3v3 territory war cancelled...

"kristian1311;c-1862316" wrote:

"Crackling_Doom;c-1862289" wrote:

"kristian1311;c-1862283" wrote:

"Crackling_Doom;c-1862262" wrote:

"Botzone1;c-1861837" wrote:
Thank god for that.

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?