Territory War Ties [Merged]

Replies

  • For the stronger guilds in the game, every guild wars ends in a tie. That’s of course not fear at all, these rules penalise the most affectionated players (and most spending, EA).
    Therefore, I just suggest to IMMEDIATELY let a tie result to obtain a first position to both of the guilds. It should be pretty easy to do. In the meantime, you can think about how to determine who win, when tie happens (always above 120milions GP or so).
    Thanks

    I disagree with this sentiment , if you look at the TW ranking you will see many guilds above 120m, still do manage to win their matches.
  • charlyw64
    125 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Magulama wrote: »
    I disagree with this sentiment , if you look at the TW ranking you will see many guilds above 120m, still do manage to win their matches.

    Unfortunately this ranking doesn't tell with which score they won. The first TW we (110M GP) lost because one of us managed to kill the last enemy toon just as his battle was declared a draw. No points awarded but no toon to be killed from that defense squad. Ergo, we lost and a similar strength guild won... And there are a lot of reports to this extent but all of them are discarded by the developers - even going as far as claiming to have checked and finding the losing guild had missed to fill one defense (mathematically impossible if the winning guild get's perfect score)...
  • Nemman wrote: »
    We are a 120M gp guild and we won the last TW :)

    Attenzione Ammiraglio Nemman! ;)
    Vi è andata bene! Se trovate una gilda forte quanto la vostra finisce in pareggio sicuro! ;)
  • Magulama wrote: »
    For the stronger guilds in the game, every guild wars ends in a tie. That’s of course not fear at all, these rules penalise the most affectionated players (and most spending, EA).
    Therefore, I just suggest to IMMEDIATELY let a tie result to obtain a first position to both of the guilds. It should be pretty easy to do. In the meantime, you can think about how to determine who win, when tie happens (always above 120milions GP or so).
    Thanks

    I disagree with this sentiment , if you look at the TW ranking you will see many guilds above 120m, still do manage to win their matches.

    If just the 5%of GW finish with a TIE, and all of them are scored by the most high GP guild, it's not needed a genius to understand something is not going as it was supposed to go.
    In fact, I bet my hat that dev will do something regarding that pretty soon ;)
  • FitzChivalry
    56 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Here's another idea since developers love gp metrics so much:
    • Totally remove the banners, we don't need them.
    • On defense: whenever someone deploys a team, add that team's gp to the total (start from 0).
    • On attack:
      • subtract the gp of their defeated toons from their total
      • add the gp of my toons that survived to my guild's total (it's like I'm deploying some toons in the enemy territory so it makes sense)
      • add the gp of my toons that died on attack to their total

    Added to a good matchmaking algorithm, I think this can balance a lot TW fights and results.

  • Another Idea, what about getting 20 Points for beating a Team in Offense at the first try and only 10 if you need 2 or more tries.
  • Why not getting 20 points for beating a Team in Offense at the first try and only 10 if you need 2 ore more tries? No Ties anymore.
  • Who killed who first is not an option due to time zones. Defensive hold bonus points is a no-go too because there would be no balance in offense and defense...in other words, if I get points for defense all I’m going to do is stack defense ... and then my opponent does the same and then no one attacks (or very few attack....which is just boring).

    3 tier reward system still sounds like the best compromise. 3 zetas for win, 2 for tie, 1 for loss...then scale the other reward stuff (gear etc) based on GP.

    Gotta keep the algorithms simple...no offense EA, but it’s not your strong suit.
  • Magulama wrote: »
    For the stronger guilds in the game, every guild wars ends in a tie. That’s of course not fear at all, these rules penalise the most affectionated players (and most spending, EA).
    Therefore, I just suggest to IMMEDIATELY let a tie result to obtain a first position to both of the guilds. It should be pretty easy to do. In the meantime, you can think about how to determine who win, when tie happens (always above 120milions GP or so).
    Thanks

    I disagree with this sentiment , if you look at the TW ranking you will see many guilds above 120m, still do manage to win their matches.

