Ship reinforcement needs an update

Itsa_me_Malario
269 posts Member
edited February 23
CG you think the AI is smart enough for it to choose what to bring in as a reinforcement, but nope the ship AI is dumb as heck, it's literally the only reason why a 5 star Malevolence can beat a 7 star negotiator, make it so regardless of what's happening the capital ship brings in the first reinforcement then the 2nd then the 3rd and so on

Replies

  • The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Kyno
    28142 posts Moderator
    It used to be this way, but it changed when they reimagined shops to start at 3 ships.

    It's also a known order, tank, attack, support.

    So you can theory craft what you want to happen, to some extent.
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy
  • Kyno
    28142 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    yes it is, but your team on defense doesn't use your strategy anyway, so setting up the order they come in doesn't change that. it is nothing like your leader analogy.
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    First off, as is typical for these forums, your leader analogy is not applicable. You choose your capital ship, which already IS, in essence, your leader.

    Moving on to your "it's all about strategy" fallacy - it's not. And CG doesn't want it to be. Think about it - CG could make the AI (in either arena) far better than it is. It's mediocre (at best) by design. Nothing holds on defense - that's the design. Both arenas award active offensive participation. That's why nothing holds. They want you to play, they want you to climb and they DON'T want teams to hold on defense so no one has to do anything to collect crystals.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    First off, as is typical for these forums, your leader analogy is not applicable. You choose your capital ship, which already IS, in essence, your leader.

    Moving on to your "it's all about strategy" fallacy - it's not. And CG doesn't want it to be. Think about it - CG could make the AI (in either arena) far better than it is. It's mediocre (at best) by design. Nothing holds on defense - that's the design. Both arenas award active offensive participation. That's why nothing holds. They want you to play, they want you to climb and they DON'T want teams to hold on defense so no one has to do anything to collect crystals.

    I understand that, but still we all are trying to make our teams more difficult so we don't drop down so far to sub par teams
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    First off, as is typical for these forums, your leader analogy is not applicable. You choose your capital ship, which already IS, in essence, your leader.

    Moving on to your "it's all about strategy" fallacy - it's not. And CG doesn't want it to be. Think about it - CG could make the AI (in either arena) far better than it is. It's mediocre (at best) by design. Nothing holds on defense - that's the design. Both arenas award active offensive participation. That's why nothing holds. They want you to play, they want you to climb and they DON'T want teams to hold on defense so no one has to do anything to collect crystals.

    I understand that, but still we all are trying to make our teams more difficult so we don't drop down so far to sub par teams

    I would suggest, that if they can win against higher star or higher relic teams, they are not "sub par".

    Just one example - a g12+ Triumverate can under-team a full squad of relic Geos. Synergy and counter abilities often matter as much as star level and relic levels.

    But again, even "better" teams lose on defense - by design.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    First off, as is typical for these forums, your leader analogy is not applicable. You choose your capital ship, which already IS, in essence, your leader.

    Moving on to your "it's all about strategy" fallacy - it's not. And CG doesn't want it to be. Think about it - CG could make the AI (in either arena) far better than it is. It's mediocre (at best) by design. Nothing holds on defense - that's the design. Both arenas award active offensive participation. That's why nothing holds. They want you to play, they want you to climb and they DON'T want teams to hold on defense so no one has to do anything to collect crystals.

    I understand that, but still we all are trying to make our teams more difficult so we don't drop down so far to sub par teams

    I would suggest, that if they can win against higher star or higher relic teams, they are not "sub par".

    Just one example - a g12+ Triumverate can under-team a full squad of relic Geos. Synergy and counter abilities often matter as much as star level and relic levels.

    But again, even "better" teams lose on defense - by design.

    Yes but a 5 star traya would lose to a relic geo, where a 5 star Malevolence can beat negotiator at max star no problem
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    First off, as is typical for these forums, your leader analogy is not applicable. You choose your capital ship, which already IS, in essence, your leader.

    Moving on to your "it's all about strategy" fallacy - it's not. And CG doesn't want it to be. Think about it - CG could make the AI (in either arena) far better than it is. It's mediocre (at best) by design. Nothing holds on defense - that's the design. Both arenas award active offensive participation. That's why nothing holds. They want you to play, they want you to climb and they DON'T want teams to hold on defense so no one has to do anything to collect crystals.

