3v3 territory war?

"TVF;c-1850839" wrote:

"Jaxom;c-1850832" wrote:

"NoMack;c-1850824" wrote:
The whining on this thread may be the most hilarious I've seen on these forums. Changing ONE TW seems be ruining the lives of countless individuals. The poor guild officers will be forced to spend days locked in their rooms preparing for the gargantuan task of teaching their members how to tackle the never-before-seen 3v3 format! How can they be expected to deal with such a change? What if their opponents have Malak? It's on a holiday in one country for gods sake! Doesn't CG understand that there are competitive guilds out there where a difference in one zeta-mat may result in the ultimate failure of their members? Change is bad and scary, so please leave things the same forever; that's how we want this game to be.

I don't see whining, I see people who play this game for one reason (winning highly competitive TWs at the highest tiers) making logical and legitimate arguments as to why this is a terrible idea. What I do see is you bashing those people for no reason. If you'd like to make a coherent argument in support of this 3v3 TW, feel free to do so, but if you're purpose in posting is to point out that everyone else is a whiner, feel free to keep your opinions to yourself.

If TW is the only reason you play the game, wouldn't you want to try something new once in a while?

I appreciate you asking questions and trying to understand.

This one TW isn't the problem, well it is a problem due to DR/Malak as has been pointed out, but its not the bigger issue.

CG keeps doing these "changes" (banned wars, buff wars, 3's wars) because TW is "stale and boring". Even if I liked the changes they are doing I still wouldn't be happy as they are not addressing the actual issues with TW. They are trying to put a band aid on something that requires surgery so that they can keep releasing their new shiny toons every two weeks.

As I said before, this is incredibly discouraging for TW focused guilds - especially end game ones.

Jaxom - One coherent argument: For everyone out there who wants things to stay the same, there's a person who likes to try something new. This is for that person. There are LOTS of comments on threads about how stale TW is, so here we are.

Yohan - I fully appreciate the amount of time officers put in. My officers are fantastic. That said, you decide your level of involvement in this optional video game role and may even step down entirely if the pressure becomes too great. I would think no less of my guild officer who says "hey guys, I don't wanna be an officer anymore... Someone else wanna do it?"

"NoMack;c-1850851" wrote:
Jaxom - One coherent argument: For everyone out there who wants things to stay the same, there's a person who likes to try something new. This is for that person. There are LOTS of comments on threads about how stale TW is, so here we are.

Yohan - I fully appreciate the amount of time officers put in. My officers are fantastic. That said, you decide your level of involvement in this optional video game role and may even step down entirely if the pressure becomes too great. I would think no less of my guild officer who says "hey guys, I don't wanna be an officer anymore... Someone else wanna do it?"

Thanks :)

Yes, I agree some want change and some don't. Happens to be that most of us would like change as well, we just wish more thought was put into what that change was.

Skylicus - I will certainly keep my sarcasm coming; it's my second favorite type of asm. As for the "ignorance" comment: Ignorance implies a lack of understanding. I fully understand and still find amusing... Similar to my views on scientology. See? Sarcasm. You did say please.

Fair enough /shrug

"Kokie;c-1850874" wrote:
For those highly competitive tw guilds complaining of 3v3 and a wall of DR malak teams well guess what? Your opponent has the exact same problem. This 3v3 simply makes it even more competitive which is exactly what I though you wanted. Besides I thought everyone said JKA simply destroys DR/malak so it should be easy :p

So I should be happy that my opponent as well as I can't clear the first two walls? That isn't competition, that is a broken game mode.

"Skylicus;c-1850881" wrote:

"Kokie;c-1850874" wrote:
For those highly competitive tw guilds complaining of 3v3 and a wall of DR malak teams well guess what? Your opponent has the exact same problem. This 3v3 simply makes it even more competitive which is exactly what I though you wanted. Besides I thought everyone said JKA simply destroys DR/malak so it should be easy :p

So I should be happy that my opponent as well as I can't clear the first two walls? That isn't competition, that is a broken game mode.

If it can be beaten by mirrors can’t you just save your own DRs for offense and avoid the problem?

