3v3 territory war?
Anyone else notice the last TW in May is listed as 3v3? That should be.... interesting.
Forum Discussion
"yohann269;c-1850938" wrote:
SBC: Where does Padmé fit best in the game?
CGF: Padmé is a leader of the Galactic Republic squad and should be very competitive in PvP. Our goal is for her squad to sit alongside Darth Revan (without Malak) and Jedi Knight Revan squads in terms of power level and competitive viability."Skylicus;c-1850940" wrote:
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.
I’m well aware of what they posted in the insights post. It doesn’t make any specific reference to 3v3, and nothing I’ve heard coming out of the testing has specifically mentioned how she fared in 3v3. Having 1/3 of your squad be immune to fear seems like better odds than 1/5. Graceful Assault also has an undispellable Stun on it, making it so you can actually stun the team despite DRs unique. Pair the two of them up with C3PO, and all of a sudden you’ll be able to run that stun just about every turn thanks to Translate as well as fully leveraging JKA’s nerfed unique. Additionally, JKA/Padme synergy will negate DR Deathmark. Seems like it’s got a pretty solid chance to me."Skylicus;c-1850940" wrote:
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.
Yes I’ve read it all. I wasn’t implying that all change is good just because it’s change, but what I am implying is that just because *you* find the change bad doesn’t mean the change is objectively bad. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
I like it. I think it’s a good change. You don’t. We disagree. That’s ok. That doesn’t mean you have the one right answer."Firebrigade;c-1850970" wrote:
"yohann269;c-1850938" wrote:
SBC: Where does Padmé fit best in the game?
CGF: Padmé is a leader of the Galactic Republic squad and should be very competitive in PvP. Our goal is for her squad to sit alongside Darth Revan (without Malak) and Jedi Knight Revan squads in terms of power level and competitive viability."Skylicus;c-1850940" wrote:
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.
I’m well aware of what they posted in the insights post. It doesn’t make any specific reference to 3v3, and nothing I’ve heard coming out of the testing has specifically mentioned how she fared in 3v3. Having 1/3 of your squad be immune to fear seems like better odds than 1/5. Graceful Assault also has an undispellable Stun on it, making it so you can actually stun the team despite DRs unique. Pair the two of them up with C3PO, and all of a sudden you’ll be able to run that stun just about every turn thanks to Translate as well as fully leveraging JKA’s nerfed unique. Additionally, JKA/Padme synergy will negate DR Deathmark. Seems like it’s got a pretty solid chance to me."Skylicus;c-1850940" wrote:
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.
Yes I’ve read it all. I wasn’t implying that all change is good just because it’s change, but what I am implying is that just because *you* find the change bad doesn’t mean the change is objectively bad. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
I like it. I think it’s a good change. You don’t. We disagree. That’s ok. That doesn’t mean you have the one right answer.
Several of us have spoken to the testers and they were unable to consistently beat DR/malak using padme."Firebrigade;c-1850970" wrote:
"yohann269;c-1850938" wrote:
SBC: Where does Padmé fit best in the game?
CGF: Padmé is a leader of the Galactic Republic squad and should be very competitive in PvP. Our goal is for her squad to sit alongside Darth Revan (without Malak) and Jedi Knight Revan squads in terms of power level and competitive viability."Skylicus;c-1850940" wrote:
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.
I’m well aware of what they posted in the insights post. It doesn’t make any specific reference to 3v3, and nothing I’ve heard coming out of the testing has specifically mentioned how she fared in 3v3. Having 1/3 of your squad be immune to fear seems like better odds than 1/5. Graceful Assault also has an undispellable Stun on it, making it so you can actually stun the team despite DRs unique. Pair the two of them up with C3PO, and all of a sudden you’ll be able to run that stun just about every turn thanks to Translate as well as fully leveraging JKA’s nerfed unique. Additionally, JKA/Padme synergy will negate DR Deathmark. Seems like it’s got a pretty solid chance to me."Skylicus;c-1850940" wrote:
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.
Yes I’ve read it all. I wasn’t implying that all change is good just because it’s change, but what I am implying is that just because *you* find the change bad doesn’t mean the change is objectively bad. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
I like it. I think it’s a good change. You don’t. We disagree. That’s ok. That doesn’t mean you have the one right answer.
Agreed- I have no issues with people expressing opinions that are opposite of mine. I will gladly engage in a conversation on whether or not this change is good. Heck - if the timing was different I could probably be convinced to withhold my judgment until after the war. I feel strongly on this issue because TW is the only reason I play this game, and it feels that the way I enjoy playing it is being stripped away piece by piece. That is my opinion and other people have different ones.