    I understand that, but still we all are trying to make our teams more difficult so we don't drop down so far to sub par teams

    I would suggest, that if they can win against higher star or higher relic teams, they are not "sub par".

    Just one example - a g12+ Triumverate can under-team a full squad of relic Geos. Synergy and counter abilities often matter as much as star level and relic levels.

    But again, even "better" teams lose on defense - by design.

    Yes but a 5 star traya would lose to a relic geo, where a 5 star Malevolence can beat negotiator at max star no problem

    You continue to miss the point....and make poor analogies.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    First off, as is typical for these forums, your leader analogy is not applicable. You choose your capital ship, which already IS, in essence, your leader.

    Moving on to your "it's all about strategy" fallacy - it's not. And CG doesn't want it to be. Think about it - CG could make the AI (in either arena) far better than it is. It's mediocre (at best) by design. Nothing holds on defense - that's the design. Both arenas award active offensive participation. That's why nothing holds. They want you to play, they want you to climb and they DON'T want teams to hold on defense so no one has to do anything to collect crystals.

    I understand that, but still we all are trying to make our teams more difficult so we don't drop down so far to sub par teams

    I would suggest, that if they can win against higher star or higher relic teams, they are not "sub par".

    Just one example - a g12+ Triumverate can under-team a full squad of relic Geos. Synergy and counter abilities often matter as much as star level and relic levels.

    But again, even "better" teams lose on defense - by design.

    Yes but a 5 star traya would lose to a relic geo, where a 5 star Malevolence can beat negotiator at max star no problem

    You continue to miss the point....and make poor analogies.

    Nah bro, you continue to miss the point at this point, show me 2 character that are equal in power, fight each other except one at 5 star and the other at 7, guess who's gonna win?
  • Waqui
    8063 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    The game has never allowed the player to "pre-program" the AI on defense in either arena. There are reasons for this - the primary one is that CG wants players to be "active" on offense for their payouts, not allow good teams to hold on defense.

    This has been requested many times - and is still completely unnecessary and opposed to the intended design.

    It's not pre programming, it's simply setting up the line up, I'm not telling the AI who to attack, even though the AI will always make the same move over and over in every match.
    Fives always attacks vulture Droid, vulture then immediately takes a turn and drops a buzz saw droids on anakin and it is a set game match, since the AI will never bring plookon to dispel the debuffs and the first reinforcement is always clone Sargent, and thats basically why a 5 star Malevolence will always beat an r7 7 star negotiator.

    It's not opposed to the intended design, as kyno has pointed out, that's how the game was set when it was 5vs5.

    This is a strategy game correct? If I can't use my own strategy then what the heck is the point of it, its like saying here choose this team and between all the 5 people we will randomly select a leader. I should get to decide what are the reinforcement are going to be and in what order since it's all about the strategy

    First off, as is typical for these forums, your leader analogy is not applicable. You choose your capital ship, which already IS, in essence, your leader.

    Moving on to your "it's all about strategy" fallacy - it's not. And CG doesn't want it to be. Think about it - CG could make the AI (in either arena) far better than it is. It's mediocre (at best) by design. Nothing holds on defense - that's the design. Both arenas award active offensive participation. That's why nothing holds. They want you to play, they want you to climb and they DON'T want teams to hold on defense so no one has to do anything to collect crystals.

    I understand that, but still we all are trying to make our teams more difficult so we don't drop down so far to sub par teams

    I would suggest, that if they can win against higher star or higher relic teams, they are not "sub par".

    Just one example - a g12+ Triumverate can under-team a full squad of relic Geos. Synergy and counter abilities often matter as much as star level and relic levels.

    But again, even "better" teams lose on defense - by design.

    Yes but a 5 star traya would lose to a relic geo, where a 5 star Malevolence can beat negotiator at max star no problem

    You continue to miss the point....and make poor analogies.

    Nah bro, you continue to miss the point at this point, show me 2 character that are equal in power, fight each other except one at 5 star and the other at 7, guess who's gonna win?

    How are 1v1 battles/comparisons even relevant for fleet battles? You're missing the point.

    .... But ok:
    5* Wat vs. 7* Wat. Tell me who's going to win.
Sign In or Register to comment.