As I posted elsewhere: I’m a fan of the vanilla 5vs5 format. But if changing it up is necessary, all I ask for is to make it easier for those of us who plan:
-let us know the buffs ahead of time (more than 1 day ahead) so we can plan and mod our teams accordingly
-“bundle them” so that we have a few consecutive bonus tws and then a few consecutive vanilla
The 3v3 was out in the calendar ahead of time but no details were known - number of zones, teams/zone, scoring system, etc. Without that information it becomes very difficult to prepare.
I get that some players don’t feel that putting effort into tw is worth it, but others do - for those of us who actually care about the game mode, this would be a huge qol fix. The constant last minute planning and mod changing is really burning us out.
We (19 Malaks) had to face a guild with 44 Malaks last TW. It was awesome. So many teams burnt on one squad with the full 5-man synergy which makes it more doable than 3v3. Here's an idea: Let's make 2 simultaneous TW's (1x 3v3 and 1x 5v5) and guild leaders can register their guild to either one. Then let all the "pro 3v3" people join the 3v3 TW and be sure to create a MEGA thread template on the forum for the incoming whining posts when their guild gets matched up vs another one with (way) more Malaks they need to burn through.
3v3 is a lot of fun. Unless of course someone posts Malak. We all know the issue there.
TW would fail, itd be who has the most malaks. End strategy.
Once there is a hard counter for Malak then my guess is 3v3 TW will happen.
In TW it'd be easier to counter 3v3 Malaks than it is in GA. If I am facing a Malak in GA I can usually beat him with 2-3 teams, but then I am at a points disadvantage against a player who I am already at a roster disadvantage against. Either I can't finish some other team or I lose on points.
In TW the penalty for 1st/2nd attempt is much lower, and the Malaks account for a smaller percentage of the teams placed. You can also divide the workload amongst your roster (one person can use Thrawn/Chewie/Han to clear Bastila and then another can use Jango and Boba or Padme and JKA to clean up).
Malak is a big advantage, no doubt, but he's far from unbeatable.
I'm a 2+ year veteran of this game with a 3.6 GP. Contrary to the comments of some other veteran players, every player has the right to their own opinions about the game. Just because they disagree with you doesn't make them whiners or in the minority.
You don't hear them complaining that some players who have Malaks were or probably used to be wallet warriors do you? You may have spent a lot of money in the game, but it doesn't give you extra status or privilage.
You seem to be in the minority here. Unlike you, some people here like change, competition and strategizing.
Eh, competition and strategizing is a weak draw for me in this game. Just like I wouldn't be particularly inclined to play chess against someone who bought additional queens or something.
If strategy was going to be paramount in TW and GA, CG could give everyone set rosters for use in TW and GA. That would be some pretty cool theory crafting and strategy. An actual level playing field. And getting to play teams you haven't been able to build yourself.
Having it based on everyone's personal roster isn't terrible, I still have fun in TW, but it's mostly down to who has the most meta dominance.
Inb4, i realize "roster development" is part of someone's long term strategy. But that's been a weak position ever since CLS came out, we've been led by the nose through metas ever since. It is impossible to "strategically" develop a roster, merely to "efficiently" build to the current/next meta.
You seem to be in the minority here. Unlike you, some people here like change, competition and strategizing.
Eh, competition and strategizing is a weak draw for me in this game. Just like I wouldn't be particularly inclined to play chess against someone who bought additional queens or something.
lIf strategy was going to be paramount in TW and GA, CG could give everyone set rosters for use in TW and GA. That would be some pretty cool theory crafting and strategy. An actual level playing field. And getting to play teams you haven't been able to build yourself.
Having it based on everyone's personal roster isn't terrible, I still have fun in TW, but it's mostly down to who has the most meta dominance.
Inb4, i realize "roster development" is part of someone's long term strategy. But that's been a weak position ever since CLS came out, we've been led by the nose through metas ever since. It is impossible to "strategically" develop a roster, merely to "efficiently" build to the current/next meta.
Why do you believe that?
