Not really, no. It was your action, that was decisive.
So, by that logic, I shouldn’t have bothered playing. Then, I would’ve deserved to win.
That logic makes absolutely ZERO sense to me. You’re not going to convince me that I’m wrong. I don’t require further explanations of the same thing from you.
It's not about deserving to win or not. Try putting that feeling aside. It clouds your mind.
You knocked yourself out and lost. It's as simple as that.
What a terrible idea. That way the opponent would be deprived of progressing/completing feats.
You lost. Get over it. Learn your lesson. Win the next time your opponent doesn't participate.
You’re worried about someone who didn’t participate in the event NOT GETTING REWARDS. Vs someone who did participate, getting a loss.
Nope. It's the other way around. If your opponent hasn't had his defense deployed automatically you would not have been able to progress or complete feats. You. Not your non-participating opponent.
I accept your viewpoint, even though I can’t understand it. I think you are definitely wrong. Also, I don’t require any more condescending coments from you. “You lost, get over it” - That’s really helpful. Bye now! Rest assured I will (not) endeavour to make myself a better player with the sole purpose of impressing players like you, so that we can all continuously agree that this game is perfect, it has no flaws, it’s never frustrating, and nothing is ever, EVER wrong with it.
As long as we agree that you lost because of your own strategic choices (setting one squad only on defense) I'm good. Don't waste your energy and time trying to impress me.
Yeah, I'm penalized for "not participating enough" ... while he is rewarded for not doing anything.
You're penalized for making a bad choice. If this had been a boxing match you would be the boxer, who knocked himself out while his opponent didn't throw a single punch but still won.
(well, if he would win according to the boxing rules, that is)
No, if this was a boxing match, I’d be the guy who showed up for the match late, while he didn’t show up at all.
Not really, no. Your opponent pressed the "Join" button. He did show up. But that's all he did. He didn't protect himself. He didn't throw any punch.
Can I ask how you would feel if someone set one team on defense against you, and then saved all their best toons for offense and won because you couldn't attack, does that sounds good?
How did I stop him from attacking? He should have had a ton of toons left to attack with. He just didn't bother either deploying a defense, or performing attacks. Yup! That's the spirit of competition right there! Do nothing, win.
Even if he just made ONE or multiple failed attacks, that would make him getting the win a bit more credible ... Instead he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from beginning to end ...and he won. and even though I did participate (not to mention clear all zones) I lose.
I'm not expecting to be given the win because i made a mistake -- but i think considering the fact that he literally did nothing at all ... and I at least defeated all of his teams ... does that not make sense to you Kyno? Is it possible for you to look at this objectively at all?
lets start over.
man that stinks you lost.
due to him having an auto set defense, the win/ loss was completely in your hands. its very unfortunate that you didn't get back to the game to set all of your defenses.
what do you suggest is the solution?
the auto defense was added to avoid players losing an opportunity to gain points and complete feats, do you think they should change that?
the point system is pretty basic, do you suggest they alter it so that someone could actively set less or no defense and win? that doesn't make sense to me.
No auto-deploy.
What a terrible idea. That way the opponent would be deprived of progressing/completing feats.
You lost. Get over it. Learn your lesson. Win the next time your opponent doesn't participate.
The system is flawed and this instance points it out.
The system may have flaws, like all do, but not in this instance. For one, it’s probably an extreme outlier case. I can’t imagine this happens often. Changing the system so one odd instance can result in a win for someone who set a single defense could have serious repercussions for the majority.
You don’t think a system is flawed that allows a win for someone who didn’t set any D and didn’t attack over a person who did set a D and full cleared?
Why is there even an auto deploy? Why does it only pertain to no set D as opposed to partial set D?
I just think there should never be a win condition by doing absolutely nothing vs a whole lot more than nothing.
I don’t think there should be any expectation of a chance to win by setting one defensive team, mistake or not. The auto deploy feature has helped far more players than it has hurt, which as far as I know is one.
The system may have flaws, like all do, but not in this instance. For one, it’s probably an extreme outlier case. I can’t imagine this happens often. Changing the system so one odd instance can result in a win for someone who set a single defense could have serious repercussions for the majority.
