Territory War Ties [Merged]

Replies

  • Manowar
    288 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    I believe giving points for successful defenses is a bad idea.

    One of the strong points of TW is that you can truly use your full roster, for those units above 6,000 power. Penalizing unsuccessful attacks will remove incentives for creative gameplay with weaker team compositions.

    There are few things more fun than testing your high-synergy 65k power team against an 80k power opponent. Scrap teams are also an appropriate strategy against certain teams, a strategy which has been encouraged by CG. To add the looming fear of penalized loss stifles the spirit of Territory Wars.

    I do agree that some tweaks should be considered, but with this hindsight, more guilds will certainly be able to set successful defenses next time.
  • Hannibal_Bexus
    620 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Tie or not, it was still way more funner than TB.
    giphy.gif
  • leef wrote: »
    Well, no.
    It's just plain unfair, it would result guilds in favourable timezones getting ahead of guilds in unfavourable timezones. (fyi, my guild is in a favourable timezone)

    You are right leef, my Guild have some strong members from Europe, they are not able to play at the same hour as the rest.
  • And let the other guild get that tiny bit of a leg up on future territory wars with the 1st place loot? Nope.
  • Nope.
  • And let the other guild get that tiny bit of a leg up on future territory wars with the 1st place loot? Nope.

    If one guild pulls away then you won't match them.
  • Dumbest idea ever. And this is from someone who’s in a favorable time zone to start attacking as soon as attack phase starts.
  • I like your thoughts all. I especially like the thought about the champion of each guild fighting off with both champions in a decider match watched by all!
  • leef wrote: »
    Well, no.
    It's just plain unfair, it would result guilds in favourable timezones getting ahead of guilds in unfavourable timezones. (fyi, my guild is in a favourable timezone)

    This is a fair point...thing is...now we have to try to reason with EA. And we know how well they like to screw us with rewards.
  • ddlooping2
    971 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    ...
  • We went against a German guild at a time when we were all at work vs their evening time (probably off work), they stormed us and took out all our territories before most of us had a break from work to log in. SEem right to give them a win?
  • ddlooping2 wrote: »
    How about in case of a tie, first price goes to the guild with the less Galactic Power? :)

    Except that isn't fair either because neither guild gets to choose matches. Otherwise everyone would always choose to have less.
  • Manowar wrote: »
    phatphil3 wrote: »
    I don't think ties will always happen, I think now guilds know what to expect. Did you have teams you didn't use on offense because your team cleared it or were your battles easy because they were saving their power teams for offense?
    You are the first person I have seen mention this.

    Things will be different next TW because thinking guilds will change their strategy to a much stronger defensive position. Will this make a difference? It's hard to say until we compare more data from this round.

    You must take into account that a guild will have up to 1,160 offensive squads (not counting ships) vs only 200 defensive squads. Boards will be cleared.

    You are assuming a guild with maxed rosters. For the average guild those numbers are not so unbalanced.

    Perhaps a solution is to alter the number of defensive slots based on GP bracket. For example: have 20 slots per territory for 45M GP, 25 slots for 75M GP, 30 slots for 100M GP, etc.
  • leef wrote: »
    Well, no.
    It's just plain unfair, it would result guilds in favourable timezones getting ahead of guilds in unfavourable timezones. (fyi, my guild is in a favourable timezone)

    This. Any time-based tie-breaker is a horrible idea since all guilds and guild members are not in the same time zone.

    Anything BUT that would be fine.
    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*
  • Manowar wrote: »
    I believe giving points for successful defenses is a bad idea.

    One of the strong points of TW is that you can truly use your full roster, for those units above 6,000 power. Penalizing unsuccessful attacks will remove incentives for creative gameplay with weaker team compositions.

    There are few things more fun than testing your high-synergy 65k power team against an 80k power opponent. Scrap teams are also an appropriate strategy against certain teams, a strategy which has been encouraged by CG. To add the looming fear of penalized loss stifles the spirit of Territory Wars.

    I do agree that some tweaks should be considered, but with this hindsight, more guilds will certainly be able to set successful defenses next time.

    Totally disagree. You just need to set the points low enough for defensive wins. Like one banner only. (Not my idea, but I love it.)

    A win is 10 banners. Conquering a territory is hundreds of banners. I'm not going to throw away the opportunity to win 10 banners (or hundreds for clearing all the teams), because I might give the opponent 1. If I have to send in a suicide team to nuke the leader, and then a creative team to finish the rest I'm still up 9 banners net, and I may have saved a stronger squad for later.

    Also there were a few real defensive juggernauts in our TB. I watched a couple teams eat up as many as 9 attacks. Brutal teams like that on defense should reward a few banners.
  • I have thought about this... Best solution I have come up with is to keep track of the total time of all battles. In the case of a Banner Tie, the guild that defended the longest wins. To be CLEAR, this is not necessary the guild that finishes first.