    If just the 5%of GW finish with a TIE, and all of them are scored by the most high GP guild, it's not needed a genius to understand something is not going as it was supposed to go.
    In fact, I bet my hat that dev will do something regarding that pretty soon ;)

    I suggest that the guilds in that range ending up with a tie, approach TW with the wrong strategy.
  • How about this
    Setting a defense earns 20 points
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP higher than you earns 10 points.
    Challenging a team with even GP +/- 10K earns 5 points.
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP lower than you earns 0 points.
    After battle, points are awarded based on units left standing. +2 for every offensive unit and -2 for every defensive unit left standing.
    This scoring system will not penalize weaker teams for losing to stronger ones. It will also change defensive strategies because while placing stronger defenses could possibly earn points, placing weaker ones will diminish points gained by the opposition.
  • How about this
    Setting a defense earns 20 points
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP higher than you earns 10 points.
    Challenging a team with even GP +/- 10K earns 5 points.
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP lower than you earns 0 points.
    After battle, points are awarded based on units left standing. +2 for every offensive unit and -2 for every defensive unit left standing.
    This scoring system will not penalize weaker teams for losing to stronger ones. It will also change defensive strategies because while placing stronger defenses could possibly earn points, placing weaker ones will diminish points gained by the opposition.

    The problem with this model is that, while complex, actually still encourages offense over strong defense. It actually encourages people to put out weak defense teams - and then use the minimum amount of offensive firepower needed to accomplish the task on offense. Everyone would have their best heroes still sitting on the bench.

    Again, I think they should leave it alone for another few TW and see if teams figure it out.
    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: »
    How about this
    Setting a defense earns 20 points
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP higher than you earns 10 points.
    Challenging a team with even GP +/- 10K earns 5 points.
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP lower than you earns 0 points.
    After battle, points are awarded based on units left standing. +2 for every offensive unit and -2 for every defensive unit left standing.
    This scoring system will not penalize weaker teams for losing to stronger ones. It will also change defensive strategies because while placing stronger defenses could possibly earn points, placing weaker ones will diminish points gained by the opposition.

    The problem with this model is that, while complex, actually still encourages offense over strong defense. It actually encourages people to put out weak defense teams - and then use the minimum amount of offensive firepower needed to accomplish the task on offense. Everyone would have their best heroes still sitting on the bench.

    Again, I think they should leave it alone for another few TW and see if teams figure it out.

    There is always going to be more offense than defense. Even the average guild can field 3 to 4 offensive teams for each defense. The only way to change this would be to require more defensive teams until guilds do not have deep enough rosters to clear the board. Nobody wants to make this thing longer, and obviously, lots of people don't want ties.
  • Hannibal_Bexus
    620 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    I want something similar to the old tournament scoring system.
    maxresdefault.jpg
  • Jealousy wrote: »
    Who killed who first is not an option due to time zones. Defensive hold bonus points is a no-go too because there would be no balance in offense and defense...in other words, if I get points for defense all I’m going to do is stack defense ... and then my opponent does the same and then no one attacks (or very few attack....which is just boring).

    3 tier reward system still sounds like the best compromise. 3 zetas for win, 2 for tie, 1 for loss...then scale the other reward stuff (gear etc) based on GP.

    Gotta keep the algorithms simple...no offense EA, but it’s not your strong suit.

    While I agree with much of it the only thing to change is that people would still need to have offense strength and not just stand def. that is if a def win only gave like 2 banners this would mean it would have to withstand 5 assaults to equate to 1 offensive victory. While you would want strong defensive you need strong offense to sure your winning on your first go and can push through their strong teams
  • There's no reason something like this can't be worked into my previous suggestions.
    maxresdefault.jpg
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    How about this
    Setting a defense earns 20 points
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP higher than you earns 10 points.
    Challenging a team with even GP +/- 10K earns 5 points.
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP lower than you earns 0 points.
    After battle, points are awarded based on units left standing. +2 for every offensive unit and -2 for every defensive unit left standing.
    This scoring system will not penalize weaker teams for losing to stronger ones. It will also change defensive strategies because while placing stronger defenses could possibly earn points, placing weaker ones will diminish points gained by the opposition.

