3v3 territory war cancelled...

"IDinDooNuffin;c-1862048" wrote:
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.

"Vladamera_69;c-1862175" wrote:

You don't hear them complaining that some players who have Malaks were or probably used to be wallet warriors do you?

Huh? I’ve seen lots of people complain about that.

"Vos_Landeck;c-1861858" wrote:

"Goku_Black;c-1861840" wrote:
Is it cancelled or all future ones were 5v5? I re-read it 3 times and still not sure 3v3 is actually cancelled

It’s pretty clear: “we’re planning to run original 5v5 versions for the foreseeable future.” So we’re getting 5 vs. 5 vanilla TWs....no 3 vs. 3.

Clearly a dragonball super fan there lol
Ps same here

I was looking forward to the 3v3 as normal tw is quite boring now my guild havent won tw since the last tw b4 ga came out

"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.

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.

good news

Noone wants 3v3 because Malak. drevan walls are difficult on their own..

"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.

"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.

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.