3v3 territory war cancelled...
It looks like from the make good post, which sux for me as I was looking forward to that one the most this month 😢
Forum Discussion
61 Replies
"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..
"Adamklark;c-1862303" wrote:
Noone wants 3v3 because Malak. drevan walls are difficult on their own..
Judging by the responses on this thread quite a few people wanted it. Including me."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."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.
