in every sport you have the choice to not play a match in a championship... and nobody will say to the players "if you dont want to play that one, dont enter the championship"
in football, basketball, hockey...etc... you can declare a forfait because your team is not ready to play
in karate , judo, jujitsu... every fight you can say : no, i dont play this match, you won this one it's ok i retire...
but you still continue your sport, and to compete, it's just a decision you can make if you dont feel it, or if you're mismatched and dont want to be killed by the monster you see in front of you
so why would you force players to fight every match by forcing an auto-deploy of toons and get killed
everyone has the choice to set defense or not, that's called freedom, if you don't respect that, your wrong
It's really a bad example when comparing to other sports.
In all of these scenarios when you "forfeit", you don't get to continue the current match-up, while your opponent watches. You leave, and move to the losers bracket (if there is one), and do not collect any rewards.
Think of jujitsu, using your example. If you forfeit, you don't get to wail on an opponent that has to just stand there and take it. If you forfeit, you leave the arena with no opportunity to score points.
If you forfeit, a match, you should not get the opportunity to try to collect any rewards from that match.
If you don't see that, then it is you that is wrong.
Don’t forget that not setting a defence is also in its own way a strategy for a weaker person tomess with a stronger person by depriving them of credits. Just like being in a shard chat and collectively teaming up against others and keeping them from climbing higher. You deprive them of crystals. People whining about this make me laugh. Oh how dare you give me an easy win lol.
Ahhh the self entitled first world issues.
So I am currently facing an opponent with 20% higher character GP. The way I see it my choices are:
Split my best squads between offense and defense. This will likely result in a loss since I will have weaker attackers and they can choose optimal teams for attacking.
Set my best squads on defense. This will also likely result in a loss since I probably won't be able to take any territories with my second tier squads.
Set crap teams on defense and attack with my best squads. While I won't win the match, I may be able to work on quest advancements and might win some battles and get the credit rewards.
Don't bother setting any defense. This will have the same results but I won't waste time setting up losing squads.
Clearly, the best chance for rewards with the minimal effort is option 4. In a competitive game, why would I make any other choice?
So I am currently facing an opponent with 20% higher character GP. The way I see it my choices are:
Split my best squads between offense and defense. This will likely result in a loss since I will have weaker attackers and they can choose optimal teams for attacking.
Set my best squads on defense. This will also likely result in a loss since I probably won't be able to take any territories with my second tier squads.
Set crap teams on defense and attack with my best squads. While I won't win the match, I may be able to work on quest advancements and might win some battles and get the credit rewards.
Don't bother setting any defense. This will have the same results but I won't waste time setting up losing squads.
Clearly, the best chance for rewards with the minimal effort is option 4. In a competitive game, why would I make any other choice?
If you don't want to put any effort into GA to get rewards, I suggest option 5- don't join....
I, for one, would like to encourage anyone who doesn't set defenses to continue doing so. Let me, on behalf of most sane people, thank you for your assistance.
There's barely anything to spend credits on anymore. Sometimes a nice mod appears - but that's just a drop in the hundreds of millions swishing around pointlessly. I was just talking with my guildies today how the Credit heist has to go and we really do need something more gear related instead.
There's barely anything to spend credits on anymore. Sometimes a nice mod appears - but that's just a drop in the hundreds of millions swishing around pointlessly. I was just talking with my guildies today how the Credit heist has to go and we really do need something more gear related instead.
So I am currently facing an opponent with 20% higher character GP. The way I see it my choices are:
Split my best squads between offense and defense. This will likely result in a loss since I will have weaker attackers and they can choose optimal teams for attacking.
Set my best squads on defense. This will also likely result in a loss since I probably won't be able to take any territories with my second tier squads.
Set crap teams on defense and attack with my best squads. While I won't win the match, I may be able to work on quest advancements and might win some battles and get the credit rewards.
Don't bother setting any defense. This will have the same results but I won't waste time setting up losing squads.
Clearly, the best chance for rewards with the minimal effort is option 4. In a competitive game, why would I make any other choice?
With a 50/50 GP squad/fleet split I am in the same situation every GA. It's a tough call, though I have never chosen not to set defense. I did set trash defense one time so I could have some fun and work on quests because there was just no way I could beat my opponent's roster.
Usually I go with some variant of option 1 depending on my opponent's roster and sometimes it works because I put a lot of effort into gearing and modding but that basically means I have to be significantly better than my opponent just to have a fighting chance.
