How do you know whether or not something is winnable?
EDIT: Nevermind. I kept clicking on their name & icon on the matchup screen & it wouldn't show anything, but once you go to the rewards page all 8 persons are listed and it's easy to click there to see their inventories.
I want to be clear, this is obviously an oversight by CG. It has created a temporary exploit. If CG haven’t fixed this before launching Full GA then I am really disappointed in CG (as this would show a total lack of customer respect), but I hope it hasn’t been fixed.
I am the first person to criticize CG when they nerf characters to solve unforeseen issue and then try to make out it was always a bug. Enfys and Revan being the most recent example.
But when it is a clear error leading to an exploit, people who knowingly take advantage of it are as bad as the hackers and credit cheaters as far as I am concerned.
I really hope it has been fixed,
CG this is one you guys. Failure to set defence should be an auto loss with no opportunity to collect rewards and the opponent should be granted full rewards.
I want to be clear, this is obviously an oversight by CG. It has created a temporary exploit. If CG haven’t fixed this before launching Full GA then I am really disappointed in CG (as this would show a total lack of customer respect), but I hope it hasn’t been fixed.
I am the first person to criticize CG when they nerf characters to solve unforeseen issue and then try to make out it was always a bug. Enfys and Revan being the most recent example.
But when it is a clear error leading to an exploit, people who knowingly take advantage of it are as bad as the hackers and credit cheaters as far as I am concerned.
I really hope it has been fixed,
CG this is one you guys. Failure to set defence should be an auto loss with no opportunity to collect rewards and the opponent should be granted full rewards.
Rant over
It’s not cheating or an exploit because you still lose if you do it. It’s just a massive inconvenience to your opponent which is the crux of the problem
Fine, I set one ship on defense. My opponent now gets a whopping 100k credits and still has no opportunity to advance in their quests. How is that appreciably better?
If you want people to try, you have to give them a non-zero chance of winning. If the matchmaking doesn't do that, the devs only have themselves to blame when people don't behave as anticipated.
Incentivizing people to try (by giving them competitive matches or smaller rewards for total banners/clearing turfs) is a much more productive solution than punishing people for signing up for the last place rewards and then checking out. This is supposed to be a fun game and not an exercise in masochism.
I don't even think fixing matchmaking would be that hard, to be honest. We all know that GP is a really poor metric. Putting aside the fact that newer characters are almost always better than old ones on a point-for-point basis, there are all kinds of logical fallacies in the calculation. Stars, level, and purple abilities are all overvalued, while gear tier, mods, and Omegas/Zetas are undervalued. Reweighting things to more accurately reflect real-world utility would solve a lot of the matchmaking issues in GA and TW without necessitating the more complex systems proposed in this and other threads.
Think about it from a logical perspective. How useful is a 7* Level 85 character at G1? Not at all useful. Any good system would consider that character to be worthless. How often can an equally-modded G10 team beat a G12 one? Probably in the 0-10% range. So why is the G10 team 90% as 'valuable'?
The GP system as-is is entirely arbitrary and not really indicative of anything beyond its own arbitrariness. It's like they made something that kind of worked a few years ago and then never revisited it to see if it still made sense. If your data is bad, any decisions you make from it will also be bad. Garbage in, garbage out.
I want to be clear, this is obviously an oversight by CG. It has created a temporary exploit. If CG haven’t fixed this before launching Full GA then I am really disappointed in CG (as this would show a total lack of customer respect), but I hope it hasn’t been fixed.
I am the first person to criticize CG when they nerf characters to solve unforeseen issue and then try to make out it was always a bug. Enfys and Revan being the most recent example.
But when it is a clear error leading to an exploit, people who knowingly take advantage of it are as bad as the hackers and credit cheaters as far as I am concerned.
I really hope it has been fixed,
CG this is one you guys. Failure to set defence should be an auto loss with no opportunity to collect rewards and the opponent should be granted full rewards.
Rant over
It’s not cheating or an exploit because you still lose if you do it. It’s just a massive inconvenience to your opponent which is the crux of the problem
I love how a guaranteed win that takes 0 effort is somehow a "massive inconvenience".
