3v3 territory war cancelled...

"Bad_on_the_Outside;c-1861848" wrote:
I for one love 3v3 as an occasional alternative. There's no reason every aspect of the game should be the same 5v5 teams.

Yeah gl with all the darth revan, fbastila and malak teams.

"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?

"NinjaChronicles;c-1862496" wrote:

"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?

Because we would all have access to the same characters. The bans sucked 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.

"TVF;c-1861930" wrote:
I don't get why that matters. Adapt.

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.

Can we have a full fleet TW? ?

I'm all for new variations of TW because a large part of why arena is stale to me is that it's always the same... ?

"TVF;c-1862897" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-1862572" wrote:

"TVF;c-1861930" wrote:
I don't get why that matters. Adapt.

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.

"TVF;c-1862961" wrote:
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.

To be clear, it's not a preference thing. I actually do prefer 5v5 because there's more things you can do with the squad. I'm just saying that I enjoy both. If I had to pick one I'd pick 5v5, but I like having both to add variety to the game. I'm a little bummed they cancelled 3v3 TW just because I wanted to give it a try and see how fun it might be.

I love how they they take the complaints about 1 or 2 massively OP teams that create TM breaking loops that can start with TM making them IMMORTAL that NO ONE want's to play against and ruin TW for everyone and make it less fun than it is.

AND

Interpret that as "well we read the feedback and see you hate ALL the bonuses in every form" and will revert back to pure unadulterated meh.

It's like this is a perfect example of them not taking feedback.

No median with these people