Territory War Ties [Merged]

Replies

  • Peer wrote: »
    Who cleared the map first is irrelevant. Many already pointed out that activity depends on local time. We are German and fought a guild from the US. While we slept they cleared some territories.

    With regard to the number of battles it took to clear the map please consider that for the weaker guild it might take more encounters to finish off opponent squads. If this guild manages to succeed they most likely deployed a superior strategy.

    100%. Time can’t be a factor, we have guild members from ever TZ on the planet. Which is why the tie breaker should be strategy and efficiency based. How well you hold on D vs. how high your offense percentage is.

    Banners for defensive holds and remaining roster deployment would determine that perfectly and would VERY rarely result in a draw.
  • Devian
    141 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    yossgold wrote: »
    Award banners for defensive holds too.
    For some reason I thought devs implemented it from the start =)
    Thought, if this is not possible, then result of taking 1st for both winners would be nice as well

  • The solution of giving points for successful defense is the one i am leaning to. Or add more squads for defense instead of 25 per sector.
  • yossgold
    62 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Devian wrote: »
    Thought, if this is not possible, then result of taking 1st for both winners would be nice as well

    That would be a solid compromise, but then it would just make TW another periodical task you have to get through to get rewards while as this is the only current game mode that has the potential to not be that, so it would be a waste of a great game mode and something I think this game really needs.
  • leef
    13026 posts Member
    Tarugo91 wrote: »
    The solution of giving points for successful defense is the one i am leaning to. Or add more squads for defense instead of 25 per sector.

    Not a fan of adding more squads per sector. Eventhough i like it, it also means it's going to be more timeconsuming, especially for the high GP guilds.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • It is only really an issue for very high GP guilds where all defence slots are going to be filled. Lower down they are not going to be and it is a more interesting choice.

    Easy solution is just change the defence cap level based on the GP bands as well as number of participants. If you could have had 50 defence slots in each area would you have filled them? Probably not so no draw or extremely unlikely. The notes say it is "based on" lowest number of players in the guilds. I believe it is a flat 50% though I may be wrong. So 40 people in guild = 20 slots. If this % went up with GP then problem would go away.
  • Yograin
    28 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Exactly this. If there was more room for defense for example in ships it would matter whether you sent 100 capital ships to defend and only have 100 to attack. As it is you know you will be facing 50 ship battles with 50 people who each can field 2 fleets to attack so its clear it will be a clear.

    If there were 100 defense fleet slots there wouldnt be any draws.

    Also regarding all the botched attacks or after deploy ideas:
    1. next TW there will be a 50 attack teams of zombie + acolyte to send against say phoenix and I dont want this to turn even more into gimmick fights and being afraid to lose one attack against a 102k defense squad.
    2. We faced a -10 mil GP guild this time so how would it be fair if we just deployed all leftovers now when they start so much weaker
  • Tarugo91 wrote: »
    The solution of giving points for successful defense is the one i am leaning to. Or add more squads for defense instead of 25 per sector.

    No thats not a solution, it might lower the number of draws a bit, but only for lower gp guilds. This does not fix the underlying problem. As long as the maximum amount of points is fixed you will most likely alsways run into his situation.

    There are a few Solutions mentioned that might work but they all have drawbacks, that might make everything worse :/
  • leef wrote: »
    Tarugo91 wrote: »
    The solution of giving points for successful defense is the one i am leaning to. Or add more squads for defense instead of 25 per sector.

    Not a fan of adding more squads per sector. Eventhough i like it, it also means it's going to be more timeconsuming, especially for the high GP guilds.

    I agree. The two best options are to either award points for defending an attack or to use remaining gp to determine a winner.
  • leef
    13026 posts Member
    kello_511 wrote: »
    leef wrote: »
    Tarugo91 wrote: »
    The solution of giving points for successful defense is the one i am leaning to. Or add more squads for defense instead of 25 per sector.

    Not a fan of adding more squads per sector. Eventhough i like it, it also means it's going to be more timeconsuming, especially for the high GP guilds.

    I agree. The two best options are to either award points for defending an attack or to use remaining gp to determine a winner.

    Remaining will give a leg up to the guild with more GP to start with. Least GP used would be better imo.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • Here’s the thing, the way it is now, I can probably assume that no matter what I do, my map will be cleared. So what’s to stop me from just putting the bare minimum 6K on every defensive node and have the full guild roster for offense? If it’s gonna be a draw anyway, why would I spend time on defensive strategies? In order to put in that time I want a win or a loss. That’s my drive.
  • Corvus
    190 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    kello_511 wrote: »
    leef wrote: »
    Tarugo91 wrote: »
    The solution of giving points for successful defense is the one i am leaning to. Or add more squads for defense instead of 25 per sector.

    Not a fan of adding more squads per sector. Eventhough i like it, it also means it's going to be more timeconsuming, especially for the high GP guilds.