I mean sure, those credits would be nice and a good fight is also enjoyable (atleast in the first few GA's). But lets be honest, there are far worst things ingame we learned to cope with than that.
I want to be clear, this is obviously an oversight by CG. It has created a temporary exploit. If CG haven’t fixed this before launching Full GA then I am really disappointed in CG (as this would show a total lack of customer respect), but I hope it hasn’t been fixed.
I am the first person to criticize CG when they nerf characters to solve unforeseen issue and then try to make out it was always a bug. Enfys and Revan being the most recent example.
But when it is a clear error leading to an exploit, people who knowingly take advantage of it are as bad as the hackers and credit cheaters as far as I am concerned.
I really hope it has been fixed,
CG this is one you guys. Failure to set defence should be an auto loss with no opportunity to collect rewards and the opponent should be granted full rewards.
Rant over
It’s not cheating or an exploit because you still lose if you do it. It’s just a massive inconvenience to your opponent which is the crux of the problem
I love how a guaranteed win that takes 0 effort is somehow a "massive inconvenience".
I mean sure, those credits would be nice and a good fight is also enjoyable (atleast in the first few GA's). But lets be honest, there are far worst things ingame we learned to cope with than that.
It’s more the lack of being able to complete quest requirements and not being able to actually play the game mode as intended. So yes it’s an inconvenience.
I want to be clear, this is obviously an oversight by CG. It has created a temporary exploit. If CG haven’t fixed this before launching Full GA then I am really disappointed in CG (as this would show a total lack of customer respect), but I hope it hasn’t been fixed.
I am the first person to criticize CG when they nerf characters to solve unforeseen issue and then try to make out it was always a bug. Enfys and Revan being the most recent example.
But when it is a clear error leading to an exploit, people who knowingly take advantage of it are as bad as the hackers and credit cheaters as far as I am concerned.
I really hope it has been fixed,
CG this is one you guys. Failure to set defence should be an auto loss with no opportunity to collect rewards and the opponent should be granted full rewards.
Rant over
It’s not cheating or an exploit because you still lose if you do it. It’s just a massive inconvenience to your opponent which is the crux of the problem
I love how a guaranteed win that takes 0 effort is somehow a "massive inconvenience".
I mean sure, those credits would be nice and a good fight is also enjoyable (atleast in the first few GA's). But lets be honest, there are far worst things ingame we learned to cope with than that.
It’s more the lack of being able to complete quest requirements and not being able to actually play the game mode as intended. So yes it’s an inconvenience.
You sure it's not a massive inconvenience? haha
Anyway, i'm willing to wager that atleast some of the people in this thread arguing will change their minds once we're 20 GA's in and wish their opponent didn't set any def.
Same here. Not like I waited 3 days or anything. Def more the player's fault than CG though.
Well, perhaps. But it also might have been the fact that despite the excellent matchmaking (our GP was almost identical), he was scared off by my 53 g12 toons.....to his 19.
So what your saying.... is your opponent selflessly leveled/modded/and geared a bunch of trash toons to 85/g8 in order to help out his guild for TB, and is now being punished for this act of teamwork by being matched with someone who left his trash at level 1/g 0?
Lol. I do like the use of the word selflessly here.
Choosing to level your lower roster toons to pad your GP is a tactical decision made to get you and your guild better rewards in certain game types.
Extra rewards that I am sure you have enjoyed gaining and using
So that tactical decision is now not so advantageous in this particular game mode, its swings and roundabouts.
But please do not sit there and act like a Saint is being punished, 'selflessly' is definitely not the correct word
Same here. Not like I waited 3 days or anything. Def more the player's fault than CG though.
Well, perhaps. But it also might have been the fact that despite the excellent matchmaking (our GP was almost identical), he was scared off by my 53 g12 toons.....to his 19.
So what your saying.... is your opponent selflessly leveled/modded/and geared a bunch of trash toons to 85/g8 in order to help out his guild for TB, and is now being punished for this act of teamwork by being matched with someone who left his trash at level 1/g 0?
Lol. I do like the use of the word selflessly here.