This is where the dingdongs who hate GA come in to call you "greedy" because you want to win the match AND actually get to play the mode as it was obviously intended. You Greedy McGreederson.
i honestly don't care if i get to play or not its a free win i don't care about the credits or the achievements i will get them in the long run , but its a problem allowing the other team to attack at all when they don't set up any defense. If you don't set a defense you shouldn't get to do any offense at all. It allows them to get the credit awards that the other team that actually bothered to set up a defense doesn't get. Either that or make it flat out if they don't set a def give the player the credit awards for having won..but i prefer no defense no offense.
A full defence gives more points than a full clear, if you've set the max teams possible on defence then they cannot beat you
Waiting when everyone in here gets an opponent that sets defense, beats them and they come back and complain about bad matching...
I've had this happen exactly one time. I had the "better" roster - more G12s and zetas - but the guy beat me by 4 medals. We cleared the same number of each other's teams, he just managed to have a few more full health/prot characters at the end. And I was fine with it. He was at a disadvantage, he tried anyway, and hey, look, he won. I'd rather get more prizes, obviously, but I'm not coming here and raging about it because "matchmaking is broken" or whatever. He beat me fair and square. That's how a "game" is supposed to work.
I, for one, would like to encourage anyone who doesn't set defenses to continue doing so. Let me, on behalf of most sane people, thank you for your assistance.
There's barely anything to spend credits on anymore. Sometimes a nice mod appears - but that's just a drop in the hundreds of millions swishing around pointlessly. I was just talking with my guildies today how the Credit heist has to go and we really do need something more gear related instead.
It's cool for you that you're at the point where credits aren't a thing, but the vast majority of us still need many, many millions of them. Most players aren't at 4M+ GP and chilling in 180M+ guilds.
So I am currently facing an opponent with 20% higher character GP. The way I see it my choices are:
Split my best squads between offense and defense. This will likely result in a loss since I will have weaker attackers and they can choose optimal teams for attacking.
Set my best squads on defense. This will also likely result in a loss since I probably won't be able to take any territories with my second tier squads.
Set crap teams on defense and attack with my best squads. While I won't win the match, I may be able to work on quest advancements and might win some battles and get the credit rewards.
Don't bother setting any defense. This will have the same results but I won't waste time setting up losing squads.
Clearly, the best chance for rewards with the minimal effort is option 4. In a competitive game, why would I make any other choice?
Quite apart from anything else, option 4 literally isn't an option for you now. If you set defence in round 1, then rounds 2 and 3 will auto-deploy that same defence if you do nothing.
then the crys of , how did a auto defense beat me , the player had no input! no they need to flat out remove no defense and make it where when you sign up you set your defense right then and there to complete the sign up phase , once set up then you have 24 hours to make changes between each phase that way you always play against player inputted defenses and not AI generated
If you lose to an auto set defense , you deserve to lose , pretty simple. The AI in no way shape or form is better than an actual person lol.
and you fail to see the point a auto defense has no player input in selecting the squads a player may have taken his best teams and kept them on offense while the AI might select a sith Team you cant beat on def. Again no Player input means the player shouldnt be in the event period to get the awards. Maybe not a problem for those with 3m power and a whole arsenal of characters to choose from , but for those of us with 900k to 1.2m with limited number of squads available it becomes a problem.
The auto set defenses are just teams of 5 made from the roster of the player starting at the highest power and going down. it doesn't select "teams" just places 5 toons and then moves to the next 5. this may end up with 1 or 2 actual teams as things line up but it is unlikely.
It should start at the lowest power and work its way up. There's no reason why anyone who doesn't bother to take 2 minutes to set their own D should benefit in any way from an Auto setting randomly decent D teams.
This is where the dingdongs who hate GA come in to call you "greedy" because you want to win the match AND actually get to play the mode as it was obviously intended. You Greedy McGreederson.
If you don't want to put any effort into GA to get rewards, I suggest option 5- don't join....
Sorry, you don't get to dictate how I play.
Seems fair, right?
So why should you get to dictate how your opponnent can play when you refuse to set a D?
Don't join or have random toons autoset on D. But you should not be allowed to do EXACTLY what you say is unfair.
I'm not choosing how they play. They have all of the same options that I have.
No they dont. If you set no D, they dont have the choice to attack. You are taking their choice away. And as you said in your example, they would probably beat you anyway and you are depriving them of the choice to attack and credits. Should be patched. Really there is no logical or reasonable argument that this should be allowed.
If you don't want to put any effort into GA to get rewards, I suggest option 5- don't join....
Sorry, you don't get to dictate how I play.
Seems fair, right?