    I agree. The two best options are to either award points for defending an attack or to use remaining gp to determine a winner.

    hmm, not so sure the first will lead to pretty stale defensive fights without the fun dynamic we had this time (in addition to punish the the guild with less GP), the second will just reward the guild with more GP. Since matchmaking is not that precise.

    In both cases the winner will most likely be the guild with higher total GP if you consider that matchmaking allows a difference up to 10mill GP. E.G my Guild was matched against a Guild with roughly 5mill GP more. And during beta we fought a guild with roughly 10mill more GP.
  • Giving points for a successful defense would be good. Only 1 point per defense would be enough
  • Another really cool idea would be to have a method of tie breaking/preventing that changes with each tw (although it is probably too much work to implement this). It would require new strategy each time and prevent this from becoming stale.

    There are a bunch of options that they could use, like:

    -award bonus banners to teams that win using CUP, ME, etc.
    -in the case of a tie the win goes to whoever finished first
    -use leftover gp to identify the winner
    -bonus points for defending teams
    -bonus banners for each surviving toon after winning a battle
    -etc.

    Regardless, this is a great new game mode and imo the tie issue is the only thing that needs improvement.
    The time requirement is just right, the challenge and strategy aspect is also good (although the tie factor makes most strategy meaningless at the moment). It was really fun to sit back and watch as the opposing side tried to take out our strongest squads (some of them stood up to 8 or 9 attempts!)
  • DieInFire wrote: »

    I think a PERFECT option would be to have each guild "deploy" their remaining toons into the opposition's territory upon a full clear. These are the leftover toons that haven't been used on offense or defense. Think of this in similar terms to what you do in TB after doing platoons and combat missions. This would be a barometer of your efficiency as a guild, but also shouldn't have the effect of making less powerful guild members gun-shy with experimenting with fights with their under-powered toons along the way (whereas the previous example citing number of toons used would have that very effect). This would still, in theory, give the advantage to the guild that has more GP to start, but could very well swing in the other direction if your guild is defeated frequently in battle. (Note: I was impressed with the matchmaking for TW and I feel as though MOST guilds were matched to a guild within 1 million of their GP). Also, we know that deployment is already a mechanic that the devs have used before, and I believe that would make it a more feasible option than some other equally appealing ideas (i.e. sudden death matches, extra territories popping up, etc).

    Would love to hear feedback on this! Have a great one, ladies and gents :smile:

    Our rival guild was 6M GP higher than us.
    That means we would never be able to beat them with your method.

    No it doesn't. If you set up defense squads that made them use more of their GP to take them out, you could win. And the system above makes more sense than my efficiency post earlier.
    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*
  • This is a fantastic idea. Defensive banners would make this an immensely fun game mode. Which it was already quite a bit of fun.
  • Totally agree with all the calls for a bonus banner for a successful defence.

    The alternative is to award fewer banners after each failed attack on a squad. So if the opponents send in 2 teams unsuccessfully against my imperious CUP / Ugnaught / Mob enforcer / JKG / Eeth Koth combo, then the 3rd attacker beats it, they would only earn 8 points.

    This at least would keep the same theoretical maximum score intact.
  • Maegor
    1217 posts Member
    I think the easiest solution, and one that doesn't penalize guilds for "softening up" teams would be the following - stair step the amount of teams allowed to be assigned on defense per "vertical slice" ;). For example, in the first column, you can set 25 teams, in the second you can set 30, in the third you can set 35, in the back you can set 40. Or maybe even more.

    Point being, expand the number of defensive allowed to be set to make guilds actually decide between the balance of offense and defense.

    This would work with the current point system.
  • Here's the most simple solution: Increase number of teams on defense. Either more teams per territory or more territories, I don't care. There clearly are too few teams required right now, plain and simple.
  • +1 in general for defensive wins.

    I like the idea of a penalty kick round, where a handful of champion squads are nominated by each team and sent into arena. And it would be best of three or something so there wouldn't be draws.

    -Brandt
  • Exactly. We have different solutions to the same problem though both lead to different level caps.

    At the moment top GP teams max at least number of defensive squads if not the quality. There needs to be a cap level that means you do not want to do this and have to make a sensible choice between number of offence and defence teams. Mechanism of determining the cap and where may vary but ultimately raising it somewhere is a simple solution that would work.
  • Or to make it really interesting, let the guilds decide themselves how many teams they want to place, and scrap the fixed number altogether. So they must decide between defense and offense, without knowing what the guild is deciding. Actually this would make it more like real war strategies.
  • DarthShell wrote: »
    why not once a territory is take the teams that won battles become defenders and they have to take the territory back. Who holds most territory’s wins that should never end in a tie

    You can't do that because you can be paired with guild fom a different timezone. So one will be in a disadvantage. Futhermore it would only imply ppl spend more time in game and at a specific timeframe - which is what this community dreaded for quite some time now.
    It’s not like giving both guilds first place rewards will brake the game. It’s only one more zeta mat and some extra guild/TB currency.

    It makes this game mode pointless. It's based on competing against each other, so if you award #1 to both in case of a draw then it's easy to see most guild will just set crap defenses and put all on offence. It will jsut become a chore adn nobody will actually compete.
    Degs29 wrote: »
    I don't see most matches ending in a draw.