Choosing to level your lower roster toons to pad your GP is a tactical decision made to get you and your guild better rewards in certain game types.
Extra rewards that I am sure you have enjoyed gaining and using
So that tactical decision is now not so advantageous in this particular game mode, its swings and roundabouts.
But please do not sit there and act like a Saint is being punished, 'selflessly' is definitely not the correct word
In my opinion, there would be a simple solution to the problem of no defense set, and I'm sorry if the following has already been stated, but can't read through all the pages right now:
1. If player A has not set a defense at all, player B should automatically get the full amount of maximum banners, as if he had cleared all sections (with full health and protection bonuses) .
2. Player B should automatically get the 100.000 credits for every unfilled team slot, meaning the system would count each empty slot as an instant win at the end of the round.
That could on the one hand encourage selfish people to at least set a minimum weak defense, as they would be resentful of their opponent's rewards. And more important, at least ensure the (credit) rewards or those who try their best in GA.
In my opinion, there would be a simple solution to the problem of no defense set, and I'm sorry if the following has already been stated, but can't read through all the pages right now:
1. If player A has not set a defense at all, player B should automatically get the full amount of maximum banners, as if he had cleared all sections (with full health and protection bonuses) .
2. Player B should automatically get the 100.000 credits for every unfilled team slot, meaning the system would count each empty slot as an instant win at the end of the round.
That could on the one hand encourage selfish people to at least set a minimum weak defense, as they would be resentful of their opponent's rewards. And more important, at least ensure the (credit) rewards or those who try their best in GA.
1. is totally unnessecary, it's impossible to win when you havent set any teams on defense. While it is possible to win with not all def slots filled, you're basically decreasing your own chances of winning without any benefit to yourself. I doubt players would do that just to spite the opponent out of some potential credits.
2. This would mean it potentially becomes beneficial to encounter an enemy who didn't set a defense seeying as it's not guaranteed you'll clear the board if you're opponent does set a defense. I couldn't care less about the credits tbh, so i'm fine with it. You still wouldn't get to "enjoy" GA though, nor work towards your quests (which seems to be a major concern for some).
In my opinion, there would be a simple solution to the problem of no defense set, and I'm sorry if the following has already been stated, but can't read through all the pages right now:
1. If player A has not set a defense at all, player B should automatically get the full amount of maximum banners, as if he had cleared all sections (with full health and protection bonuses) .
2. Player B should automatically get the 100.000 credits for every unfilled team slot, meaning the system would count each empty slot as an instant win at the end of the round.
That could on the one hand encourage selfish people to at least set a minimum weak defense, as they would be resentful of their opponent's rewards. And more important, at least ensure the (credit) rewards or those who try their best in GA.
1. is totally unnessecary, it's impossible to win when you havent set any teams on defense. While it is possible to win with not all def slots filled, you're basically decreasing your own chances of winning without any benefit to yourself. I doubt players would do that just to spite the opponent out of some potential credits.
2. This would mean it potentially becomes beneficial to encounter an enemy who didn't set a defense seeying as it's not guaranteed you'll clear the board if you're opponent does set a defense. I couldn't care less about the credits tbh, so i'm fine with it. You still wouldn't get to "enjoy" GA though, nor work towards your quests (which seems to be a major concern for some).
These are also valid points. The problem with this entire system is that there is no way to fix the corner they have painted themselves into:
1) Make the rewards too weak for "auto-winning" against no defense and people will continue to post no defense because they are annoyed with matchmaking, just don't have time, don't care, etc.
2) Make the rewards too strong for "auto-winning" and it could end up being abused. Or, at the very least, being too much of a benefit for people who get "lucky" enough to find an opponenet who doesn't.
I don't why I find it surprising though. It seems as though it never crossed anyone's mind at CG that this might be an issue.
I work in board game design, and one of the first ways to test a design element is to have play testers try to "break" it (or a mechanism in it). Encourage them to see if they can "game the game" to ruin the experience or come up with a way to derail it completely. How this concept seems to continually elude CG is baffling.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"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*
Unless u are absolutely sure u are gonna meet 3x empty defenses every GA season, all your arguments in this thread are simply lame and a waste of time.
