Losing a battle in conquest should not use your energy

BonesRebo
19 posts Member
edited June 23
When you join a battle to see if your team can even take a turn, and then they are completely destroyed in 1 turn, in extremely frustrating, especially since they take 15 energy from you for not even playing the battle.

Seriously, if you get run over and don't even get a turn, or if you get 1 turn and lose, you shouldn't have your energy taken.
Post edited by crzydroid on

Replies

  • Sounds player friendly, allows for experimentation and theory-crafting rather than just brute-forcing with GLs, and would save players from the unnecessary wasting of crystals.

    Never gonna happen.
  • Could not disagree anymore with OP…
  • ToJ85
    21 posts Member
    Sounds like the problem isn't the energy, but Overprepared teams at like 9000 speed, without any means for the player to see it before trying the battle. But that's just me.
  • -1 from me.

    There needs to be some incentive to do well. The game mode wouldn’t work properly if there was no cost of failure.

    What do you mean? You do well, you progress! You fail, you don't progress. That's a cost of failure.

    This idea doesn't affect your incentive to do well at all.

    I think for those really struggling, it might be a motivation. However, I'm not sure either way.
  • -1 from me.

    There needs to be some incentive to do well. The game mode wouldn’t work properly if there was no cost of failure.

    What do you mean? You do well, you progress! You fail, you don't progress. That's a cost of failure.

    This idea doesn't affect your incentive to do well at all.

    I think for those really struggling, it might be a motivation. However, I'm not sure either way.
    But there’s no cost if you can immediately attempt the mission again with the same energy as you had before.

    If you cannot make progress because you are incapable of beating a node, I don’t see what help it is if you don’t lose energy. If you can beat a node, failures should be penalised.
  • The failure is penalised, in that you're not progressing. Which can be frustrating. I feel there's a real lack of empathy with those struggling at times.

    On further thought though, I'm kind of against the idea as you could make progress towards feats, then lose and not use energy. That is definitely not right.
  • InyakSolomon88
    1218 posts Member
    edited June 23
    -1 from me.

    There needs to be some incentive to do well. The game mode wouldn’t work properly if there was no cost of failure.

    You must not play other games. Let me educate you then. In many other games, you lose and you get back all your energy except for 1 point of it. Or the first attempt you get it all back, then in subsequent failures you get back all except for 1.

    That's perfectly reasonable and encourages 1) continuous play and 2) to theorycraft and tweak teams until you can find the right solution. The current model CG uses encourages....spending crystals. Unless you personally have stock in CG's crystal economy, why do you care?

    I suggest you try out Arknights, Dislyte, Artery Gear: Fusion and many, many others who share this energy return upon failure model. Would open up your world.
  • I agree this is an issue, but disagree with your solution.

    I believe the best solution is to allow the user to see the enemy stats beforehand. Then you can see if the enemy team will go before you. It would allow you to more skillfully select a team rather than just picking a team that you hope gets to have a turn. But it would keep the incentive of having a negative consequence for losing.
  • I understand the frustration, but that would make all the "kill x amount with y team" feats free to complete.
  • You lose normal energy for failing a battle. You lose GL tickets if you fail a tier.

    Why should Conquest be treated any differently?
  • -1 from me.

    There needs to be some incentive to do well. The game mode wouldn’t work properly if there was no cost of failure.

    You must not play other games. Let me educate you then. In many other games, you lose and you get back all your energy except for 1 point of it. Or the first attempt you get it all back, then in subsequent failures you get back all except for 1.

    That's perfectly reasonable and encourages 1) continuous play and 2) to theorycraft and tweak teams until you can find the right solution. The current model CG uses encourages....spending crystals. Unless you personally have stock in CG's crystal economy, why do you care?

    I suggest you try out Arknights, Dislyte, Artery Gear: Fusion and many, many others who share this energy return upon failure model. Would open up your world.
    It’s a no from me, Dog.

    One game is enough for my world.

    And why I care is that conquest is one of the few areas of the game where a skilled player can earn better rewards than an unskilled player.
Sign In or Register to comment.