It's like the epitome of balanced matchmaking, actual identical teams. The strategy would come down to creating the right mix of offense/defense and anticipating effective team compositions.
There could be territory or character restrictions imposed to force variation of teams without screwing over people's individual collections.
It wouldn't be perfect either but it'd be a step towards more strategy and less on matchmaking and roster checks.
But that's not even me saying I would like it better. Just annoys me how much people claim the current setup is strategy.
You seem to be in the minority here. Unlike you, some people here like change, competition and strategizing.
Eh, competition and strategizing is a weak draw for me in this game. Just like I wouldn't be particularly inclined to play chess against someone who bought additional queens or something.
lIf strategy was going to be paramount in TW and GA, CG could give everyone set rosters for use in TW and GA. That would be some pretty cool theory crafting and strategy. An actual level playing field. And getting to play teams you haven't been able to build yourself.
Having it based on everyone's personal roster isn't terrible, I still have fun in TW, but it's mostly down to who has the most meta dominance.
Inb4, i realize "roster development" is part of someone's long term strategy. But that's been a weak position ever since CLS came out, we've been led by the nose through metas ever since. It is impossible to "strategically" develop a roster, merely to "efficiently" build to the current/next meta.
Why do you believe that?
It's like the epitome of balanced matchmaking, actual identical teams. The strategy would come down to creating the right mix of offense/defense and anticipating effective team compositions.
There could be territory or character restrictions imposed to force variation of teams without screwing over people's individual collections.
It wouldn't be perfect either but it'd be a step towards more strategy and less on matchmaking and roster checks.
But that's not even me saying I would like it better. Just annoys me how much people claim the current setup is strategy.
If this were a 1-time event, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. But the strategy comes into play when you consider that it’s a recurring event.
Over time you should be learning new counters, adapting to what you see, growing your roster, re-modding teams, etc. to be more competitive.
You can say that “we have been led by the nose” in roster development - but does that mean that everyone else you face has the same roster then? Do you have the same separatist, galactic republic, OR, etc. setup as everyone you face? I know that I don’t - and what I see in GA and TW is what drives me to decide how to prioritize those teams.
Your chess analogy would be more accurate if each player could choose which pieces they added to their set in place of others.
There are tons of resources around for interested players to learn and improve with.
You seem to be in the minority here. Unlike you, some people here like change, competition and strategizing.
Eh, competition and strategizing is a weak draw for me in this game. Just like I wouldn't be particularly inclined to play chess against someone who bought additional queens or something.
lIf strategy was going to be paramount in TW and GA, CG could give everyone set rosters for use in TW and GA. That would be some pretty cool theory crafting and strategy. An actual level playing field. And getting to play teams you haven't been able to build yourself.
Having it based on everyone's personal roster isn't terrible, I still have fun in TW, but it's mostly down to who has the most meta dominance.
Inb4, i realize "roster development" is part of someone's long term strategy. But that's been a weak position ever since CLS came out, we've been led by the nose through metas ever since. It is impossible to "strategically" develop a roster, merely to "efficiently" build to the current/next meta.
Why do you believe that?
It's like the epitome of balanced matchmaking, actual identical teams. The strategy would come down to creating the right mix of offense/defense and anticipating effective team compositions.
There could be territory or character restrictions imposed to force variation of teams without screwing over people's individual collections.
It wouldn't be perfect either but it'd be a step towards more strategy and less on matchmaking and roster checks.
But that's not even me saying I would like it better. Just annoys me how much people claim the current setup is strategy.
They already tried character bans, and that did NOT go over well nor was it any of the adjectives above. How would set rosters be any different?
You seem to be in the minority here. Unlike you, some people here like change, competition and strategizing.
Eh, competition and strategizing is a weak draw for me in this game. Just like I wouldn't be particularly inclined to play chess against someone who bought additional queens or something.
lIf strategy was going to be paramount in TW and GA, CG could give everyone set rosters for use in TW and GA. That would be some pretty cool theory crafting and strategy. An actual level playing field. And getting to play teams you haven't been able to build yourself.
