It's a good challenge to try and clear a hodge podge defense. Usually they are a little easier since there is no synergy. And it does severely handicap the other players attack ability. You would also have to check if they got any points for setting a defense. I would guess no.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
I forgot to set my defenses (I can only blame myself) and couldn't do a thing with the left overs.
We should be able to lock a defense or the game should put the same last defense.
I forgot to set my defenses (I can only blame myself) and couldn't do a thing with the left overs.
We should be able to lock a defense or the game should put the same last defense.
It does, but only within a single round. If you set it first round it will stay the same for the following two rounds.
Just auto - deploy the bottom of their roster and lock them out of attacking. Ezpz.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
It's a good challenge to try and clear a hodge podge defense. Usually they are a little easier since there is no synergy. And it does severely handicap the other players attack ability. You would also have to check if they got any points for setting a defense. I would guess no.
Agreed. It's a good and fun challenge.
You can either go for the easy win and only clear one or two territories with your strongest teams or you can choose the challenge of clearing the board.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Entirely depends on which definition of "valid" you prefer I guess.
I can partially relate to OP-s problem, but i dont support his idea.
The problem is that if you are in race for a top position in your league (mind that i am not talking about reaching Kyber i am talking about reaching top20 or top5 of Kyber) meeting a player like this means that the whole competition is artifically corrupted at that point. If you face a top-end roster, you are definitely losing banners, even if you make the full clear and fall behind which cannot be compensated. If you face bottom-end roster you will just keep scoring 64, and everyone else is falling artifically behind. The 2nd option is a much higher level of corruption, thus i cannot support it. However, i personally think that auto-defense ruins the competition for the entire championship, and i also felt very disheartened when it happened to me.
I think there should be a debate about compensating players who are facing auto-defense, and i for one would support some minor compensation for those players. Minor being the operative word. But OP's idea is ultimately a bad one imo.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Entirely depends on which definition of "valid" you prefer I guess.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Entirely depends on which definition of "valid" you prefer I guess.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Not sure what strategic purpose it serves other than to screw over your opponent from accomplishing feats.
Idk, the way I see it is that i understand both perspectives but see the boon for the bottom being pulled. If the bottom is pulled and you set even a remotely decent defense, you could solo almost every team that would be set from the bottom of ones roster (minus the golden krakens).
It would make it almost impossible for someone to come back against a player that got undermanned wins for every battle. Idk I wouldn’t mind it if they tried that for a bit or tested it a bit
Current system is fine.
There are drawbacks, but every alternative I can think of and have seen in this thread have drawbacks, all of them imo worse than current system.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Not sure what strategic purpose it serves other than to screw over your opponent from accomplishing feats.
The purpose is irrelevant. It's the defense chosen by the player.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Not sure what strategic purpose it serves other than to screw over your opponent from accomplishing feats.
The purpose is irrelevant. It's the defense chosen by the player.
So its "valid" in the same way that playing a hockey or soccer match without a goalie is "valid"
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Not sure what strategic purpose it serves other than to screw over your opponent from accomplishing feats.
The purpose is irrelevant. It's the defense chosen by the player.
So its "valid" in the same way that playing a hockey or soccer match without a goalie is "valid"
I disagree with the visions. I think that those who do not defend themselves should be harmed even more.
The leadership of the team should be chosen and automatically assigned a character without leadership. After that the leading toons go to the second slot and then the teams are shuffled by force.
It is a valid defense. Even if its only chosen purpose is to screw with the opponent at minimal effort.
The only reason for this being complained about is because players are spoiled, entitled, and think they deserve to place higher in GAC. If you can't beat the hodgepodge teams, you do not deserve the higher rewards.
If they are going to change something, I would say - make sure the auto-defense teams are also synergized, to make it more of a challenge, or perhaps allow players to set permanent teams that will be picked from rather than randomly skimming the top.
Picking randomly from the bottom is absurd - It produces more rewards for less effort. You don't design games that way.
I agree, even with their "top teams" You would of most likely max pointed 1 maned their worst toons, giving them zero chance of them even coming close to your points. Giving both parties a chance to finish feats. Not everyone is lazy, believe it or not, life does get in the way of a GAME.
Ball is life.
Life is ball.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
what if you didn't forget to set D and you just got distracted?
Then we get the complaint thread about the opponent who only set partial defense.
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
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.
There is absolutely no strategic benefit to leaving a defensive slot un-filled. None.
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Not sure what strategic purpose it serves other than to screw over your opponent from accomplishing feats.
The purpose is irrelevant. It's the defense chosen by the player.