There are so many ways to get around this. U can message your opponent in advance, for example, and share what quests u are doing. Maybe both of u could set a lame node to do an underdog quest each. Sure it works on trust, but if one side already couldnt be bothered to win, this might incentivise them to put defenses.
I personally don't see it as a problem at all thb, i'll just take the win and move on. That's rewarding enough for me. Granted, i've got over 100m credits and i'm not stressing the quests at all, so i'm clearly biased.
I also fully understand if someone doesn't feel the need to place a def just to become a punching bag for his opponents entertainment.
Having said that, i obviously understand the issue some players have with it. I just think that over time it won't be that much of an issue anymore. Players will have completed their quests, the credits aren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things and the game mode won't be new anymore.
ps. the 100k for an offensive seemed a rather odd reward to me to begin with. I mean, why? Specially given the fact that players can choose to not set any def at all.
Is this possibly a result of people who aren't active? Does the GA consider their last active status? Seems weird with higher GP, but I imagine there are a fair amount of 2-3 million GP who are inactive, I know of 3 previously in my shard chat in that GP range.
Probably. The first two events (really only the last one, though, since the first one was a mulligan that bugged out) had all players auto-join because they were part of the event tutorial. So it's possible that a lot of players who aren't actually playing or who were busy were put into the event without even knowing.
Future events--including the one going on right now--will require you to press a button to voluntarily join, so I don't think we'll be seeing as much no defense as before.
I'd like to remind everyone that CG already explained the process of automatically setting your previously used defense (before Grand arena was even released). Having read this, when I got to the setup phase of my second Grand arena event, I was busy and figured I'd just let the game set my defense for me (since I DID manually fill up my defenses in my FIRST Grand arena). Before I went to bed, I checked back for attack phase and I had no defenses ever set, and an automatic loss. From someone who was aware of the intended mechanics, this experience was extremely frustrating and NOT intentional.
They said it will auto fill your defenses from the previous round in a tournament set. As in, autoset in Round 2 and Round 3. Both exhibition matches were 1 round matches.
You misunderstood and have only yourself to blame.
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
Auto-setting bad defenses for teams that were already going to lose doesn't really get to the underlying cause of why people don't want to play in the first place.
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
Why? What incentive is there to 'play properly'? I can play without setting defenses and collect rewards, while preventing my opponent from getting them. If that's not fun for them, that's the dev's problem, not mine.
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
Why? What incentive is there to 'play properly'? I can play without setting defenses and collect rewards, while preventing my opponent from getting them. If that's not fun for them, that's the dev's problem, not mine.
There’s this concept called being a decent human being, difficult to understand for some apparently
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
Why? What incentive is there to 'play properly'? I can play without setting defenses and collect rewards, while preventing my opponent from getting them. If that's not fun for them, that's the dev's problem, not mine.
There’s this concept called being a decent human being, difficult to understand for some apparently
It's be great if there are hidden rewards for actually playing the event this first time around, like 100 crystals per defense set/territory defended, etc....Not every time, just this one.
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
Why? What incentive is there to 'play properly'? I can play without setting defenses and collect rewards, while preventing my opponent from getting them. If that's not fun for them, that's the dev's problem, not mine.
Luckily no one will be able to play that way in the future.
Makes it fun for everyone and much less of a problem.
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
Why? What incentive is there to 'play properly'? I can play without setting defenses and collect rewards, while preventing my opponent from getting them. If that's not fun for them, that's the dev's problem, not mine.
Luckily no one will be able to play that way in the future.
If it's pushed today, does it affect the first round?
There is a simple solution to this. Any team spot - troop or fleet - that is empty on defense when the 1st round starts is filled from that player's lowest GP characters. For rounds 2 and 3, if the entire defense is empty, then use the same defensive teams from the prior round (so players have the option to continue using the same D without having to go in and reset all the teams)....if only certain team slots are empty, then auto-fill those from the player's lowest GP characters. That solves all issues. If someone knows they are going to lose, doesn't want to spend effort on defense, and just wants to try to complete quests with their offensive toons, they can do so and all their better toons will remain available for offense. Players on the opposing end then have some target practice teams to further their own quests. This also does not benefit a player by being lazy and doing nothing as they get junk teams set on defense rather than good teams. Seems like this set-up would be a win-win all the way around.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
Why? What incentive is there to 'play properly'? I can play without setting defenses and collect rewards, while preventing my opponent from getting them. If that's not fun for them, that's the dev's problem, not mine.