So why should you get to dictate how your opponnent can play when you refuse to set a D?
Don't join or have random toons autoset on D. But you should not be allowed to do EXACTLY what you say is unfair.
I'm not choosing how they play. They have all of the same options that I have.
No they dont. If you set no D, they dont have the choice to attack. You are taking their choice away. And as you said in your example, they would probably beat you anyway and you are depriving them of the choice to attack and credits. Should be patched. Really there is no logical or reasonable argument that this should be allowed.
As I said previously: only if I've chosen option 4 and they haven't.
If they have deployed defenses, and they have a superior GP, I would maximize my chance at taking a territory, and thereby earning credits, by committing everything to offense. My opponent is already assured of superior rewards by my loss even without the opportunity to attach. The best I can do to salvage something from the match is to try to earn credits. For me, and I suspect for many others, the reason to join GA is to earn some type of reward. Allocating all of my resources to offense is a way to obtain those rewards. This is a perfectly rational approach.
If you don't want to put any effort into GA to get rewards, I suggest option 5- don't join....
Sorry, you don't get to dictate how I play.
Seems fair, right?
So why should you get to dictate how your opponnent can play when you refuse to set a D?
Don't join or have random toons autoset on D. But you should not be allowed to do EXACTLY what you say is unfair.
I'm not choosing how they play. They have all of the same options that I have.
No they dont. If you set no D, they dont have the choice to attack. You are taking their choice away. And as you said in your example, they would probably beat you anyway and you are depriving them of the choice to attack and credits. Should be patched. Really there is no logical or reasonable argument that this should be allowed.
As I said previously: only if I've chosen option 4 and they haven't.
If they have deployed defenses, and they have a superior GP, I would maximize my chance at taking a territory, and thereby earning credits, by committing everything to offense. My opponent is already assured of superior rewards by my loss even without the opportunity to attach. The best I can do to salvage something from the match is to try to earn credits. For me, and I suspect for many others, the reason to join GA is to earn some type of reward. Allocating all of my resources to offense is a way to obtain those rewards. This is a perfectly rational approach.
Its the rational choice for you under the current rules. Clearly the credits are important to you. But you are denying them the right to make that exact same choice and earn them and have fun attacking.
It is not the rational choice for a competitive game mode.
The rules need to be changed so people like you can't deprive others of the choice to play or earn rewards. No sense arguing further. You have proved the point by saying you want the choice to attack and earn credits. Everyone should have that choice. Under the current rules, they don't. Simple.
If you don't want to put any effort into GA to get rewards, I suggest option 5- don't join....
Sorry, you don't get to dictate how I play.
Seems fair, right?
So why should you get to dictate how your opponnent can play when you refuse to set a D?
Don't join or have random toons autoset on D. But you should not be allowed to do EXACTLY what you say is unfair.
I'm not choosing how they play. They have all of the same options that I have.
No they dont. If you set no D, they dont have the choice to attack. You are taking their choice away. And as you said in your example, they would probably beat you anyway and you are depriving them of the choice to attack and credits. Should be patched. Really there is no logical or reasonable argument that this should be allowed.
If they have deployed defenses, and they have a superior GP, I would maximize my chance at taking a territory, and thereby earning credits, by committing everything to offense. My opponent is already assured of superior rewards by my loss even without the opportunity to attach. The best I can do to salvage something from the match is to try to earn credits. For me, and I suspect for many others, the reason to join GA is to earn some type of reward. Allocating all of my resources to offense is a way to obtain those rewards. This is a perfectly rational approach.
You're right on this, which brings me back to my previous point in this same thread:
Why should we set defenses if only to give the other player more credits? We are not buddies or friends, we are enemies, and I see the reasoning behind some of the people here defending their choices of not wanting to help their opponent. They already get a free win, why should they get more?
This
This is exactly the problem with the current setup - you're incentivised to screw over your opponent in this way. You're further making the case for it to be changed.
The auto-defence is imo the best way forward. However, since implementing that seems to be problematic for CG then an alternative could be adding in a 100k credit bonus per defence set. That way if your opponent sets nothing, then you BOTH lose out on 600k or w/e. Probably wouldn't completely fix the problem but at least you'd be able to take some comfort in the fact that they're screwing themselves over too.
Essentially, change the system so that frustrating your opponent is no longer the 'rational' thing to do. Then 'rational' people will stop doing it. Problem solved.
Thats just it. If you dont set a D, then you are dictating how the other player gets to play, and he can do nothing about it. You then become the "gatekeeper that is dictating how the other person gets to play."