    If Banner count is equal - If it takes your guild a total of 1000min of battle time to clear all defenders, and your opponent takes 1001min, you win.

    This encourages guilds to put up the best possible defense, as the longer it takes the apposing guild to finish it the better. If you put up all 40k GP teams you will end up losing as they would be taken out quick.

    THis does bring it alot of strategy as speed now counts.
  • Atrreyu wrote: »
    We crushed the opposition, that said not a big difference in rewards from winning and losing. Maybe that can change in the future. After 9 days of setting up one expects a bit more prestige.

    9 days? For 7 of it, all you did was look at an empty map. :D

    That said, it's only going to be 1 day of setup, 1 day of setting defense and 1 day of attacking moving forward.
    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*
  • I still prefer surviving units earn points, but another idea would be...
    King of the hill
    Conquered territories must be defended or reclaimed until everyone's roster is empty or time runs out.

    Again this won't work because of timezones. TW ends at 2am in my area, so how do u expect me to defend my territory?
  • @Vice_torn Interesting idea :)
  • JacenRoe wrote: »
    Also there were a few real defensive juggernauts in our TB. I watched a couple teams eat up as many as 9 attacks. Brutal teams like that on defense should reward a few banners.

    Was not the reward of eating through the enemy offense enough?

    If the tides of defense/offense become more balanced (by increasing the number of defensive squads in higher GP guilds) then a defensive team like that will accomplish its purpose.
  • leef
    13025 posts Member
    Also, what's stopping guilds in the higher GP brackets from trading wins? It's favourable for both. Still, i don't think that's something "we" should want though. Lines get blurry once you start with these sort of strategies..
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • Can we all agree to stop attacking after one guild finishes? My guild finished in the first 8h but then the other guild finished us in the last 8h, which apparently doesn't do anything except for bump both guilds down to 2nd place rewards.

    Until a tie breaker is instituted or until EA gives both guilds first place rewards for first place efforts, I move that we don't spite each other and let the first guild to finish keep its 1st place rewards. It's not like the 2nd guild to finish gets anything better than 2nd.

    lol no.. That is just based on timezones who complete it first.. Second place for you too! Atleast before devs are gonna change it
  • Handicap system... every CLS a guild gives up before deployment counts as +1 banner
  • JacenRoe wrote: »
    Manowar wrote: »
    I believe giving points for successful defenses is a bad idea.

    One of the strong points of TW is that you can truly use your full roster, for those units above 6,000 power. Penalizing unsuccessful attacks will remove incentives for creative gameplay with weaker team compositions.

    There are few things more fun than testing your high-synergy 65k power team against an 80k power opponent. Scrap teams are also an appropriate strategy against certain teams, a strategy which has been encouraged by CG. To add the looming fear of penalized loss stifles the spirit of Territory Wars.

    I do agree that some tweaks should be considered, but with this hindsight, more guilds will certainly be able to set successful defenses next time.

    Totally disagree. You just need to set the points low enough for defensive wins. Like one banner only. (Not my idea, but I love it.)

    A win is 10 banners. Conquering a territory is hundreds of banners. I'm not going to throw away the opportunity to win 10 banners (or hundreds for clearing all the teams), because I might give the opponent 1. If I have to send in a suicide team to nuke the leader, and then a creative team to finish the rest I'm still up 9 banners net, and I may have saved a stronger squad for later.

    Also there were a few real defensive juggernauts in our TB. I watched a couple teams eat up as many as 9 attacks. Brutal teams like that on defense should reward a few banners.

    I think it HAS to be this way.
    Now, everyone knows that your defense will likely be cleared anyways no matter what squad you put defending. People will place weak (40k Jawas) squads on defense to get their 20 points and save stronger squads for offense to guarantee the don't lose. Time-out teams that could earn extra points by surviving would counter that strategy and prevent ties.
  • ProximaB1_ wrote: »
    They need to add more defensive squads or buff them. I really don't want winning to be some mathematical equation. Make it basically impossible to clear the board. Where when you take a territory it's a huge gain.

    Yeah, but, the fun is in attacking, not placing defensive squads. It is true that placing 50 defensive squads per territory instead of 25 would cause fewer ties, but, how boring would it be to place half your roster on defense? I'd rather earn points for a defensive unit surviving battle. Those GK/zBarriss teams should be worth more points on D than a 40k Jawa squad. By surviving battle, they would earn those points.

    I actually quite enjoyed defense. Our guild was on discord just watching our defensive teams to see how many times they got attacked before they fell. It was fun watching people flail at a few of my teams 10 times before falling. I just wish we had defensive stats (GP faced is my recommendation). I know it’s unrealistic, but being able to see defensive replays would be so awesome, both here and in arena.
  • Mzee
    1720 posts Member
    I would like there to be some form of tie breaker. My guild is about 110million GP and out opponent was slightly more. From discussing with my guild everyone seems to want a tie breaker.