The majority of players who.... forget to play the event, and let the game auto deploy? Yes, we should protect the interests of people who can’t be bothered to partake in the event..
Opposite, I mean the majority of players who were cheated by the people who joined and didn’t set a defense. I personally don’t understand the people who join and don’t play, I think it’s weird. Your situation is a bummer and I understand your frustration, but I don’t think there should be a way to set one defense and be able to win. That could be exploited, especially by GL owners.
While I agree there should be no expectation to win by setting one D team, that just reinforces that there should be no expectation to win by setting no defense at all, aside from both not setting D requiring a tie-breaker (higher GP wins).
If you don’t log in and even play, the only chance you should have to win is a tie-breaker, based on neither opponents playing.
I can’t see how the game could be exploited if you auto set all unfilled slots. Would like to hear how.
Again, you should never be able to win by not playing at all of your opponent has done something, especially if they both set a D and cleared even a single zone.
If this were done correctly, the OPs scenario would be impossible.
OP sets one D team - game autofills the rest
Opponent sets no D team - game autofills all
Both get full points for setting D
OP clears one or more zones and gets offensive points
Opponent doesn’t attack and gets no offensive points
OP wins
Instead it’s like this:
OP sets one team and only gets D points for that team
Opponents sets no teams and gets auto-filled and max D points for all zones.
OP attacks and gets offensive points for any cleared zones.
Opponent doesn’t attack and gets max points for all empty defense zones.
That’s just wrong
I was still talking about the current system. I didn’t mention anything about the concocted partial defense filling thing. I can’t think of a reason not to add that, but that’s a left turn to the original issue. The exploitation I mentioned would not exist, just like the pretend partial auto defense fill feature. Again, like I said before, this situation is surely rare and I don’t see how it would be of much concern to fix.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
Can I ask how you would feel if someone set one team on defense against you, and then saved all their best toons for offense and won because you couldn't attack, does that sounds good?
How did I stop him from attacking? He should have had a ton of toons left to attack with. He just didn't bother either deploying a defense, or performing attacks. Yup! That's the spirit of competition right there! Do nothing, win.
Even if he just made ONE or multiple failed attacks, that would make him getting the win a bit more credible ... Instead he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from beginning to end ...and he won. and even though I did participate (not to mention clear all zones) I lose.
I'm not expecting to be given the win because i made a mistake -- but i think considering the fact that he literally did nothing at all ... and I at least defeated all of his teams ... does that not make sense to you Kyno? Is it possible for you to look at this objectively at all?
lets start over.
man that stinks you lost.
due to him having an auto set defense, the win/ loss was completely in your hands. its very unfortunate that you didn't get back to the game to set all of your defenses.
what do you suggest is the solution?
the auto defense was added to avoid players losing an opportunity to gain points and complete feats, do you think they should change that?
the point system is pretty basic, do you suggest they alter it so that someone could actively set less or no defense and win? that doesn't make sense to me.
No auto-deploy.
What a terrible idea. That way the opponent would be deprived of progressing/completing feats.
You lost. Get over it. Learn your lesson. Win the next time your opponent doesn't participate.
The system is flawed and this instance points it out.
The system may have flaws, like all do, but not in this instance. For one, it’s probably an extreme outlier case. I can’t imagine this happens often. Changing the system so one odd instance can result in a win for someone who set a single defense could have serious repercussions for the majority.
You don’t think a system is flawed that allows a win for someone who didn’t set any D and didn’t attack over a person who did set a D and full cleared?
Why is there even an auto deploy? Why does it only pertain to no set D as opposed to partial set D?
I just think there should never be a win condition by doing absolutely nothing vs a whole lot more than nothing.
I don’t think there should be any expectation of a chance to win by setting one defensive team, mistake or not. The auto deploy feature has helped far more players than it has hurt, which as far as I know is one.
The system may have flaws, like all do, but not in this instance. For one, it’s probably an extreme outlier case. I can’t imagine this happens often. Changing the system so one odd instance can result in a win for someone who set a single defense could have serious repercussions for the majority.
The majority of players who.... forget to play the event, and let the game auto deploy? Yes, we should protect the interests of people who can’t be bothered to partake in the event..