    But mostly I wanted to respond to your assertion that awarding banners to defensive teams for successfully defending would benefit TW. IMO, I'd agree with you IF you strip the 20 banners for placing the team there in the first place. Otherwise, defending would be all too powerful a strategy.

    That's the idea. In traditional warfare - there's no point in conquering your opponent if your homeland gets plundered, is there ? As the game is now it's much easier to win on offense, because of how lousy AI plays your units. So it's fun to actually try setting up a defense that can stop someone. That's the main focus of TW as it is now.
  • Dretzle
    716 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    The other thing I haven't noticed was stated yet in regards to matchups ending in ties. Even if that wasn't the most common place now, it soon will be. As more toons are released and people have time to gear more toons, we have a limited amount of defensive teams to place, and an unlimited amount of offensive teams to fight them, so eventually, whether already or next month or next quarter, there will simply be more offense than defense to more and more easily clear the board.

    I don't care what the tie breaker is, as long as it's fair and at least somewhat represents your guild's strength or strategy. It shouldn't be who cleared the board first, however, as that's just another game mode requiring you to play at a very specific time, and we've already got too many of that.

    Not that I mind losing. Second place rewards aren't terrible, either. But it is more fun if one guild can gain victory. :)

    EDIT: Seems my thought was already somewhat mentioned. Whoops. :) Skimmed past the last few messages.
  • Corvus wrote: »
    Gond wrote: »
    Points for surviving defensive toons (per toon, not team)

    There aren't any surviving defensive toons in tied games.

    I guess he ment after a succesfull defense fight...

    Correct
  • MalEliza
    132 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    thomssi wrote: »
    It is only really an issue for very high GP guilds where all defence slots are going to be filled. Lower down they are not going to be and it is a more interesting choice.

    Easy solution is just change the defence cap level based on the GP bands as well as number of participants. If you could have had 50 defence slots in each area would you have filled them? Probably not so no draw or extremely unlikely. The notes say it is "based on" lowest number of players in the guilds. I believe it is a flat 50% though I may be wrong. So 40 people in guild = 20 slots. If this % went up with GP then problem would go away.
    Of course we would have filled them. A defence team earns 20 banners regardless of how bad it is. And yes. There are #guildmembers/2 slots available per sector. I agree, however that coupling the slots to the GP amount would be a much better aproach (edit: even better might be to couple the number of slots to the overall number of toons in the guild). Just imagine 2 guilds with all maxed collections. Ignoring ships, that's 27 teams per person to use in tw. Now, there are 25*8=200 defensive slots to fill, so every member should on average field 4 defensive teams and defeat 4 defensive teams of the opposing guild. This is increadibly unbalanced since that gives a maxed player 23 teams to beat 4 teams on offence.
    What I don't like about that is that it will increase the time you have to spend with this game even more.

    yossgold wrote: »
    Here’s the thing, the way it is now, I can probably assume that no matter what I do, my map will be cleared. So what’s to stop me from just putting the bare minimum 6K on every defensive node and have the full guild roster for offense? If it’s gonna be a draw anyway, why would I spend time on defensive strategies? In order to put in that time I want a win or a loss. That’s my drive.
    Nothing. This is why the only solutions I can come up with right now is to either make sure that defence is almost never defeated completely (by adding bonuses and adding more defensive slots) or adding a deploy option for leftover toons. The problem I see with the deployment tie breaker is however, that this again might lead to weaker guild members sitting on the sidelines because they'll get more "reward" for deploying their toons than for fighting stronger opponents.
  • Jabberjawa wrote: »
    I agree. In the mean time they could just give both teams 1st place rewards for a tie.

    Can't do that, otherwise both sides meet up on Discord and agree to deploy all defensive squads and sit out the attack phase, guaranteeing top rewards for both. They'll (rightly in my opinion) avoid any system that encourages/ allows collusion.
  • DarthShell wrote: »
    why not once a territory is take the teams that won battles become defenders and they have to take the territory back. Who holds most territory’s wins that should never end in a tie


    Because then the Guild with most active members around the start/ end time will win most of the time.
  • Bora
    390 posts Member
    Totally agree with all the calls for a bonus banner for a successful defence.

    The alternative is to award fewer banners after each failed attack on a squad. So if the opponents send in 2 teams unsuccessfully against my imperious CUP / Ugnaught / Mob enforcer / JKG / Eeth Koth combo, then the 3rd attacker beats it, they would only earn 8 points.

    This at least would keep the same theoretical maximum score intact.

    Personally I'd like to see the alternative you suggested, every failed attack cause a diminishing reward when you finally defeat that team!
    Res non verba
  • There’s a thread - where you get banners for defensive holds. So instead of 10 and 20 banners. You could get 1 or 2 for successfully defending.
    I like this because I feel a defensive hold is a more prideful stat lol

    This would be a great tiebreaker!
Sign In or Register to comment.