    A race to see who can clear the defenses first is not a good idea in my opinion as there are different time zones and this would create problems. Points for successful defenses is a popular choice in my guild. Doesn't need to be a lot, just enough to help break the ties.

    I really like this game mode and I think it is off to an excellent start.
  • leef wrote: »
    Also, what's stopping guilds in the higher GP brackets from trading wins? It's favourable for both. Still, i don't think that's something "we" should want though. Lines get blurry once you start with these sort of strategies..

    I don't like it much either, it's meant to be a temporary fix until EA wisens up and gives us proper rewards or tiebreakers.
  • JacenRoe wrote: »
    Manowar wrote: »
    I believe giving points for successful defenses is a bad idea.

    One of the strong points of TW is that you can truly use your full roster, for those units above 6,000 power. Penalizing unsuccessful attacks will remove incentives for creative gameplay with weaker team compositions.

    There are few things more fun than testing your high-synergy 65k power team against an 80k power opponent. Scrap teams are also an appropriate strategy against certain teams, a strategy which has been encouraged by CG. To add the looming fear of penalized loss stifles the spirit of Territory Wars.

    I do agree that some tweaks should be considered, but with this hindsight, more guilds will certainly be able to set successful defenses next time.

    Totally disagree. You just need to set the points low enough for defensive wins. Like one banner only. (Not my idea, but I love it.)

    A win is 10 banners. Conquering a territory is hundreds of banners. I'm not going to throw away the opportunity to win 10 banners (or hundreds for clearing all the teams), because I might give the opponent 1. If I have to send in a suicide team to nuke the leader, and then a creative team to finish the rest I'm still up 9 banners net, and I may have saved a stronger squad for later.

    Also there were a few real defensive juggernauts in our TB. I watched a couple teams eat up as many as 9 attacks. Brutal teams like that on defense should reward a few banners.
    JacenRoe wrote: »
    Manowar wrote: »
    I believe giving points for successful defenses is a bad idea.

    One of the strong points of TW is that you can truly use your full roster, for those units above 6,000 power. Penalizing unsuccessful attacks will remove incentives for creative gameplay with weaker team compositions.

    There are few things more fun than testing your high-synergy 65k power team against an 80k power opponent. Scrap teams are also an appropriate strategy against certain teams, a strategy which has been encouraged by CG. To add the looming fear of penalized loss stifles the spirit of Territory Wars.

    I do agree that some tweaks should be considered, but with this hindsight, more guilds will certainly be able to set successful defenses next time.

    Totally disagree. You just need to set the points low enough for defensive wins. Like one banner only. (Not my idea, but I love it.)

    A win is 10 banners. Conquering a territory is hundreds of banners. I'm not going to throw away the opportunity to win 10 banners (or hundreds for clearing all the teams), because I might give the opponent 1. If I have to send in a suicide team to nuke the leader, and then a creative team to finish the rest I'm still up 9 banners net, and I may have saved a stronger squad for later.

    Also there were a few real defensive juggernauts in our TB. I watched a couple teams eat up as many as 9 attacks. Brutal teams like that on defense should reward a few banners.

    I think it HAS to be done this way.
    Now that everybody knows your defense will be cleared no matter what squad you throw out there, people will play to not lose. A weak defense team (40k Jawas) will earn just as many points as GK/zBarris that takes 5 tries to kill. People will place weak defenses and save better squads for offense to ensure a non-loss or tie. Giving extra points to those surviving defensive units will eliminate a "non-loss" strategy and prevent ties.
  • The best idea I have heard now is if the defense is not defeated in a battle, the player who entered the defense gains 1 (or 2) banners for their guild
    https://swgoh.gg/u/speedokillz/

    December 2016 Arena Shard
  • JacenRoe
    2745 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Manowar wrote: »
    JacenRoe wrote: »
    Also there were a few real defensive juggernauts in our TB. I watched a couple teams eat up as many as 9 attacks. Brutal teams like that on defense should reward a few banners.

    Was not the reward of eating through the enemy offense enough?

    If the tides of defense/offense become more balanced (by increasing the number of defensive squads in higher GP guilds) then a defensive team like that will accomplish its purpose.

    Eating through the opponent's teams was great. But the problem we are discussing is ties. Well developed guilds are going to completely clear each other's maps, and tie 100% of the time. The max possible score is identical for both teams. We need some tiebreaker, and counting defensive wins as one banner is a sufficiently random number to ensure ties are VERY rare, and it's rewards more efficient use of characters.

    Edit: also increased number of defensive teams means more time sunk into this game. The devs purposely scaled back difficulty in other areas to make up for adding this content. Currently, TW are the perfect size to be enjoyable IMHO. Some guilds would need TW maps triple this size to burn up all their toons. That is too much.
Sign In or Register to comment.