"Skylicus;c-1850881" wrote:

"Kokie;c-1850874" wrote:
For those highly competitive tw guilds complaining of 3v3 and a wall of DR malak teams well guess what? Your opponent has the exact same problem. This 3v3 simply makes it even more competitive which is exactly what I though you wanted. Besides I thought everyone said JKA simply destroys DR/malak so it should be easy :p

So I should be happy that my opponent as well as I can't clear the first two walls? That isn't competition, that is a broken game mode.

I agree, that's not competition. Competition implies you were able to out plan or motivate your guild better than your opponent. by smashing your face against DR/Malak walls, you will lose participation and motivation quickly

"Liath;c-1850895" wrote:

"Skylicus;c-1850881" wrote:

"Kokie;c-1850874" wrote:
For those highly competitive tw guilds complaining of 3v3 and a wall of DR malak teams well guess what? Your opponent has the exact same problem. This 3v3 simply makes it even more competitive which is exactly what I though you wanted. Besides I thought everyone said JKA simply destroys DR/malak so it should be easy :p

So I should be happy that my opponent as well as I can't clear the first two walls? That isn't competition, that is a broken game mode.

If it can be beaten by mirrors can’t you just save your own DRs for offense and avoid the problem?

No. It's basically the same as the current unfortunate GA. You have a choice:

1. Set DR on defense. If you do this and your opponent does the same, you both probably don't clear that territory. You then plan on being able to beat everything else more efficiently and win on points. If you both set DR and he can clear it and you can't, you lose. If he saves DR for offense, there is still a significant RNG component in winning a DR vs DR fight.

2. Hold DR for offense. If you do this and your opponent does the same, you both have total overkill and it comes down to points. If you do this and your opponent put his on defense, then you still have a significant RNG component in winning, while your opponent doesn't.

Mods pay a big role in mitigating the RNG, so further decisionmaking goes as follows: if you have a slower DR, you should never hold it for attack, because even if your opponent put his DR on defense, you have an uphill RNG fight to win. So a slower DR should always go on defense. However, knowing this, a faster DR has two choices: hold his for offense, and face the slight RNG chance battle, or set his on defense as well, especially given that people don't play perfectly and you might just outright win by his slower DR being on offense and getting messed up by RNG. So you should also set your DR on defense.

In other words, game theory says set DR on defense and then bet on clearing the rest more efficiently. Worst case: you both face a complete gamble on trying to beat DR without your own. Best case: you don't have to worry about DR and he does.

So, no, you cannot just keep DR for offense and call it a day. In TW, you *could* keep some magic percentage of your DRs for offense, and that is exactly where all that preparation that TW leaders do: look at how well modded your opponents DR+malaks are. Look at how many other counters you can "waste" throwing them at a possible full DR wall, etc. etc. And all of this is completely new for 3v3 and has nowhere to be tested, making it a hell of a lot of work. If it's hard to do for GA, imagine trying to do that for a 50v50 guild battle.

"Firebrigade;c-1850930" wrote:

"Ikky2win;c-1850876" wrote:

"Kokie;c-1850874" wrote:
For those highly competitive tw guilds complaining of 3v3 and a wall of DR malak teams well guess what? Your opponent has the exact same problem. This 3v3 simply makes it even more competitive which is exactly what I though you wanted. Besides I thought everyone said JKA simply destroys DR/malak so it should be easy :p

Apparently someone hasn’t read the nerf to JKA that was posted yesterday.

Apparently someone hasn’t seen Padme in action yet. We have no idea how Padme/JKA interaction in a 3v3 environment is going to affect DR/Malak teams. Could be a non-issue by the time we get there.

Separate note on the DR/Malak wall - as has been noted by others, why not just only put 25 of yours on defense split across the front if it can only be beaten by mirror and then try to blast through one of your opponents walls? There are options...everyone’s just whining about something new.

I am looking *very* forward to this war. I love 3v3.

While you are correct we don't have Padme available to us currently, word from the testers is that Padme doesn't have an easy time against DR (w/malak) in 5's and in 3s she stands no chance. Obviously that's from a relatively small test base but I for one am not holding my breath that Padme will affect this at all.

Separate note to your separate note. Did you read the rest of the thread? I've said at least twice and others have as well that we are not complaining about change. We are complaining about about poorly thought out bad change. Saying change is good just because it is change is just flat wrong.