    The problem with this model is that, while complex, actually still encourages offense over strong defense. It actually encourages people to put out weak defense teams - and then use the minimum amount of offensive firepower needed to accomplish the task on offense. Everyone would have their best heroes still sitting on the bench.

    Again, I think they should leave it alone for another few TW and see if teams figure it out.

    There is always going to be more offense than defense. Even the average guild can field 3 to 4 offensive teams for each defense. The only way to change this would be to require more defensive teams until guilds do not have deep enough rosters to clear the board. Nobody wants to make this thing longer, and obviously, lots of people don't want ties.

    Unless you were allowed only 1 attack per battle. If the defense holds they would win the territory. This would even out the odds of offense vs defense.
  • kalidor
    1822 posts Member
    I think the simplest fix is to just double the number of defensive squads/fleets in each territory, so that it's much less likely that you can cover both offense _and_ defense, so that "clearing the board" is much less likely. The best way to resolve a tie is to not have one in the first place.
    xSWCr - Nov '15 shard - swgoh.gg kalidor-m
  • Dryff
    626 posts Member
    I want something similar to the old tournament scoring system.
    maxresdefault.jpg

    THIS
  • kalidor wrote: »
    I think the simplest fix is to just double the number of defensive squads/fleets in each territory, so that it's much less likely that you can cover both offense _and_ defense, so that "clearing the board" is much less likely. The best way to resolve a tie is to not have one in the first place.

    The fun is in attacking more so than setting defense. Setting more defenses would hinder our ability to "play" with offense. It would also lengthen the time each user would have to spend logged in which was something they were trying to avoid.
  • kalidor
    1822 posts Member
    kalidor wrote: »
    I think the simplest fix is to just double the number of defensive squads/fleets in each territory, so that it's much less likely that you can cover both offense _and_ defense, so that "clearing the board" is much less likely. The best way to resolve a tie is to not have one in the first place.

    The fun is in attacking more so than setting defense. Setting more defenses would hinder our ability to "play" with offense. It would also lengthen the time each user would have to spend logged in which was something they were trying to avoid.

    Guess that makes sense. Perhaps another way to do it is to move the minimum GP requirement up in higher tiers. If you're competing in the 50-59 slot, you get to use 6000GP heroes. But if you're up in the 90-99 range, the cutoff might be 9000 GP. Limiting resources seems like a good way to keep the board balanced and play time in check.
    BTW that screenshot from Tournaments is going to give me nightmares "....no... ...no... Noo! they're back!" :)
    xSWCr - Nov '15 shard - swgoh.gg kalidor-m
  • Award 7 banners for a defensive win. 7 banners would prevent ties. If it were 5. You’d have 2 defensive wins = to 1 offensive. With 7 per win, it’s 14-10. Eliminating most ties.
  • DarkTigerPro
    15 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Just giving 1 point per successful defense would do well. The attacking guild is already hurt by not successfully winning a battle, adding too many points on top of that would just be a double whammy. It'd also cause internal problems within the guild, with people being more irritated when weaker players try and fail against stronger teams.
  • Magulama wrote: »
    Magulama wrote: »
    For the stronger guilds in the game, every guild wars ends in a tie. That’s of course not fear at all, these rules penalise the most affectionated players (and most spending, EA).
    Therefore, I just suggest to IMMEDIATELY let a tie result to obtain a first position to both of the guilds. It should be pretty easy to do. In the meantime, you can think about how to determine who win, when tie happens (always above 120milions GP or so).
    Thanks

    I disagree with this sentiment , if you look at the TW ranking you will see many guilds above 120m, still do manage to win their matches.

    If just the 5%of GW finish with a TIE, and all of them are scored by the most high GP guild, it's not needed a genius to understand something is not going as it was supposed to go.
    In fact, I bet my hat that dev will do something regarding that pretty soon ;)

    I suggest that the guilds in that range ending up with a tie, approach TW with the wrong strategy.