Opposite, I mean the majority of players who were cheated by the people who joined and didn’t set a defense. I personally don’t understand the people who join and don’t play, I think it’s weird. Your situation is a bummer and I understand your frustration, but I don’t think there should be a way to set one defense and be able to win. That could be exploited, especially by GL owners.
The solution he is proposing is that the game auto deploys in all your empty slots with your last teams placed there..
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
Yes? I read his OP too. What's your point?
Well, you said it was an active choice and part of his strategy. Clearly not.
It’s not ideal, I agree with that. Auto-deploy filling all slots would be a better option.
But it’s such a rare situation that it may not be worth dealing with.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
There is no valid strategic reason to do this. It makes it impossible for you to win.
The only reason to deliberately set a single squad / fleet is to screw with your opponent, depriving them of the opportunity to work on feats. A few **** have even proposed this as a form of protest.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
You’re not given a choice to set no teams, why should you be given a choice to set only one team? How is that in any way a strategy? Especially if you are telling OP it is a mistake and it’s impossible to win doing so.
Can I ask how you would feel if someone set one team on defense against you, and then saved all their best toons for offense and won because you couldn't attack, does that sounds good?
How did I stop him from attacking? He should have had a ton of toons left to attack with. He just didn't bother either deploying a defense, or performing attacks. Yup! That's the spirit of competition right there! Do nothing, win.
Even if he just made ONE or multiple failed attacks, that would make him getting the win a bit more credible ... Instead he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from beginning to end ...and he won. and even though I did participate (not to mention clear all zones) I lose.
I'm not expecting to be given the win because i made a mistake -- but i think considering the fact that he literally did nothing at all ... and I at least defeated all of his teams ... does that not make sense to you Kyno? Is it possible for you to look at this objectively at all?
lets start over.
man that stinks you lost.
due to him having an auto set defense, the win/ loss was completely in your hands. its very unfortunate that you didn't get back to the game to set all of your defenses.
what do you suggest is the solution?
the auto defense was added to avoid players losing an opportunity to gain points and complete feats, do you think they should change that?
the point system is pretty basic, do you suggest they alter it so that someone could actively set less or no defense and win? that doesn't make sense to me.
No auto-deploy.
What a terrible idea. That way the opponent would be deprived of progressing/completing feats.
You lost. Get over it. Learn your lesson. Win the next time your opponent doesn't participate.
The system is flawed and this instance points it out.
flawed is a little bit of a stretch, but his own admittance he did make a mistake.
the battle was entirely in his hands, the loss was caused by his actions. the system that is in place was made to give him the opportunity to maximize his points, he failed to do so, by not putting down all the defenses he could.
lets say I have been distracted by my kid falling out of bed while in an arena match, and I lose a battle that I was going to win easily, with one ship left in the red. I lost because the timer ran out. is that a flawed system?
yes this actually happened to me, no i dont blame the system for a loss that was entirely in my control but I didn't win within the rules of engagement.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
There is no valid strategic reason to do this. It makes it impossible for you to win.
The only reason to deliberately set a single squad / fleet is to screw with your opponent, depriving them of the opportunity to work on feats. A few **** have even proposed this as a form of protest.
Even a bad strategy could be a strategy. Players use different strategies. I've seen seen some unusual defenses before.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
You’re not given a choice to set no teams, why should you be given a choice to set only one team? How is that in any way a strategy? Especially if you are telling OP it is a mistake and it’s impossible to win doing so.
The player setting only 1 team on defense made an active choice to do so. He performed an action. That's a major difference between this and setting no defense.
Yeah, I'm penalized for "not participating enough" ... while he is rewarded for not doing anything.
You're penalized for making a bad choice. If this had been a boxing match you would be the boxer, who knocked himself out while his opponent didn't throw a single punch but still won.
(well, if he would win according to the boxing rules, that is)
No, if this was a boxing match, I’d be the guy who showed up for the match late, while he didn’t show up at all.
Not really, no. Your opponent pressed the "Join" button. He did show up. But that's all he did. He didn't protect himself. He didn't throw any punch.
So, just penalize me the late guy, but the no-show gets a win? I think you’re just protecting your own interests..
