, a defensive strategy where you manage to hold on to your territories could be equally rewarding (in terms of points) as an offensive one where you manage a full clear and every player would need to evaluate what kind of strategy has a higher win chance for each matchup.
The right amount of points for defensive squads/territories remaining is something CG would have to test and find the correct balance for.
Is this a good idea or am I missing something?
* Also, apologies for spelling errors, English is not my first language
0
Replies
How would this change the outcome of the round? It could give a defensive player a higher score, but the outcome (win/loss) would be the same as with the current system.
A player winning with little cleared gets about as much points as a losing player with a full clear.
And the losing player with little cleared, but loads of defense remaining gets almost nothing.
Did that make sense? ^_^
Not very smart given the current points system.
Why do you consider setting heavy defense to be smart?
Unless you are short of resources or completely outmatched it doesn't take that much time or skill to set all your best squads on defense. The player who goes offense and full clears, especially against an opponent who set heavy defense is doing a lot more work. Shouldn't that effort and skill earn more points than simply dumping everything you have on defense?
It's not that i consider setting a heavy defense in general to be smart, but in some cases I think it might be the right thing to do. For example lets say your opponent has no good counters to a geonosian team, and you happen to have a strong geo team (I know that alot of people has a counter to it, but just for the sake of this argument, doesn't have to be "geonosians" specifically, you could replace geos with any other team/faction in this example). If you set your strong geo team on defense and do worse on offense, but still end up with a higher score than your opponent with some territories remaining on either side, I would say that you made some good and "smart" decisions
Ok, I agree, more points should be awarded for offense, since this is the active part of the battle where you make the most decisions, but two things to consider are:
1) Battles on offense are usually easier than setting a lasting defense since you can cherry pick your counters from what you have available
2) You do make active decisions on defense about what teams to place and where to put them, these decisions are currently not rewarded if they were good in any way, unlike the decisions made on offense
But yes, more points should be awarded on offense, i just find it strange that no points are being awarded based on how your defense performs
Yes, setting a team which your opponent can't beat on defense is smart. But why would you do worse on offense because of this? You'll be able to slack on the other defensive slots and keep more strong teams for offense. Also, why do you keep saying, that you're not rewarded? If your defensive strategy helps you win instead of losing with an offensive strategy then you're rewarded with the points for winning. If you could win using either strategy (offensive or defensive) then what's holding you back from using the offensive strategy and score more banners?
Because winning with a defensive strategy gets you far fewer banners than winning with an offensive one, and therefore less progress towards higher leagues. I'm just thinking that for both kinds of strategy to be equally rewarding, a defensive strategy should get some more banners.
As for the latter question, nothing really, except my wish for variety
Yes, but that doesn't help towards league promotion
You get the 1600 (or whatever) points for your win. That's still better than zero points for a loss with an offensive strategy. If you can win with an offensive strategy but you still choose to play your defensive strategy then it's your own choice.
Just a few thoughts:
If you are also awarded points for holding territories I'm sure the thresholds to reach various leagues will also be increased.
And what about those cases where your opponent simply doesn't attack you at all? Why should you be rewarded extra banners?