    High GP guilds can set 4 squads each, but have up to 10 full team for each players. It means that, of course, beating all the defensive team is not a problem...
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    How about this
    Setting a defense earns 20 points
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP higher than you earns 10 points.
    Challenging a team with even GP +/- 10K earns 5 points.
    Challenging a team with 10k or more GP lower than you earns 0 points.
    After battle, points are awarded based on units left standing. +2 for every offensive unit and -2 for every defensive unit left standing.
    This scoring system will not penalize weaker teams for losing to stronger ones. It will also change defensive strategies because while placing stronger defenses could possibly earn points, placing weaker ones will diminish points gained by the opposition.

    The problem with this model is that, while complex, actually still encourages offense over strong defense. It actually encourages people to put out weak defense teams - and then use the minimum amount of offensive firepower needed to accomplish the task on offense. Everyone would have their best heroes still sitting on the bench.

    Again, I think they should leave it alone for another few TW and see if teams figure it out.


    That's actually the contrary for high GP guilds... We set the best defensive teams ( just 4 for each player) because we were sure we could easily beat all of the defensive teams of the opponents. We are allowed to do infinite attacks, in fact last GW we needed less than 12 hours to clear all the enemy's territories.
    OF course high GP guild can only tie: 4 defensive team each, 10 attacking team each (or so) ;)
  • Range1974 wrote: »
    Much simpler solution. Guild with the lowest GP wins, they fought at a disadvantage while holding their own while outmatched.
    We are almost tied right now, 6 fleets to finish for us, 3 for them, then both of our contestants will have cleared the map, again. Awarding based on defense alone would not make a difference.

    Higher GP doesn't necessarily mean better equipped therefore not necessarily a disadvantage. A guild with lower GP but "the right teams" vs. a guild that has a higher GP simply because they got the whole guild to 7*/g8/lvl 60 their low lvl toons for the TBs will have the higher GP yet still be at a disadvantage.
  • yossgold
    62 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    urtil wrote: »
    ProximaB1_ wrote: »
    Defensive wins takes all the fun out of it. No more using your full roster. Wouldn't risk loosing. More meta toons against meta toons takes all the strategy out of combat. No more using unique tactical squads to weaken better squads. Makes tw like every other thing in this game.

    I fully agree.

    I posted something on the feedback section about that defensive win award mechanism but will repeat it here:

    1. it will reduce the enjoyment of trying less proven squads and will lead to once again always using the same old stale squads over and over. Right now we can try things out with less than perfect squads or try to see how some squads perform on auto with no harm done. I love that i can really try out all my toons instead of always returning to the same old best ones. It is fun and should stay that way.

    2. while the top guilds might be homogenous many other guilds are not and that is great. TW is supposed to be a guild effort. Right now weaker members can help cleaning up some weakened teams or soften them up for others. If an unsuccessful attempt leads to giving away banners I can see weaker players being told to stay out of fighting which is no fun. TW is supposed to be a guild effort. it could lead to GW becoming a top half of the guild effort.

    3. The obvious goal would be for any guild to maximize impact by using the best squads and also using the best squads given any specific opponent. Right now there is a limited amount of coordination necessary. But that could change a lot if the need to kill off a team in one go is implemented. Coordination could become a massive time sink. TW right now is a lot of fun. Don't turn it into yet another chore.

    4. It opens the door to a lot of fingerpointing and blaming. You can see who attacks whom and it is great because you can cheer on for your guildmate. Right now this is a great, positive influence on guild morale. Now imagine people seeing their guild mate failing and therefore loosing that crucial banner. Suddenly it is no longer a guild event but a personal responsibility that everyone lost. I think this can lead to some bad blood. No need for that.


    I would rather have them increase the numbers of defensive slots in the top GP brackets (so that they also have to utilize their whole collection including some weaker squads) and randomize awards in case of a tie than introducing yet another game mode that will take a lot of time to coordinate to get best results and will have you use all the same meta toons over and over again.

    You're missing the point. If you're rewarded for defensive hold SO ARE THEY. So loading up on D wouldn't be the optimal way to win under a system where you're rewarded banners for defensive hold. The guild that finds the perfect balance between having a hard defense (be it by their deployment strategies, farming the right teams or simply performing better on offense) will win. If you just load everything up on defense, you may find yourself not even getting a clear and then the tie breaker would mean nothing because clearing zones is where you get the higher boost of banners.