Here’s a closer boxing analogy:
Both showed up, but the opponent just stood there while the referee help up his arms to block. The OP proceeded to knock him out. OP loses cause he only blocked one of opponents non punches.
Not a good one. In your example OP wouldn't have lost the boxing match. That's not how boxing works as I understand it.
In the real case OP did one of the very few things that prevented him from winning. If only he had set two teams instead of one in that zone, he would have been able to win still. He didn't. He chose to set only one.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
There is no valid strategic reason to do this. It makes it impossible for you to win.
The only reason to deliberately set a single squad / fleet is to screw with your opponent, depriving them of the opportunity to work on feats. A few **** have even proposed this as a form of protest.
And this scenario proves that setting one D is not a strategy and as everyone has said, is a mistake.
I have seen many mistakes. I've made my share as well. That doesn't make it non-strategy - just bad strategy.
I can’t see any reason in favor of auto deploy that can’t also be said for auto deploying any undeployed zones.
Am I missing something here?
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
There is no valid strategic reason to do this. It makes it impossible for you to win.
The only reason to deliberately set a single squad / fleet is to screw with your opponent, depriving them of the opportunity to work on feats. A few **** have even proposed this as a form of protest.
Even a bad strategy could be a strategy. Players use different strategies. I've seen seen some unusual defenses before.
Once again, there is no valid strategic reason to do this. It makes it impossible for you to win.
Replies
It's not about deserving to win or not. Try putting that feeling aside. It clouds your mind.
You knocked yourself out and lost. It's as simple as that.
Nope. It's the other way around. If your opponent hasn't had his defense deployed automatically you would not have been able to progress or complete feats. You. Not your non-participating opponent.
As long as we agree that you lost because of your own strategic choices (setting one squad only on defense) I'm good. Don't waste your energy and time trying to impress me.
Not really, no. Your opponent pressed the "Join" button. He did show up. But that's all he did. He didn't protect himself. He didn't throw any punch.
My own interests? Interesting. What would they be?
I was still talking about the current system. I didn’t mention anything about the concocted partial defense filling thing. I can’t think of a reason not to add that, but that’s a left turn to the original issue. The exploitation I mentioned would not exist, just like the pretend partial auto defense fill feature. Again, like I said before, this situation is surely rare and I don’t see how it would be of much concern to fix.
There's a reason not to autodeployed the remaining zones:
OP made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
He only set one team by mistake, he got distracted.
The solution he is proposing is that the game auto deploys in all your empty slots with your last teams placed there..
Yes? I read his OP too. What's your point?
OK, let me rephrase then:
There's a reason not to autodeployed to the remaining zones:
Consider a player who made an active choice to only deploy one team on defense. If that's his strategy (for whatever reason) the game shouldn't mess it up by auto deploying the rest of his squads.
Well, you said it was an active choice and part of his strategy. Clearly not.
But it’s such a rare situation that it may not be worth dealing with.
The only reason to deliberately set a single squad / fleet is to screw with your opponent, depriving them of the opportunity to work on feats. A few **** have even proposed this as a form of protest.
You are given a choice to place no teams.
flawed is a little bit of a stretch, but his own admittance he did make a mistake.
the battle was entirely in his hands, the loss was caused by his actions. the system that is in place was made to give him the opportunity to maximize his points, he failed to do so, by not putting down all the defenses he could.
lets say I have been distracted by my kid falling out of bed while in an arena match, and I lose a battle that I was going to win easily, with one ship left in the red. I lost because the timer ran out. is that a flawed system?
yes this actually happened to me, no i dont blame the system for a loss that was entirely in my control but I didn't win within the rules of engagement.
Even a bad strategy could be a strategy. Players use different strategies. I've seen seen some unusual defenses before.
The player setting only 1 team on defense made an active choice to do so. He performed an action. That's a major difference between this and setting no defense.
Not a good one. In your example OP wouldn't have lost the boxing match. That's not how boxing works as I understand it.
In the real case OP did one of the very few things that prevented him from winning. If only he had set two teams instead of one in that zone, he would have been able to win still. He didn't. He chose to set only one.
I have seen many mistakes. I've made my share as well. That doesn't make it non-strategy - just bad strategy.