The GA auto-deploy implementation is pure garbage.

Rath_Tarr
4944 posts Member
edited November 2019
When it is "working as intended", it presents you with a ridiculous wall of toons which can be a real pain in the backside simply by virtue of their individual speed and power even if they have little to no synergy as a squad. This punishes any opponent who is actually playing the game, eapecially if they were actually trying to use a balanced strategy.

This is the front wall I just cleared:
8afpajzq264w.png
ithbzx3yxcdd.png

And more fun behind:
9byuiiiwj50e.png

But perhaps worse is when your opponent sets a partial defense and the auto-deploy does nothing at all, depriving you of the opportunity to work on feats which become increasingly crucial to your chances of achieving Kyber at higher divisions.

The auto-deploy algorithm should cycle through all of the available slots in a player's defense and fill any which are empty with a squad composed of unassigned toons (or ships) randomly selected from the player's roster. It's a little more involved than the current implementation but it's certainly not rocket science.

Replies

  • Completely agree. I usually face opponents who set full defenses but my opponent for this round decided to set 1 squad. That's it. So, I had to make sure I could go in undersized in order to finish that feat. To top it off, I only "cleared" one area because the other 3 were empty. I'm getting punished because my opponent is either lazy or stupid.
  • Nikoms565
    14242 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    At least yours weren't mostly R7 - and 2 SE and 2 Jedi (for synergy) to boot.

    Lolhm2y74t4t6ed.png

    The second group was awful too - between the GR synergies, the Geo tag team taunting and DSB throwing debuffs all over everything, I gave up.

    I cleared the other side and called it a night. GAC is a hot mess of game mode. Even if they made the rewards better, it still has some major design flaws.
    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*
  • Here's a simple solution for auto-deploy. If someone can't be bothered to set a defense, auto-deploy the weakest toons on defense and lock the player who didn't post defenses out of attack phase (so no offense for him/her).
    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*
  • Rath_Tarr
    4944 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    Ouch! My sympathies. :o

    I actually cleared the board on this occasion but the final squad was a 4-battle Zerg-fest with B-/C-grade toons. Turns out trash-tier Rebels can take out a 5-star g11 zzMalak... Who knew?! :D
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Here's a simple solution for auto-deploy. If someone can't be bothered to set a defense, auto-deploy the weakest toons on defense and lock the player who didn't post defenses out of attack phase (so no offense for him/her).

    I disagree with locking out of offense. There are people who forget to set defenses and are not doing this out of malicious intent. If u have proper defenses u should be able to easily 60-64 pt the weakest toons on defense while your opponent will largely score 58-62 even if he does try.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    So, OP, you cleared the board, but still you complain? Yes, you had difficulties clearing the board, but doesn't that simpy indicate, that if your opponent had actually set a defense of strong teams with synergy, you might not have been able to clear the board? Those auto deployed teams were still an advantage to you.

    I like the autodeployment the way it is. I welcome the challenge of having to find counters to those unusual teams. It's nice for a change. Furthermore, if the weakest characters were on defense, your opponent could actually have a chance to change his mind, attack you, and easily clear all of your defenses with his strong characters and score 1k points for the GAC.

    No, I'm not a fan of locking anyone out from offense. I like that if the player, who actually set a defense, still has to at least clear a few teams to secure the win - just in case the opponent with no defenses set changes his mind and attacks. Also, if both players had autodeployment, they should be able to battle it out still.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    When it is "working as intended", it presents you with a ridiculous wall of toons which can be a real pain in the backside simply by virtue of their individual speed and power even if they have little to no synergy as a squad. This punishes any opponent who is actually playing the game, eapecially if they were actually trying to use a balanced strategy.

    This is the front wall I just cleared:
    8afpajzq264w.png
    ithbzx3yxcdd.png

    And more fun behind:
    9byuiiiwj50e.png

    But perhaps worse is when your opponent sets a partial defense and the auto-deploy does nothing at all, depriving you of the opportunity to work on feats which become increasingly crucial to your chances of achieving Kyber at higher divisions.

    The auto-deploy algorithm should cycle through all of the available slots in a player's defense and fill any which are empty with a squad composed of unassigned toons (or ships) randomly selected from the player's roster. It's a little more involved than the current implementation but it's certainly not rocket science.