    Also, so far, I think the most enjoyment I've got out of TW so far is seeing my teams hold on D. I'm not saying this is the case for everyone (though I've heard it from a lot of ppl), but just deciding that making the game more defensive would ruin enjoyment is kind of a generalization. Since creating teams that are tougher to beat is the real challenge in this game, I'm pretty sure many ppl would love to be rewarded for high-level theory-crafting. I know I would.

    As for the "they'll all use the same old stale squads" ... isn't that already happening??? Those who are still making attempts to create good defense are ALREADY DOING THAT. While as others are just saying "defense won't work, let's save everything for offense and leave a wall of CUPs on D since the tie is inevitable.

    Not having rewards for defensive holds makes that those who do still focus on D are losing out because they're finding themselves against rubbish defense and knowing that a full guild roster is going to clear their optimal yet not full defensive roster.

    And lastly, as for the finger pointing ... if that happens, you need to check your guild culture, not make the game exploitable so that it doesn't happen (exploitable as in putting rubbish on D to ensure a clear or both guilds coordinating putting rubbish on D just to get it over with fast -- both of those have happened in only the second iteration of the game mode).
  • CryGonJinn
    395 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    In order to place greater emphasis on defense, make the tie breaker the remaining GP of unused toons over 6k GP in players inventory.

    Simple and efffective.

    You’re welcome.
  • Couple things:
    1. Can we get the % of ties PLUS wins by 10 banners, please?
    2. I saw the word collusion so many times I think I almost had a contusion. People have been colluding in the top of Arena since the game started... using shard mates to lock out other players and holding on to the #1 spot. So I call TOTAL BULL that this games cares about collusion - as such - the easiest fix is to allow tied teams to both get 1st -- you know... or prove me wrong and mix up leaderboards in arena and stop COLLUSION.....
    3. I probably won't see either 1) or 2) above - just typing for the fun of it... *sigh*
    4. Single banner point awarded for defense win is the clear winner
    5. I suppose getting 10 banners for winning with all 5 offense alive - then 8 for 4, 6 for 3, 4 for 2, 2 for 1 alive would also work.... I feel like it's not nearly as clean nor does it fulfill the purpose as well as 4)
    6. As a couple guys posted... and sorry @leef ... but game theory suggests it's better to go full out offense and guarantee a tie then chance going full defense and only maybe getting a win but also opening yourself up for a loss.
    7. OR.... CG.... look at EA's Battlefront.... and go asymmetric combat. Castle Grid system - Defense team must log in their offense and defense ahead of time - but the offense squad as to fight you... and an AT-AT raid boss for points (example). Defense team wins by default - up to the offense team to take down limited an enemy with limited resources but a huge advantage. Defense uses what they can to hold exterior defenses to keep (in this example) the AT-At up and killing.
    #AcolyteShootsTwice
  • leef
    13180 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    1. As a couple guys posted... and sorry leef ... but game theory suggests it's better to go full out offense and guarantee a tie then chance going full defense and only maybe getting a win but also opening yourself up for a loss.
    @PremierVenoth
    you've gotta point me in the right direction here, i'm not familiar with game theory. I'd love to see why game theory suggests it's better to go for the draw in this scenario (loss and tie having the same rewards).
    There's a chance that opening yourself up for a loss will result in other guilds gaining rewards at a faster rate than your own guild. So more rewards will destributed, but certain guilds will get relatively less rewards, making it better to always go for the draw. Is it something like that? Geniuly curious, but too lazy to reseach.
    Anyway, i stick to my stance. Going for the tie is doing yourself and others a disservice. I'll take faster individual progression over potentially less relative progression any day of the week in this game. In general i'm in favour of more "free" resources being poured into the game.
    An argument could be made that it's more fun to always tie than to potentially always lose, but i personally would rather take my chances and have fun and challenging TW's instead of knowing before hand that i'm going to tie. An argument could also be made that this argument outweights the more resources argument, wich i personally don't think it does.
    Save water, drink champagne!
Sign In or Register to comment.