Territory War Ties [Merged]

Replies

  • 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

    This is a great idea. I would love if they added a LIVE replay feature too.
    Darth Saltious - Hoth Ski Patrol
  • Love the guild champion idea
    Probably ends up with an option to buy 1st place,
    100 bucks and you get that extra zeta but hurry before the other guild takes the deal
  • 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

    Yep....that's the one I'm in favor of too....not only would you get to see the progress on defensive stops throughout the TW, but would also implicate some strategy too...if your guild started falling behind on defensive stops, you'd have to think twice about throwing weaker squads on offense to dilute their teams.
  • JacenRoe wrote: »
    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.

    This is what I developed my roster for though, to use them. The idea that “I don’t want to take the time to fight with my entire roster” just seems absurd to me. That’s what the game is for. This is what we want, to use the characters we built!
  • Ender22
    1194 posts Member
    It would be a shame to turn TW into another awards exchange like Arena. It could be done, albeit in a more difficult fashion.
    But an exchange, sadly, would be worth it if all we have to look forward to is are endless ties.. ties that take a Lot of effort.
  • 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.

    Totally disagree. The point of TWs is for guilds to work together to beat another guild. The purpose is not to create a sandbox testing environment. There is nothing "creative" about throwing wave after wave of weaker teams against defensive squads to whittle them down. On the other hand, if defensive squads got points for stops, there would be even more strategy added to TWs. You'd need to be more selective about your defensive squads because they could gain your guild extra points....you'd also have to strategize more about which squad you attack and with whom as more efficient victories would benefit your guild's point total.
  • JacenRoe wrote: »
    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.

    Both good points.

    It's not unlikely that EA will adopt this as the most popular solution in order to retain their player base. I think any other conceivable alteration would further upset people, such as buffing defense stats or making TW a race for the finish.
  • JacenRoe wrote: »
    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.

    IMO, the amount of battles and time for this content was perfect. 24 hours to setup, and 24 hour to combat. I don't want to have our guild fight 5,000 battles for 1 zeta.

    One other option is instead of adding more points is to subtract points for each defensive success from the opponent. Therefore if 1 person loses a single battle in a war, their maximum cumulative score would be 10 points less. The only way to make up that difference is to hope at least 1 of your defensive squads will hold to even the score out again. It would kind of be exciting to see your opponents score go down, it brings a sense of live action to the game.

  • One other option is instead of adding more points is to subtract points for each defensive success from the opponent. Therefore if 1 person loses a single battle in a war, there cumulative score would be 10 points less. The only way to make up that difference is to hope at least 1 of your defensive squads will hold to even the score out again. It would kind of be exciting to see your opponents score go down, it brings a sense of live action to the game.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    One other option is instead of adding more points is to subtract points for each defensive success from the opponent. Therefore if 1 person loses a single battle in a war, there cumulative score would be 10 points less. The only way to make up that difference is to hope at least 1 of your defensive squads will hold to even the score out again. It would kind of be exciting to see your opponents score go down, it brings a sense of live action to the game.

    That's basically the same thing as adding points for defensive wins.....there's no substantive difference.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    One other option is instead of adding more points is to subtract points for each defensive success from the opponent. Therefore if 1 person loses a single battle in a war, there cumulative score would be 10 points less. The only way to make up that difference is to hope at least 1 of your defensive squads will hold to even the score out again. It would kind of be exciting to see your opponents score go down, it brings a sense of live action to the game.

    That's basically the same thing as adding points for defensive wins.....there's no substantive difference.

    Yep
  • Strubz
    415 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    How about ties just give first place rewards. Problem solved.

    I should note I'm in a top 10 guild so I suspect everyone will be tying constantly. There is not much difference between these guilds so I don't see how one wins against another. Seems like it will always be ties.
  • Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.
  • Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.

    Wouldn't work.....guilds would just agree to set defensive squads and not attack each other. If there's anything that been proven in PVP gaming, it's that if there's any way for people to share rewards with as little effort as possible, they'll find that way and do it.
  • Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.

    Wouldn't work.....guilds would just agree to set defensive squads and not attack each other. If there's anything that been proven in PVP gaming, it's that if there's any way for people to share rewards with as little effort as possible, they'll find that way and do it.

    In the case of no attacks neither guild gets rewards.
  • Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.

    I guess, but I think the point is to avoid ties. Plus for me I am looking for more meaningful and strategic content. The game has a very one dimensional button-pushing kind of feel to it.
  • Ties are a problem of higher GP guilds, isn't it? I'm in a 73mil GP guild, facing a 73mil GP enemy and we are having a lots of fun and nowhere near clearing all areas.
  • Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.