Having it based on everyone's personal roster isn't terrible, I still have fun in TW, but it's mostly down to who has the most meta dominance.
Inb4, i realize "roster development" is part of someone's long term strategy. But that's been a weak position ever since CLS came out, we've been led by the nose through metas ever since. It is impossible to "strategically" develop a roster, merely to "efficiently" build to the current/next meta.
Why do you believe that?
It's like the epitome of balanced matchmaking, actual identical teams. The strategy would come down to creating the right mix of offense/defense and anticipating effective team compositions.
There could be territory or character restrictions imposed to force variation of teams without screwing over people's individual collections.
It wouldn't be perfect either but it'd be a step towards more strategy and less on matchmaking and roster checks.
But that's not even me saying I would like it better. Just annoys me how much people claim the current setup is strategy.
They already tried character bans, and that did NOT go over well nor was it any of the adjectives above. How would set rosters be any different?
Because we would all have access to the same characters. The bans **** in part because some people's rosters got screwed over worse than others. It's not like we could distribute gear to unbanned characters or anything.
I'm still not saying it's the best solution, I'm just saying victory in those conditions would be more "strategic" than my guild having 5 more Darth Malaks than yours.
It doesn't...because they cancelled it. I have - and win consistently. That doesn't mean it's more fun. I play the game for enjoyment, not just to win free pixels.
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*
Mildly off topic, but I would love to see a TW map where the fleets we're moved to the front top and the middle row was threes while the rest of the troop squads were fives.
It doesn't...because they cancelled it. I have - and win consistently. That doesn't mean it's more fun. I play the game for enjoyment, not just to win free pixels.
OK your opinion is noted. There's plenty of 3 team synergy so I disagree that it's not fun just because it wasn't intended this way originally. Personally I like making two NS teams whereas before I could only make one. And they both have plenty of synergy.
It doesn't...because they cancelled it. I have - and win consistently. That doesn't mean it's more fun. I play the game for enjoyment, not just to win free pixels.
OK your opinion is noted. There's plenty of 3 team synergy so I disagree that it's not fun just because it wasn't intended this way originally. Personally I like making two NS teams whereas before I could only make one. And they both have plenty of synergy.
I'm not suggesting that there isn't any synergy in 3v3 - just that several teams (especially those who get buffs/TM/bonuses based on number of allies/enemies, etc.) are weakened considerably by the drop in numbers. There are also several that don't work nearly as well without all the moving parts (Finn teams, Scoundrel teams, Imp teams, Separatist teams, certain Sith teams, etc.)
To me 3v3 just feels like a less strategic, more "muscle" (i.e. mods) version of full 5v5. I'm not saying anyone has to agree. Just my preference and opinion.
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*
I've had plenty of success with Scoundrels and Imps. Some teams are even better (CLS). It's just a different game mode. I enjoy the variety.
I do agree that certain teams are better. The problem is (again, in my opinion) - that it's the strong teams that are stronger in 3v3 (CLS, JKR, Triumverate, DR/Malak, etc.) - while the counters to those teams are all relatively weaker by comparison as a result of the smaller numbers.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You enjoy the variety of smaller squads. I prefer the synergy of larger squads.
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
It would be very strategic.
-let us know the buffs ahead of time (more than 1 day ahead) so we can plan and mod our teams accordingly
-“bundle them” so that we have a few consecutive bonus tws and then a few consecutive vanilla
The 3v3 was out in the calendar ahead of time but no details were known - number of zones, teams/zone, scoring system, etc. Without that information it becomes very difficult to prepare.
I get that some players don’t feel that putting effort into tw is worth it, but others do - for those of us who actually care about the game mode, this would be a huge qol fix. The constant last minute planning and mod changing is really burning us out.
In TW it'd be easier to counter 3v3 Malaks than it is in GA. If I am facing a Malak in GA I can usually beat him with 2-3 teams, but then I am at a points disadvantage against a player who I am already at a roster disadvantage against. Either I can't finish some other team or I lose on points.