There’s this concept called being a decent human being, difficult to understand for some apparently
Perhaps it's not easy to tell from tone in an internet forum, but I'm being hyperbolic here to make a point.
Designing a game mode where many users are noncompetitive is poor game design; in fact, I'd ague it isn't even a game anymore if one party has 0% chance of victory. It will eventually cease to be fun for either party; the constant loser will put in zero effort, and the constant winner will cease to derive any sort of enjoyment from their victory.
Intelligent game design will have ways to remedy this issue. In soccer, the worst teams are relegated to a lower league where they will be competitive, while the best teams are promoted to ones where they will be challenged. In golf, players have handicaps to compensate for disparate skill levels and rather measures each player's over/underperformance relative to their baseline skill level.
Meanwhile, as long as GP is the only/main measure of 'competitiveness' for Grand Arena matchmaking (which is silly, as it's a made-up number that has a pretty weak correlation coefficient to roster utility), certain teams will nearly always win, while others will nearly always lose.I suspect this may actually be the developer's intention; to design a game mode where the only way to make meaningful improvement is by spending lots of money. If my guild is bad at TWs, we can cut poorly performing guild members and jump down to a lower tier. However, if I am bad at GA, I can't cut useless roster characters; my only way to improve is to spend my way out of the hole. There's no other meaningful way to catch up, as the regular winners will reap rewards at a rate that is equal or greater than my own.
As a weaker player, not setting a defense is the only meaningful method available to me to try to bridge the competitiveness gap; collect rewards and deny your opponent rewards. If the game developers have designed something that encourages this type of participation, it's incumbent on them to make the game more competitive. It is their game, and it is their responsibility to make sure that you have fun, not mine. They are the ones that ultimately profit from both of us participating and having a good time.
There are plenty of ways for stronger players to encourage weaker players not to leave the defensive areas empty. My first opponent DMed me and promised to not put Traya and Revan on defense, and to only set teams under 90k GP; he took the initiative to handicap the match so that both parties had fun. I happily accepted his offer, and while I still lost it was a good time. That said, it shouldn't fall on the player base to fix the developers' poor game design and matchmaking.
Tl;dr - not playing the game as intended is the best way to alert the game developers that portions of the game are not competitive/fun/well-reasoned. If they see enough of people leaving defensive territories empty, they are more likely to make adjustments to the GA structure and matchmaking so that the event will be more inclusive and fun. If I just set bad teams for my opponent to be considerate, I lose any leverage I have to effect change.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"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*
Replies
EDIT: Nevermind. I kept clicking on their name & icon on the matchup screen & it wouldn't show anything, but once you go to the rewards page all 8 persons are listed and it's easy to click there to see their inventories.
My opponent has 55 G12 and 53 Zetas. I have 16 G12 and 23 Zetas.
Pretty sure that is unwinnable.
I want to be clear, this is obviously an oversight by CG. It has created a temporary exploit. If CG haven’t fixed this before launching Full GA then I am really disappointed in CG (as this would show a total lack of customer respect), but I hope it hasn’t been fixed.
I am the first person to criticize CG when they nerf characters to solve unforeseen issue and then try to make out it was always a bug. Enfys and Revan being the most recent example.
But when it is a clear error leading to an exploit, people who knowingly take advantage of it are as bad as the hackers and credit cheaters as far as I am concerned.
I really hope it has been fixed,
CG this is one you guys. Failure to set defence should be an auto loss with no opportunity to collect rewards and the opponent should be granted full rewards.
Rant over
It’s not cheating or an exploit because you still lose if you do it. It’s just a massive inconvenience to your opponent which is the crux of the problem
If you want people to try, you have to give them a non-zero chance of winning. If the matchmaking doesn't do that, the devs only have themselves to blame when people don't behave as anticipated.