    Totally wrong about no defense being set... you get 64 points for each team not set plus the bonus for clearing so your getting max points. U dont even need any feats with a max score so partial D isnt hurting anyone who knows how to count.
  • An auto-deploy is still easier to clear than an actual well-thought out defense, while your opponent has virtually no chance of beating you.
  • I love when random teams are auto-deployed. Of course they shouldn't be underestimated, but fact is that they will be easier to deal with than teams that have good synergy.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    So, OP, you cleared the board, but still you complain?
    Yes because the currently implementation of auto-deploy is bloody stupid and it penalizes players who are actually trying to play GA.

    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    When it is "working as intended", it presents you with a ridiculous wall of toons which can be a real pain in the backside simply by virtue of their individual speed and power even if they have little to no synergy as a squad. This punishes any opponent who is actually playing the game, eapecially if they were actually trying to use a balanced strategy.

    This is the front wall I just cleared:
    8afpajzq264w.png
    ithbzx3yxcdd.png

    And more fun behind:
    9byuiiiwj50e.png

    But perhaps worse is when your opponent sets a partial defense and the auto-deploy does nothing at all, depriving you of the opportunity to work on feats which become increasingly crucial to your chances of achieving Kyber at higher divisions.

    The auto-deploy algorithm should cycle through all of the available slots in a player's defense and fill any which are empty with a squad composed of unassigned toons (or ships) randomly selected from the player's roster. It's a little more involved than the current implementation but it's certainly not rocket science.

    Totally wrong about no defense being set... you get 64 points for each team not set plus the bonus for clearing so your getting max points. U dont even need any feats with a max score so partial D isnt hurting anyone who knows how to count.
    Getting a few extra points from the match does not offset the inability to work on feats which are worth hundreds of points if completed.
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Here's a simple solution for auto-deploy. If someone can't be bothered to set a defense, auto-deploy the weakest toons on defense and lock the player who didn't post defenses out of attack phase (so no offense for him/her).

    I disagree with locking out of offense. There are people who forget to set defenses and are not doing this out of malicious intent. If u have proper defenses u should be able to easily 60-64 pt the weakest toons on defense while your opponent will largely score 58-62 even if he does try.

    Yeah, that happened to me once. I often let D carry over, and totally spaced that it was a new round. Funny thing is I still won. I was Div3 at the time, so even without my 30 best toons I was lucky enough to have just the right squads to take down the opponents'.

    Of course this was before relics and before I was going against revans and malaks. Nowadays a single squad like that would have made it impossible.

    But, point is, you're right that it isn't always malicious intent.
  • BobcatSkywalker
    2194 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    So, OP, you cleared the board, but still you complain?
    Yes because the currently implementation of auto-deploy is bloody stupid and it penalizes players who are actually trying to play GA.

    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    When it is "working as intended", it presents you with a ridiculous wall of toons which can be a real pain in the backside simply by virtue of their individual speed and power even if they have little to no synergy as a squad. This punishes any opponent who is actually playing the game, eapecially if they were actually trying to use a balanced strategy.

    This is the front wall I just cleared:
    8afpajzq264w.png
    ithbzx3yxcdd.png

    And more fun behind:
    9byuiiiwj50e.png

    But perhaps worse is when your opponent sets a partial defense and the auto-deploy does nothing at all, depriving you of the opportunity to work on feats which become increasingly crucial to your chances of achieving Kyber at higher divisions.

    The auto-deploy algorithm should cycle through all of the available slots in a player's defense and fill any which are empty with a squad composed of unassigned toons (or ships) randomly selected from the player's roster. It's a little more involved than the current implementation but it's certainly not rocket science.

    Totally wrong about no defense being set... you get 64 points for each team not set plus the bonus for clearing so your getting max points. U dont even need any feats with a max score so partial D isnt hurting anyone who knows how to count.
    Getting a few extra points from the match does not offset the inability to work on feats which are worth hundreds of points if completed.

    You got 64 points for free which is a free win, one missing team isnt costing you hundreds of points in feats lol quit overreacting. you can complete the feats in the other 8 battles.