In TW the penalty for 1st/2nd attempt is much lower, and the Malaks account for a smaller percentage of the teams placed. You can also divide the workload amongst your roster (one person can use Thrawn/Chewie/Han to clear Bastila and then another can use Jango and Boba or Padme and JKA to clean up).
Malak is a big advantage, no doubt, but he's far from unbeatable.
You don't hear them complaining that some players who have Malaks were or probably used to be wallet warriors do you? You may have spent a lot of money in the game, but it doesn't give you extra status or privilage.
Huh? I’ve seen lots of people complain about that.
Clearly a dragonball super fan there lol
Ps same here
Eh, competition and strategizing is a weak draw for me in this game. Just like I wouldn't be particularly inclined to play chess against someone who bought additional queens or something.
If strategy was going to be paramount in TW and GA, CG could give everyone set rosters for use in TW and GA. That would be some pretty cool theory crafting and strategy. An actual level playing field. And getting to play teams you haven't been able to build yourself.
Having it based on everyone's personal roster isn't terrible, I still have fun in TW, but it's mostly down to who has the most meta dominance.
Inb4, i realize "roster development" is part of someone's long term strategy. But that's been a weak position ever since CLS came out, we've been led by the nose through metas ever since. It is impossible to "strategically" develop a roster, merely to "efficiently" build to the current/next meta.
It's like the epitome of balanced matchmaking, actual identical teams. The strategy would come down to creating the right mix of offense/defense and anticipating effective team compositions.
There could be territory or character restrictions imposed to force variation of teams without screwing over people's individual collections.
It wouldn't be perfect either but it'd be a step towards more strategy and less on matchmaking and roster checks.
But that's not even me saying I would like it better. Just annoys me how much people claim the current setup is strategy.
If this were a 1-time event, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. But the strategy comes into play when you consider that it’s a recurring event.
Over time you should be learning new counters, adapting to what you see, growing your roster, re-modding teams, etc. to be more competitive.
You can say that “we have been led by the nose” in roster development - but does that mean that everyone else you face has the same roster then? Do you have the same separatist, galactic republic, OR, etc. setup as everyone you face? I know that I don’t - and what I see in GA and TW is what drives me to decide how to prioritize those teams.
Your chess analogy would be more accurate if each player could choose which pieces they added to their set in place of others.
There are tons of resources around for interested players to learn and improve with.
Yeah gl with all the darth revan, fbastila and malak teams.
They already tried character bans, and that did NOT go over well nor was it any of the adjectives above. How would set rosters be any different?
Because we would all have access to the same characters. The bans **** in part because some people's rosters got screwed over worse than others. It's not like we could distribute gear to unbanned characters or anything.
I'm still not saying it's the best solution, I'm just saying victory in those conditions would be more "strategic" than my guild having 5 more Darth Malaks than yours.
It doesn't...because they cancelled it. I have - and win consistently. That doesn't mean it's more fun. I play the game for enjoyment, not just to win free pixels.
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*
OK your opinion is noted. There's plenty of 3 team synergy so I disagree that it's not fun just because it wasn't intended this way originally. Personally I like making two NS teams whereas before I could only make one. And they both have plenty of synergy.
I'm not suggesting that there isn't any synergy in 3v3 - just that several teams (especially those who get buffs/TM/bonuses based on number of allies/enemies, etc.) are weakened considerably by the drop in numbers. There are also several that don't work nearly as well without all the moving parts (Finn teams, Scoundrel teams, Imp teams, Separatist teams, certain Sith teams, etc.)
To me 3v3 just feels like a less strategic, more "muscle" (i.e. mods) version of full 5v5. I'm not saying anyone has to agree. Just my preference and opinion.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I do agree that certain teams are better. The problem is (again, in my opinion) - that it's the strong teams that are stronger in 3v3 (CLS, JKR, Triumverate, DR/Malak, etc.) - while the counters to those teams are all relatively weaker by comparison as a result of the smaller numbers.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You enjoy the variety of smaller squads. I prefer the synergy of larger squads.
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*