My comment (and some of my previous ones) was directed at the people telling us to stop whining about change. There are people like you who are engaging those of us against this with actual arguments and thought out replies. Then there are people just saying "stop complaining and suck it up". That doesn't strike me as helpful or good for the longevity of the game......granted CG hasn't expressed any real interest in anything the community says here so maybe I'm just wasting my time and energy."Paulos999;c-1850645" wrote:
"TVF;c-1850449" wrote:
What's the worst that could happen? You get 2 zetas instead of 3.
I promise it will be ok.
This 3 vs 3 is fun and different stop moaning, we can’t have fun anymore because you TW officers don’t wanna have to spend some time thinking of new strategies.. then don’t do it, you chose to be TW officer.
3 vs 3 is fun.
I think 3v3 sucks donkey feet
Your opinion is not better, smarter or any more important than mine. It means 1 out of 2 people limes 3v3 in a sample size of 2.... now in the vein of a million people if 50% loathe it prob should not be a game mode because they should be able to tweak it to 75%+- It's because internal data shows them the large majority of players prefer 3v3. The handful of vocal voices on the forum hardly are representative of the hundreds of thousands of players.
- 3v3 GA blows donkey D I C K let alone trying to implement it into tw especially with an unknown # of teams instead 200 teams and 50 ships could be 400 teams and 50 ships which is a nightmare to figure out and set up teams with counters to teams they might set on defense this is the worse possible thing to implement into tw in general/overall.
"Kokie;c-1851740" wrote:
It's because internal data shows them the large majority of players prefer 3v3. The handful of vocal voices on the forum hardly are representative of the hundreds of thousands of players.
Except for me. I represent 1,734,201.5 players and on behalf of them all let me just say that I, er WE like 3v3. ;)- 3v3 is an interesting idea, however in this game it doesn't really work at all. There is so many factors in play that organising 50 people is going to be a nightmare.
Making it near impossible to really make it a competitive environment. All zones are most likely going to have more placements too, so there might likely be a zone with like 40+ DR squads that make you just quit. It doesn't take a genius to know that 3v3 tw is a bad idea, in fact a child could tell if the child had any common sense or read the actual constructive posts in this thread alone, unlike the people who just post "I like 3v3" as a pointless post or a post that actually personally attacks the people trying to be constructive."Kokie;c-1851740" wrote:
It's because internal data shows them the large majority of players prefer 3v3. The handful of vocal voices on the forum hardly are representative of the hundreds of thousands of players.
Exactly how does internal data show that people like it? has their been an in game survey? is this determined by 3v3 participation in GA? Are people (for some unknown reason) not signing up to GA just because its 5v5 and purposely missing out on rewards to only sign up for 3v3?
So when thousands. and I mean THOUSANDS of posts from individuals, all who play this game, including the thousands upon tens of thousands of reddit posts, all say tw banning was a bad idea and they go ahead with it anyway, just means nothing at all? Surely Only the people against it spoke out and everyone for it didn't, surely when I asked my guild and they all said they hated it but I was the only one posting in public, surely that doesn't mean anything, right?
No matter what we say, our feedback has never mattered. That's the truth. There is no "internal data" showing people "Like" 3v3, There is no "large majority" there is no need to lie like the devs do. Which then gets another lie post replying to you. 3v3 TW is going to happen even if a million people posted disgust at the idea, even if it caused the game to die forever it would still come out.
We are posting ideas as to try and help this situation, right now DR/Malak teams are breaking 3v3 because unless you mirror them, you have to throw everything at them to beat them. There needs to be changes made to the 3v3 format to prevent broken defence teams. Or more thought needs to be put into it before we have a 3v3 tw. Or just cancel it and do it right and do a 5v5 so we can actually have competitive fights without droids that decide to die on the first turn while doing nothing. - Personally I don't like 3v3.
Surely TW officers will spend more time on TW every months (TW 3v3 with bonuses will come too).
There is no way to test 3v3 outside GA(or good friends on arena)
The way of using characters is pretty different between the two modalities (3v3 and 5v5)
Also Mods
Having said that if the intention of the CG is to bring the 2 modalities to be present in equal measure as GA, I will always try to enjoy myself.
But I think that the way the game is built is not the best idea(mods's exchange from one modality to another, if you wanna put the best in both modalities, shouldn't become something normal, always big imho here of course)
And honestly, in order to revive a game that has lost much support in the last period, I expect something new and innovative to be introduced.
I love TB on Geonosis.
But I would like some completely new content, which also involves ships (why not)
And I hope that in the next Q&A session the players will be heard because this is the only way to continue to grow and have fun together (CG and players) "Gorem;c-1851801" 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.
I like you, I like you a lot!
So refreshing to see a good mod here reading through things and understanding concerns! :)