    Seriously you should be happy it's one less team you have to fight and lets be honest you were not going to get 64 points if he did set a D, so really it's only a win for you... u get max points for this battle and have 7 other battles to do your feats.

    Alao If your suggesting that someone had a less than full auto deploy that's not possible, it's one or the other.

    autodeploy fills all spots I know because I let the game set my Defense and it set all areas and I won.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    So, OP, you cleared the board, but still you complain?
    Yes because the currently implementation of auto-deploy is bloody stupid and it penalizes players who are actually trying to play GA.

    How does it penalize you, when your opponent could actually have set an even stronger defense manually?
  • Waqui wrote: »
    So, OP, you cleared the board, but still you complain? Yes, you had difficulties clearing the board, but doesn't that simpy indicate, that if your opponent had actually set a defense of strong teams with synergy, you might not have been able to clear the board? Those auto deployed teams were still an advantage to you.

    I like the autodeployment the way it is. I welcome the challenge of having to find counters to those unusual teams. It's nice for a change. Furthermore, if the weakest characters were on defense, your opponent could actually have a chance to change his mind, attack you, and easily clear all of your defenses with his strong characters and score 1k points for the GAC.

    No, I'm not a fan of locking anyone out from offense. I like that if the player, who actually set a defense, still has to at least clear a few teams to secure the win - just in case the opponent with no defenses set changes his mind and attacks. Also, if both players had autodeployment, they should be able to battle it out still.

    You want to save trees, but still breath their air? -Charlie Kirk
  • I would prefer the auto defense be completely random. Just character salad everywhere. Might be fun for the person attacking and then leaves the person who had an auto defense just an absolute crap shoot if there's any synergy left.
  • TVF
    36526 posts Member
    Character Salad was my college band's second album.

    We called ourselves the First Person Salad Shooters.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • So auto defense is working. And you're mad? Hmm...
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Here's a simple solution for auto-deploy. If someone can't be bothered to set a defense, auto-deploy the weakest toons on defense and lock the player who didn't post defenses out of attack phase (so no offense for him/her).

    I disagree with locking out of offense. There are people who forget to set defenses and are not doing this out of malicious intent. If u have proper defenses u should be able to easily 60-64 pt the weakest toons on defense while your opponent will largely score 58-62 even if he does try.

    Maybe if they had a preset defence ( that we have to submit at JOIN) that could be edited up until the lock time (based on opponents roster) this would stop being an issue.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    When it is "working as intended", it presents you with a ridiculous wall of toons which can be a real pain in the backside simply by virtue of their individual speed and power even if they have little to no synergy as a squad. This punishes any opponent who is actually playing the game, eapecially if they were actually trying to use a balanced strategy.

    This is the front wall I just cleared:
    8afpajzq264w.png
    ithbzx3yxcdd.png

    And more fun behind:
    9byuiiiwj50e.png

    But perhaps worse is when your opponent sets a partial defense and the auto-deploy does nothing at all, depriving you of the opportunity to work on feats which become increasingly crucial to your chances of achieving Kyber at higher divisions.

    The auto-deploy algorithm should cycle through all of the available slots in a player's defense and fill any which are empty with a squad composed of unassigned toons (or ships) randomly selected from the player's roster. It's a little more involved than the current implementation but it's certainly not rocket science.

    So you're telling me you've never heard of the famous Ahsoka led team with C3PO and Malak?
  • there is a lot of problems with the auto defense.
    but at least when it does the full thing you know EVERY defense on thier field. all you have to do is look at thier roster and see there top X characters.

    and frankly i agree that when it comes to auto defense we should have a option outside of when GA starts that we can set up our own teams that have to fill out the slots if we forget. that way we still have defenses that make sense, and it not clear who is on defense... yes it like the current system, but im saying this never reset at the beginning of a new set of rounds. they could make a tab in squad selector that you can make teams for GA defense that it randomly chooses from if you forget to set your own defenses.


    otherwise we have 1 the squad defense problem. those people are either going to trapped in carbonite, trolling, set a couple defense and forgot the rest, or somethnig else. is it fair to the opponent that they get less people to fight? yes. but it is also fair/right that the opponent is giving you a free win so they can get a title. also yes. YET both cause problems for the other person which isnt right. and that one im unsure what to suggest.
Sign In or Register to comment.