    Wouldn't work.....guilds would just agree to set defensive squads and not attack each other. If there's anything that been proven in PVP gaming, it's that if there's any way for people to share rewards with as little effort as possible, they'll find that way and do it.

    In the case of no attacks neither guild gets rewards.

    There is a minimum 600 banners to get rewards. That can be attained through defense only though. I guess they could change it to 600 offensive banners.
  • If everyone wins, is it really winning?

    Subtracting points has one psychological advantage to adding points: it sets a "maximum perfect score" goal for guilds to attain to.
  • Ender22
    1194 posts Member
    Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.
    No way. This game needs real competition. I want to win.
  • Luniz
    336 posts Member
    Just do a better job setting your defense. In the first hour of my RE the other team got off to a huge start and demolished our first 2 columns. We picked our way through carefully and finished them off this morning. They got stuck on ships - down to one team in the very last zone.

    If you give first place to ties, there's no need to set a defense. Everybody will put all their good teams on offense and tie. If you want first place rewards, put better teams on D and be more efficient on offense.
  • Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.

    Wouldn't work.....guilds would just agree to set defensive squads and not attack each other. If there's anything that been proven in PVP gaming, it's that if there's any way for people to share rewards with as little effort as possible, they'll find that way and do it.

    In the case of no attacks neither guild gets rewards.

    Ok, so then both guilds just agree to attack once on each side, lol. We all know that guilds would just cooperate to spend very little effort and tie and share 1st place rewards. Win trading is rampant in PVP gaming. In this game, you've got people who set up shard chats on Discord, etc. and the top people in most shard arenas agree to work together to trade rankings so they can all remain at the top of the arena.
  • Evidently Territory Wars was tuned for guilds like yours. It must be nice to have a real competition on your hands! @jodelmeister
  • Luniz
    336 posts Member
    TW not RE.
  • O66DarthJarJar
    3 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.

    Wouldn't work.....guilds would just agree to set defensive squads and not attack each other. If there's anything that been proven in PVP gaming, it's that if there's any way for people to share rewards with as little effort as possible, they'll find that way and do it.

    In the case of no attacks neither guild gets rewards.

    There is a minimum 600 banners to get rewards. That can be attained through defense only though. I guess they could change it to 600 offensive banners.

    ^This makes sense. Has to be an increase of 600 banners on attack day for rewards to drop. 600 could be obtained easily enough and not a gimmicky number since there's no way to get it without conquering a territory.
  • Manowar wrote: »
    If everyone wins, is it really winning?

    Subtracting points has one psychological advantage to adding points: it sets a "maximum perfect score" goal for guilds to attain to.

    To question one, yes. It is winning. If both guild completely destroy one another, they have both won.

    About substracting points...I can already feel the rage this would generate.
  • Adrian888
    10 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    I'm not sure what type of coding would be involved, but in case of a tie, the guild that's spent less on the game should take 1st, because they exhibited more skill and strategy if they were able to tie a team that's spent more than they have.
  • Ties are a problem of higher GP guilds, isn't it? I'm in a 73mil GP guild, facing a 73mil GP enemy and we are having a lots of fun and nowhere near clearing all areas.

    Thats how my beta run was. It came down to the last minute too, it was awesome.
  • Ender22
    1194 posts Member
    Luniz wrote: »
    Just do a better job setting your defense. In the first hour of my RE the other team got off to a huge start and demolished our first 2 columns. We picked our way through carefully and finished them off this morning. They got stuck on ships - down to one team in the very last zone.

    If you give first place to ties, there's no need to set a defense. Everybody will put all their good teams on offense and tie. If you want first place rewards, put better teams on D and be more efficient on offense.

    Defense matters very little when it comes to sheer quantity.

    Ships is an easy example as to why. The guild as a whole can have 200 fleets. The guild places 50 defensive ship teams. The guild then gets 150 attacks against 50 ships. It’s basically a sure win. 1st attack to take out the tank. Second attack to cleanup. Then, Maybe a third to finish.
  • Ender22
    1194 posts Member
    Or yah know, they could just make ties both get first.....since you both put in first place effort.

    Wouldn't work.....guilds would just agree to set defensive squads and not attack each other. If there's anything that been proven in PVP gaming, it's that if there's any way for people to share rewards with as little effort as possible, they'll find that way and do it.

    In the case of no attacks neither guild gets rewards.

    There is a minimum 600 banners to get rewards. That can be attained through defense only though. I guess they could change it to 600 offensive banners.

    ^This makes sense. Has to be an increase of 600 banners on attack day for rewards to drop. 600 could be obtained easily enough and not a gimmicky number since there's no way to get it without conquering a territory.

    Then each guild can just do the minimum required offensive banners.
Sign In or Register to comment.