You are in effect saying: I get to play however I want and you cant control me. But you are deprving the other player of playing how they want and controlling them.
Should be patched. There really is no logical or reasonable argument against it.
The reason i commented is because everyone seems to be upset that others dictate how they play while they're trying to dictate how others play aswell, all while claiming some imaginary moral high ground.
Personally i don't care either way, the only thing i'm afraid of is botched patchjobs. The sollution ea/cg comes up with won't necessarily be an improvement.
Not setting defence isn't "playing"..... Again, this is a competitive game mode.... When you don't set defence, you lose.... So where is the competition?
Play pretty much any other online PvP game and mess up the other player's Ed science and it results in you getting booted..... Only here where people want to sim everything would doing nothing be considered "playing"
Thats just it. If you dont set a D, then you are dictating how the other player gets to play, and he can do nothing about it. You then become the "gatekeeper that is dictating how the other person gets to play."
You are in effect saying: I get to play however I want and you cant control me. But you are deprving the other player of playing how they want and controlling them.
Should be patched. There really is no logical or reasonable argument against it.
The reason i commented is because everyone seems to be upset that others dictate how they play while they're trying to dictate how others play aswell, all while claiming some imaginary moral high ground.
Personally i don't care either way, the only thing i'm afraid of is botched patchjobs. The sollution ea/cg comes up with won't necessarily be an improvement.
Not setting defence isn't "playing"..... Again, this is a competitive game mode.... When you don't set defence, you lose.... So where is the competition?
Play pretty much any other online PvP game and mess up the other player's Ed science and it results in you getting booted..... Only here where people want to sim everything would doing nothing be considered "playing"
Except shard chats of course
Hey I think you left your shoehorn, do you want it back?
the original comment was the fact they were allowed to attack in the first place when they set no defense ..that's the issue i have and the only issue i have ...if you don't set a defense you should be locked out of Attacking period and not get an opportunity for any type of kill awards when the other player who did set a defense is not going to be allowed to get those awards because they cant attack. Either they need to make it were they cant attack at all , or make it were even if you fight someone with no defense you get the awards IE credits as if you did defeat them.
That’s all you want is 600k credits?
1.8M over the course of a GA if it happens 3 times. Its happened to some of my guildmates twice in one bracket before.
But no, its not just the credit loss. It also allows the slacker to earn more credits because he set no D and can use his whole roster to beat teams. And more importantly, as you said attacking is fun, and you deprive the other player of that.
Look, there are only 3 answers to why people dont set Defense:
1. To deprive the other player of credits;
2. To, as you said, "have fun" attacking with their whole roster, and as a result deprives the other player of the same fun of attacking; or
3. They dont care and just want last place rewards for doing absolutely nothing, while at the same time depriving 3 other players they face in their bracket of the fun of attacking.
All 3 of those answers hurt the other player, no matter what your selfish reasons for doing it are.
No matter the intent the result is griefing the other player in some fashion, and the other player can do absolutely nothing about it.
You want to mail it in? Fine. I'll take the win. Wish my current opponent would set crap teams. But the other player should not be harmed by it and you should not be rewarded for it.
Should be patched.
"hurt the other player....."
Dude you won.
I LOVE how you assume you would full clear all 12 areas over 3 matches and bank that sweet 1.8 mil.
IF they played and won..... the EV your losing on modulators and final rewards > that the NOT 600k per match you would have "possibly" earned.
You keep thinking people are hurting you when THEY ARE HELPING YOU... not sure if it's greed, entitlement just not thinking it through.......
YOU WON...
And I love how you assume he wouldn't......
There is actually more than credits at stake..... Some of the quest rewards are very very good.... I am 5 stuns away from getting 5 Zetas and some other stuff..... Why should I be denied that opportunity by someone who couldn't be bothered setting defence in a competitive game mode?
Your acting like you'll never get those quest rewards and drop 100 places in arena if you dont'...cmon man
Like I said what if a guys family was in an accident after he joined was he being a poor sportsman was he trying to deny you something ?
If there are a million players is it not possibly for a thousands of people to have real life make not setting a D possible..
And probably most are just outmatched or don't care.... it is what it is.
But the people complaining about this are the one's trying to "FORCE" something on someone.... If the matchup is so sick overbalanced why do people feel the need to 'FORCE' him to get embarrassed, because you know there are turds who will instantly send 20 messages mocking that person....the heck with that..
You talk about sportsmanship.... it goes both ways (not saying you would mock someone) but reddit already has tons of posts of people openly mocking people in chat about how bad they crushed someone...
