Draw in Guild Wars

@OP.

If each team is a guard to a castle, and you are the invading party, stalemating for a while earns a loss for you. Their objective is not to kill you, its to keep you away from the castle. In that sense, they win and your team is penalised accordingly.

It seems you're arguing semantics about draws and defeats. Perhaps they should just call time outs defeats instead of draws and it would solve the problem too. No more draws only victory or defeat

"LukazAbMon;c-1652282" wrote:

"Waqui;c-1651975" wrote:
If you don't wipe out the defending team, the defenses hold and your attack fails. You can always attack with another team but the one you already used for an attack failed should not have another go - it already fought and lost.

Both a draw and a defeat is a victory for the defending team. Seen from the defending point of view: Why shouldn't it be treated equally? The defending team did its job in either case.

Again:
There is no problem. Your suggestions can (and will) be abused.

That's it-at the moment, because of this problem (which is obvious, but the blind do not see it), we are forced to attack the remaining in the protection of the squad with their other units despite the fact that our disappears. This is the problem at the moment. And its VERY EASY to SEE. You just don't want to understand it, and stand your ground. That it will be possible to attack that group which at us TAKE away NOT for WHAT is not advantage, and only return of group which at us take away. That is, fixing the problem in any way. This is what I've been asked to solve, and not to get his ****, ill-considered criticism. I'm leaning towards option 3 for now. But to listen to your discontent, I'm tired. Unhappy with something - just don't write, and walk past. **** forum, almost all posts have to write, and still no one is clear.

You do realize that , A, your “solution” is flawed, and B, several folks here have very politely tried to tell you that,

You are trying to fix something that is not broke, and apparently , based on your grammar, you are not a native English speaker. Possibly something is being lost in the translation to you. TW as is currently is working properly worth the squad you use being only available for one use, REGARDLESS , of win or lose. OR timeout. You would be well served to inquire about proper squad comps and counter squads. That is the answer you seem to be needing.

"LukazAbMon;c-1652403" wrote:
I am the Creator of this topic, and I have to fend off other people's discontent, as I am currently in the solution of this issue. Unlike other forum members, which, if you do not like this theme, you can easily get around, and generally not to interfere. I ask to speak on a subject, and to offer advice on the decision, instead of writing any discontent in my address, and in the address of this subject. But I think wrong - just because I respond to most messages. But I have to do it, because I am the Creator of this theme. In fact, YOU're wrong. And I've written many times why. But to your thinking does not reach.

Sorry, but the problem is of EA sees none of us "interfering", they might think "Hey! People like this idea! No one complained about it!". As a stakeholder in this game, i have a right to interfere with your opinons on the forums. This allows EA to know who likes and dislikes the issue at hand (Assuming they read the forums, but whatever). I have a "responsibility" to interfere if i want EA to know i want.

If you don't want to see our opinons,
a. Block anyone who posts on your thread
b. PM developers directly

Now, you have clearly stated your position. We have pointed out
a. problems with that position
b. probelms with your solutions
c. alternative ways of thinking about the position
.

In this case, you have every right to disagree with our opinons, just as we have the right to do the same to you. However, neither of us are objectively right: This is very much of a preference issue regarding playstyles.

Finally, you do NOT have the responsibility to reply to all of us. We will NOT feel slighted if you ignore us.

The first two suggestions are easily abused. Tough team? Start the fight and do litteraly nothing for 5mins and that causes the defender to lose? Or, I'm losing, so i just chill for the rest of the time to get my team back to either try again or use on an easier opponent. More time could work, but i guess i like the idea of using teams on defence that can force you to run out of time.

Part of the reason I myself do not like the 1st option, I wrote about it. But you made a mistake - in the 2nd version, it makes no sense to just wait 5 minutes, as all units (and defending and attacking) will be restored again, with a full set of health and protection. And that's part of why I think he's the best.

"DuneFlint;c-1651613" wrote:
The first two suggestions are easily abused. Tough team? Start the fight and do litteraly nothing for 5mins and that causes the defender to lose? Or, I'm losing, so i just chill for the rest of the time to get my team back to either try again or use on an easier opponent. More time could work, but i guess i like the idea of using teams on defence that can force you to run out of time.

Part of the reason I myself do not like the 1st option, I wrote about it. But you made a mistake - in the 2nd version, it makes no sense to just wait 5 minutes, as all units (and defending and attacking) will be restored again, with a full set of health and protection. And that's part of why I think he's the best.

I don’t see any reason for a 5 min timer in TW. Extend it to 10

"Bulldog1205;c-1651629" wrote:
I don’t see any reason for a 5 min timer in TW. Extend it to 10

Here is, already something similar on my proposals. I support, it is possible to expand the timer to 10 minutes - it as a whole, but also a question on a draw too needs to be solved.

"LukazAbMon;c-1651619" wrote:

"DuneFlint;c-1651613" wrote:
The first two suggestions are easily abused. Tough team? Start the fight and do litteraly nothing for 5mins and that causes the defender to lose? Or, I'm losing, so i just chill for the rest of the time to get my team back to either try again or use on an easier opponent. More time could work, but i guess i like the idea of using teams on defence that can force you to run out of time.

Part of the reason I myself do not like the 1st option, I wrote about it. But you made a mistake - in the 2nd version, it makes no sense to just wait 5 minutes, as all units (and defending and attacking) will be restored again, with a full set of health and protection. And that's part of why I think he's the best.

It makes sense to me. I start out, and either completly underestimated the team so i start to get destroyed, instead of losing my team i idle out and get them back. Or i ha e bad rng and am going to lose but i know my team can beat them, instead of taking 1 or 2 kills and needing a 2nd team to clear them i just idle out and try again.