Incentivizing people to try (by giving them competitive matches or smaller rewards for total banners/clearing turfs) is a much more productive solution than punishing people for signing up for the last place rewards and then checking out. This is supposed to be a fun game and not an exercise in masochism.
I don't even think fixing matchmaking would be that hard, to be honest. We all know that GP is a really poor metric. Putting aside the fact that newer characters are almost always better than old ones on a point-for-point basis, there are all kinds of logical fallacies in the calculation. Stars, level, and purple abilities are all overvalued, while gear tier, mods, and Omegas/Zetas are undervalued. Reweighting things to more accurately reflect real-world utility would solve a lot of the matchmaking issues in GA and TW without necessitating the more complex systems proposed in this and other threads.
Think about it from a logical perspective. How useful is a 7* Level 85 character at G1? Not at all useful. Any good system would consider that character to be worthless. How often can an equally-modded G10 team beat a G12 one? Probably in the 0-10% range. So why is the G10 team 90% as 'valuable'?
The GP system as-is is entirely arbitrary and not really indicative of anything beyond its own arbitrariness. It's like they made something that kind of worked a few years ago and then never revisited it to see if it still made sense. If your data is bad, any decisions you make from it will also be bad. Garbage in, garbage out.
I mean sure, those credits would be nice and a good fight is also enjoyable (atleast in the first few GA's). But lets be honest, there are far worst things ingame we learned to cope with than that.
It’s more the lack of being able to complete quest requirements and not being able to actually play the game mode as intended. So yes it’s an inconvenience.
You sure it's not a massive inconvenience? haha
Anyway, i'm willing to wager that atleast some of the people in this thread arguing will change their minds once we're 20 GA's in and wish their opponent didn't set any def.
Lol. I do like the use of the word selflessly here.
Choosing to level your lower roster toons to pad your GP is a tactical decision made to get you and your guild better rewards in certain game types.
Extra rewards that I am sure you have enjoyed gaining and using
So that tactical decision is now not so advantageous in this particular game mode, its swings and roundabouts.
But please do not sit there and act like a Saint is being punished, 'selflessly' is definitely not the correct word
This^
1. If player A has not set a defense at all, player B should automatically get the full amount of maximum banners, as if he had cleared all sections (with full health and protection bonuses) .
2. Player B should automatically get the 100.000 credits for every unfilled team slot, meaning the system would count each empty slot as an instant win at the end of the round.
That could on the one hand encourage selfish people to at least set a minimum weak defense, as they would be resentful of their opponent's rewards. And more important, at least ensure the (credit) rewards or those who try their best in GA.
1. is totally unnessecary, it's impossible to win when you havent set any teams on defense. While it is possible to win with not all def slots filled, you're basically decreasing your own chances of winning without any benefit to yourself. I doubt players would do that just to spite the opponent out of some potential credits.
2. This would mean it potentially becomes beneficial to encounter an enemy who didn't set a defense seeying as it's not guaranteed you'll clear the board if you're opponent does set a defense. I couldn't care less about the credits tbh, so i'm fine with it. You still wouldn't get to "enjoy" GA though, nor work towards your quests (which seems to be a major concern for some).
These are also valid points. The problem with this entire system is that there is no way to fix the corner they have painted themselves into:
1) Make the rewards too weak for "auto-winning" against no defense and people will continue to post no defense because they are annoyed with matchmaking, just don't have time, don't care, etc.
2) Make the rewards too strong for "auto-winning" and it could end up being abused. Or, at the very least, being too much of a benefit for people who get "lucky" enough to find an opponenet who doesn't.
I don't why I find it surprising though. It seems as though it never crossed anyone's mind at CG that this might be an issue.
I work in board game design, and one of the first ways to test a design element is to have play testers try to "break" it (or a mechanism in it). Encourage them to see if they can "game the game" to ruin the experience or come up with a way to derail it completely. How this concept seems to continually elude CG is baffling.