People should have the choice period... CG should give you the 600k credits you won, move on....
This whole argument is ridiculous.....
I wish we had 20 threads and 50000 posts on Where is the ship content or things that really matter.
Replies
It's really a bad example when comparing to other sports.
In all of these scenarios when you "forfeit", you don't get to continue the current match-up, while your opponent watches. You leave, and move to the losers bracket (if there is one), and do not collect any rewards.
Think of jujitsu, using your example. If you forfeit, you don't get to wail on an opponent that has to just stand there and take it. If you forfeit, you leave the arena with no opportunity to score points.
If you forfeit, a match, you should not get the opportunity to try to collect any rewards from that match.
If you don't see that, then it is you that is wrong.
Ahhh the self entitled first world issues.
And you, what are you going to change with that post ?
Clearly, the best chance for rewards with the minimal effort is option 4. In a competitive game, why would I make any other choice?
If you don't want to put any effort into GA to get rewards, I suggest option 5- don't join....
There's barely anything to spend credits on anymore. Sometimes a nice mod appears - but that's just a drop in the hundreds of millions swishing around pointlessly. I was just talking with my guildies today how the Credit heist has to go and we really do need something more gear related instead.
Sorry, you don't get to dictate how I play.
Usually I go with some variant of option 1 depending on my opponent's roster and sometimes it works because I put a lot of effort into gearing and modding but that basically means I have to be significantly better than my opponent just to have a fighting chance.
A full defence gives more points than a full clear, if you've set the max teams possible on defence then they cannot beat you
I've had this happen exactly one time. I had the "better" roster - more G12s and zetas - but the guy beat me by 4 medals. We cleared the same number of each other's teams, he just managed to have a few more full health/prot characters at the end. And I was fine with it. He was at a disadvantage, he tried anyway, and hey, look, he won. I'd rather get more prizes, obviously, but I'm not coming here and raging about it because "matchmaking is broken" or whatever. He beat me fair and square. That's how a "game" is supposed to work.
It's cool for you that you're at the point where credits aren't a thing, but the vast majority of us still need many, many millions of them. Most players aren't at 4M+ GP and chilling in 180M+ guilds.
Seems fair, right?
So why should you get to dictate how your opponnent can play when you refuse to set a D?
Don't join or have random toons autoset on D. But you should not be allowed to do EXACTLY what you say is unfair.
Quite apart from anything else, option 4 literally isn't an option for you now. If you set defence in round 1, then rounds 2 and 3 will auto-deploy that same defence if you do nothing.
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
Your right, I can't make you do the right thing.... Only you can do that....
Ahh, so you are also the arbiter of what is "right" and "wrong".
Got it.
I'm not choosing how they play. They have all of the same options that I have.
It should start at the lowest power and work its way up. There's no reason why anyone who doesn't bother to take 2 minutes to set their own D should benefit in any way from an Auto setting randomly decent D teams.
Hahaha +10
No they don't. You have the option to attack. They don't.
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
Only if I've chosen option 4 and they haven't.
No they dont. If you set no D, they dont have the choice to attack. You are taking their choice away. And as you said in your example, they would probably beat you anyway and you are depriving them of the choice to attack and credits. Should be patched. Really there is no logical or reasonable argument that this should be allowed.
Not at all, I figured it was universally accepted that being selfish, ignorant and inconsiderate were bad things.....
As I said previously: only if I've chosen option 4 and they haven't.
If they have deployed defenses, and they have a superior GP, I would maximize my chance at taking a territory, and thereby earning credits, by committing everything to offense. My opponent is already assured of superior rewards by my loss even without the opportunity to attach. The best I can do to salvage something from the match is to try to earn credits. For me, and I suspect for many others, the reason to join GA is to earn some type of reward. Allocating all of my resources to offense is a way to obtain those rewards. This is a perfectly rational approach.
Its the rational choice for you under the current rules. Clearly the credits are important to you. But you are denying them the right to make that exact same choice and earn them and have fun attacking.
It is not the rational choice for a competitive game mode.
The rules need to be changed so people like you can't deprive others of the choice to play or earn rewards. No sense arguing further. You have proved the point by saying you want the choice to attack and earn credits. Everyone should have that choice. Under the current rules, they don't. Simple.
You're right on this, which brings me back to my previous point in this same thread:
Essentially, change the system so that frustrating your opponent is no longer the 'rational' thing to do. Then 'rational' people will stop doing it. Problem solved.
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
Except shard chats of course
Hey I think you left your shoehorn, do you want it back?
Discord: Iona Starbound#5299
Exactly , very well said