Exactly what the title says. People who don't manually set their defense shouldn't have their defenses set for them from the top of their rosters. It makes the attacker's job exponentially more annoying and essentially prevents him/her from working towards any of the feats. The auto set defenses should be pulled from the bottom of people's rosters. If you're too lazy to set your defenses, you don't deserve to have a tough set up and certainly don't deserve a shot at winning.
I'm still cool with it autosetting the last known defensive set up, like in the previous round. But these hodgepodges of R7 toons sucks the fun out of the game mode.
5
Replies
One of the reasons, I imagine, that the toons are pulled from the top of the roster, is that it penalises the player who didn't set MORE than the player who did.
Yes, you do face an irritating hotch-potch of a defence, but remember that they are now severely handicapped if they decide to attack.
It’s not the best solution, but neither is taking from the bottom. Either option could make it possible for the auto-defender to win.
I personally once forgot to set my defense and ended up winning the round because I was able to clear more with my leftovers than my opponent. I felt bad about that.
Maybe the better option would be for it to just randomly select toons. I wouldn’t count on it getting changed now though.
This. The current setup makes it way more difficult to win if you forget to set a defense.
yes it might be better for the attacking player if there was more of a mix that would make winning easier, but in theory, you would only need to win 1 match as most auto defenses would be placed by players who will not attack. (in theory)
setting from the bottom would make it easier for the opponent to "come back", or just never interact with their defense and still be able to play an win.
I think that’s an argument against your proposal. Feats should be challenging.
Then you would have forgotten to set a D, regardless of the multitude of reasons why matter not.
Pulling from the top of the roster makes it a nice change. You need to think carefully about how to best use your teams on offense. It's a challenge to still clear (most of) the board, but not impossible
(and as others pointed out already: It makes it impossible for your opponent to clear much of your defense, if you set a normal defense).
I'm surprised you haven't started a thread asking people what in this world is more important to them in real life that could possibly distract them from playing a game on their phone.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
The auto-deploy algorithm should:
* fill every open squad / fleet slot (even for a partial deploy)
* alternate picking toons / ships from the top and bottom of the player's roster
I think it's better to keep it the way it is, and give players the choice of a challenge (to beat those weird teams), or simply take the win (by ignoring that entire territory).
If defenses were set from the bottom of the roster, in no way would it leave any possibility of that person winning even if they cleared your board. You could undersize each team and get max banners. That kind of efficiency is impossible against defenses like relic sep droids.
While I agree feats should be challenging, my G12 old ben and g12 R2 have 0 chance against 3 random R3+ characters, even under say a CLS lead, where I might've had a chance against a normal mid tier defense.
Additionally, it makes it extremely difficult to reach kyber when you can't clear the board even one or two rounds. I've missed kyber a few times losing I think 3 total rounds out of 12 and clearing the board every single round, win or lose. It might be different for 3v3 but the compensation for winning does very little to offset not clearing all territories.
I want to reiterate that these are my opinions and not complaints by any means.
I’m at 5.6 mil and just full cleared an auto D, so there is a way. Plus, I did manage to do the old Ben and R2 feat in his back zone with a CLS lead. The auto teams look daunting, but the lack of synergy helps tremendously. I picked my offense based on who could cause the most problems, like GAS vs GAS. Nightsisters, geos, and clones become non factors.
I have cleared auto D, but there are teams that get made that do "just work" and can mess you up.
alternating might not limit the other player enough. maybe just pick all the leaders from the bottom.
a semi easy option too would be to just place them as they do now but starting from the back, this would put the lower end of the placed teams in front and give an easier start for the attacker, without really changing the overall difficulty of a full clear.
This proves you wrong:
https://swgoh.gg/p/533347537/gac-history/?gac=19&r=2
You can win easily without breaking a sweat. You probably just have to clear one territory, since your opponent probably won't be able to clear a single one of yours (depending on your defense ofc.). You don't work harder for the win. Winning is no problem at all. The hard work and challenge lies in clearing the board and doing feats.
That depends on whether the opponent plays offense or not. I sometimes battle opponents who don't attack even if they set their defense.
In GACs that include ships you can reach Kyber quite easily. 9 wins should normally be enough. If leaving one territory not cleared prevents you from reaching Kyber you have other problems as well, f.ex. losing too many rounds.
When ships are not included reaching Kyber is harder. I once won 11/12 without reaching Kyber.
However, it also totally cripples that person should they choose to attack. So if you just clear a territory or two and didn't set total garbage on defense, it just about guarantees the win. It may be a low-scoring win, but
One opponent had absolutely no mods on any defense teams but they were all high relics, maybe to intentionally throw off matchmaking and win on D alone. This wasn’t someone who just forgot as it was round 3. It seems like cheap way to take part in GAC. I’d rather they play or don’t join at all.
This strips the majority of powerful toons.
It strips all worthwhile leaders.
It minimizes any synergy advantages that a player might get by accident.
Sure, they'll be left with Nest and Malak, but those toons are easy to handle by a matched opponent. With no leaders, they won't be able to take very many victories on offense, and since few tanks are also leaders, you should get a high or perfect win rate even against squads with 140k+ gp.
Point being I do not set a defensive stance I let auto do it as i have stated before even last gets rewards.
If my "auto" selected Lower tier toons I'm all for that, reason being I've actually come second, third, fourth by winning by higher gp. Doesnt happen all the time but its happend and really doesnt seem fair.
On a side note if the rewards were say alot better I might even try.
Thank you
I was recommending this a year ago because you can still get a full clear in, you can knock out feats easier, and even if they still full clear you, you can win by points against them.
Facing their top maxed out characters means you still might not full clear and can't really chance attempting to finish feats because you need to take in your best teams, especially when you have feats like, "use a Galactic Republic character with a K in their name against a team with a blue character!" to deal with completing.
I mean, I understand that you want moar stuff, but that really isn't a good reason to change anything.
The devs could just make it rain treasure randomly instead, which would be equally interesting and fair.
I like this idea, but I’m sure it’s difficult to code. The amount of bugs and slip ups that would come with it... that would not be fun. Could be worth it though.
No, partial defenses are a valid Defensive option for a player actively involved in setting their defense.
If I am actively setting a defense I want it set the way i want it.