So its "valid" in the same way that playing a hockey or soccer match without a goalie is "valid"
If the rules allow it, then yes.
(I believe a soccer team must have at least one goalie - but not necessarily on the pitch. Not 100% sure, though)
[...]
If they are going to change something, I would say - make sure the auto-defense teams are also synergized, to make it more of a challenge, or perhaps allow players to set permanent teams that will be picked from rather than randomly skimming the top.
I disagree. The current system is sufficiently challenging. Challenging but beatable.
They should take every third toon starting from the top for 5v5 and every fifth toon starting from the bottom for 3v3.
They should.take every third toon except on Thursdays when they should take every fifth toon except in months ending in 'y' when they should take every fourth toon except when the wind is blowing from the South-West when they should take every seventh toon.
I disagree with the visions. I think that those who do not defend themselves should be harmed even more.
The leadership of the team should be chosen and automatically assigned a character without leadership. After that the leading toons go to the second slot and then the teams are shuffled by force.
It is not a difficult algorithm to do.
Why do you prefer it to be even more punishing to miss setting a defense?
Keep in mind that a lot of those who do not set defense do not miss this on purpose to mess with their opponent.
Atm, the current system makes it very likely that the player facing the auto fill defense is more than likely going to win, as most of his opponents top toons are now deployed on Defense, in a random assortment of teams
Personally I would rather take the points for the win and move onto the next round, rather than worry about progressing a few feats, which will be worth a lot less than the points for the win
Replies
If you want to save your best for offense then deploy trash on defense and you will still get defensive banners.
We should be able to lock a defense or the game should put the same last defense.
It does, but only within a single round. If you set it first round it will stay the same for the following two rounds.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Yet, it's still a valid defensive option. Not a strong option - a valid one.
Agreed. It's a good and fun challenge.
You can either go for the easy win and only clear one or two territories with your strongest teams or you can choose the challenge of clearing the board.
Entirely depends on which definition of "valid" you prefer I guess.
The problem is that if you are in race for a top position in your league (mind that i am not talking about reaching Kyber i am talking about reaching top20 or top5 of Kyber) meeting a player like this means that the whole competition is artifically corrupted at that point. If you face a top-end roster, you are definitely losing banners, even if you make the full clear and fall behind which cannot be compensated. If you face bottom-end roster you will just keep scoring 64, and everyone else is falling artifically behind. The 2nd option is a much higher level of corruption, thus i cannot support it. However, i personally think that auto-defense ruins the competition for the entire championship, and i also felt very disheartened when it happened to me.
I think there should be a debate about compensating players who are facing auto-defense, and i for one would support some minor compensation for those players. Minor being the operative word. But OP's idea is ultimately a bad one imo.
Keep guessing.
Gonna need a little less edge on that.
Not sure what strategic purpose it serves other than to screw over your opponent from accomplishing feats.
It would make it almost impossible for someone to come back against a player that got undermanned wins for every battle. Idk I wouldn’t mind it if they tried that for a bit or tested it a bit
There are drawbacks, but every alternative I can think of and have seen in this thread have drawbacks, all of them imo worse than current system.
The purpose is irrelevant. It's the defense chosen by the player.
So its "valid" in the same way that playing a hockey or soccer match without a goalie is "valid"
"hockey match"
Also because I'm that guy, "empty net."
The leadership of the team should be chosen and automatically assigned a character without leadership. After that the leading toons go to the second slot and then the teams are shuffled by force.
It is not a difficult algorithm to do.
The only reason for this being complained about is because players are spoiled, entitled, and think they deserve to place higher in GAC. If you can't beat the hodgepodge teams, you do not deserve the higher rewards.
If they are going to change something, I would say - make sure the auto-defense teams are also synergized, to make it more of a challenge, or perhaps allow players to set permanent teams that will be picked from rather than randomly skimming the top.
Picking randomly from the bottom is absurd - It produces more rewards for less effort. You don't design games that way.
Ball is life.
Life is ball.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
If the rules allow it, then yes.
(I believe a soccer team must have at least one goalie - but not necessarily on the pitch. Not 100% sure, though)
I disagree. The current system is sufficiently challenging. Challenging but beatable.
EzPz!
Why do you prefer it to be even more punishing to miss setting a defense?
Keep in mind that a lot of those who do not set defense do not miss this on purpose to mess with their opponent.
Personally I would rather take the points for the win and move onto the next round, rather than worry about progressing a few feats, which will be worth a lot less than the points for the win
RL gets in the way, people forget, it happens.