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*
There are so many ways to get around this. U can message your opponent in advance, for example, and share what quests u are doing. Maybe both of u could set a lame node to do an underdog quest each. Sure it works on trust, but if one side already couldnt be bothered to win, this might incentivise them to put defenses.
Please, use your brains a lil.
I also fully understand if someone doesn't feel the need to place a def just to become a punching bag for his opponents entertainment.
Having said that, i obviously understand the issue some players have with it. I just think that over time it won't be that much of an issue anymore. Players will have completed their quests, the credits aren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things and the game mode won't be new anymore.
ps. the 100k for an offensive seemed a rather odd reward to me to begin with. I mean, why? Specially given the fact that players can choose to not set any def at all.
Future events--including the one going on right now--will require you to press a button to voluntarily join, so I don't think we'll be seeing as much no defense as before.
Understood. Thanks for the explanation.
Wouldn't it just be better to design the event so that people actually want to play it?
Auto-setting bad defenses for teams that were already going to lose doesn't really get to the underlying cause of why people don't want to play in the first place.
It’s optional to join. If you don’t want to play then don’t join. If you do join then at least play properly.
Why? What incentive is there to 'play properly'? I can play without setting defenses and collect rewards, while preventing my opponent from getting them. If that's not fun for them, that's the dev's problem, not mine.
There’s this concept called being a decent human being, difficult to understand for some apparently
BOOM problem solved. Cheers CG!
It's be great if there are hidden rewards for actually playing the event this first time around, like 100 crystals per defense set/territory defended, etc....Not every time, just this one.
Now lets discuss why their sollution is horrible and what they should have done =D
^ a joke
Luckily no one will be able to play that way in the future.
Makes it fun for everyone and much less of a problem.
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/190065/server-update-12-13-2018#latest
If it's pushed today, does it affect the first round?
Perhaps it's not easy to tell from tone in an internet forum, but I'm being hyperbolic here to make a point.
Designing a game mode where many users are noncompetitive is poor game design; in fact, I'd ague it isn't even a game anymore if one party has 0% chance of victory. It will eventually cease to be fun for either party; the constant loser will put in zero effort, and the constant winner will cease to derive any sort of enjoyment from their victory.
Intelligent game design will have ways to remedy this issue. In soccer, the worst teams are relegated to a lower league where they will be competitive, while the best teams are promoted to ones where they will be challenged. In golf, players have handicaps to compensate for disparate skill levels and rather measures each player's over/underperformance relative to their baseline skill level.
Meanwhile, as long as GP is the only/main measure of 'competitiveness' for Grand Arena matchmaking (which is silly, as it's a made-up number that has a pretty weak correlation coefficient to roster utility), certain teams will nearly always win, while others will nearly always lose.I suspect this may actually be the developer's intention; to design a game mode where the only way to make meaningful improvement is by spending lots of money. If my guild is bad at TWs, we can cut poorly performing guild members and jump down to a lower tier. However, if I am bad at GA, I can't cut useless roster characters; my only way to improve is to spend my way out of the hole. There's no other meaningful way to catch up, as the regular winners will reap rewards at a rate that is equal or greater than my own.
As a weaker player, not setting a defense is the only meaningful method available to me to try to bridge the competitiveness gap; collect rewards and deny your opponent rewards. If the game developers have designed something that encourages this type of participation, it's incumbent on them to make the game more competitive. It is their game, and it is their responsibility to make sure that you have fun, not mine. They are the ones that ultimately profit from both of us participating and having a good time.
There are plenty of ways for stronger players to encourage weaker players not to leave the defensive areas empty. My first opponent DMed me and promised to not put Traya and Revan on defense, and to only set teams under 90k GP; he took the initiative to handicap the match so that both parties had fun. I happily accepted his offer, and while I still lost it was a good time. That said, it shouldn't fall on the player base to fix the developers' poor game design and matchmaking.
Tl;dr - not playing the game as intended is the best way to alert the game developers that portions of the game are not competitive/fun/well-reasoned. If they see enough of people leaving defensive territories empty, they are more likely to make adjustments to the GA structure and matchmaking so that the event will be more inclusive and fun. If I just set bad teams for my opponent to be considerate, I lose any leverage I have to effect change.
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*