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.

"swgohfan29;c-1651889" wrote:
@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.

Well, first, the "draws" are rare, and special changes in the total time it will bring. And secondly, I repeat, these changes will affect not only us, but also the opponents. On both sides.
And so nor made benefits, nor any special changes in time this will not bring. And only will make "Draw" - "Draw", not "Defeat".

On this forum sit alone critics. You'd be better off supporting improvements to the game, offering your options for improvements rather than criticizing what you don't like. If I don't like any topic, I personally don't go into it at all. But the improvement of the game I'm always happy. I do not write that "Draw" is some kind of global problem, and that it needs to be corrected urgently. But I offer at least some options to improve at least the little things. Who doesn't want to play the perfect game that you love?

"LukazAbMon;c-1651883" wrote:

"Kyno;c-1651877" wrote:

Yes a draw is the same as a defeat. X team was placed in your way on the path to glory, you didnt move them out of your way, that prevents you from getting the glory.

This is not an error, it is the point.

The point is to pit your team against another team, if you dont win, you lose. Just like arena. This is just a series of arena battles broken into zones.

If you cant beat the team, why should you get any benefit?

You either made a mistake in your team selection, execution, or opponent selection.

There is also a strategy to this too, where you place tanky hard to beat teams that will time out in the back. This startegy relies on the timer and you running your opponent out of power house teams in the front end.

Yes there will be no benefit at all. I offered solutions to the problem, and about the benefit I did not write a word! What benefit could there be? I mean not only his troops, but the enemy is also on his side will have the same position. That's easy to understand.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

"LukazAbMon;d-182881" wrote:
Is it wrong that after two draws, the defending units remain in place (albeit broken, but still), and forwards - disappear (although not was completely destroyed).
I offer 3 versions:
1st (I do not like) is to remove both groups after draws;
2nd (in my opinion the best) is to restore health points and protection of both units and return them to duty as if the fight was not;
3rd (also good, but in my opinion not the best) - after a draw, to extend the time of the fight for a few minutes, so that it was possible to complete this fight is a victory or defeat, not a draw.

Here is what I see:
1st suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins.

This would end with both the attacking and defensive team being removed and I guess no points awarded.
- I lose a chance for points but get the advantage of not having to actually beat the team to get past them. If this was done and my guild completes the zone we get points for clearing the zone, even though we didnt.

2nd suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins.

This would end with both teams being restored, as if the battle never happened, no points awarded.
- I couldn't win, but lose nothing. I get the advantage of basically playing with a team until I win for full points. The defense gets nothing for not letting me win, which is also an advantage for me. At any point in a match if I'm not going to win. I just let it time out to a draw and attack again, this is an advantage because i get to play only the match with the best RNG for me.

3rd suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins
This would lead to an endless timer

- You cant win within the time allotted for the game mode, so you get the advantage of extra time. The defense now loses the advantage of "getting points" that you couldn't beat, because you would lose points in this scenario in the current scheme.

Any of the changes you are suggesting, dont fix a problem as much as they give even more advantage to the offensive guild. In all likelihood ending in more TW ties, due to less of the little point differences per match.

Part of the issue with any changes to the "draw mechanism" is that any player can force this to happen. This basically gives them an "out" to take should the match not go the way they want. This negates part of the points system which is what I keep referring to as a benefit.

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

I would agree with the op that draws are a problem if it was in arena. In tw however i think it’s one of the differences. The team you are using on defense is not usable on offense. It’s only purpose is to defend. Which make, as other said, draws an acceptable result imo. They prevented you from moving forward which was their sole purpose. You get the advantage to 1. Choose who to use against who and 2. Actually play against an ai. If you can’t win, it should have a cost.

In arena draws are basically wins for the defending team that is also the attacking team, which i really don’t like at all, but it is what it is and i basically dislike everything about that game’s arena system anyway^^ so one more thing won’t make a difference.

"LukazAbMon;c-1651853" wrote:
Kyno, of course, it is clear that they have developed this system, but this system is wrong, which is what this topic is about.
Why is it wrong? Yes, because "Draw" in this system is the same as "Defeat".

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.

"LukazAbMon;c-1651853" wrote:

This is a fact of error in this system and it is obvious. It is possible to discuss only the solution of this problem, but not to argue about its existence.

You may want it to be designed differently, and that's fine, but there is no error.

You ask that we discuss your suggestions (I refuse to call them solutions, since there is no problem), yet still you don't comment on the obvious flaws that I and others have pointed out in your suggestions. Flaws that can and will be abused. Abuse, that will make it far easier to win an attack and far more difficult to hold a defense. We will be back to both teams clearing the whole board in every territory war. Where's the fun and challenge in that?

"LukazAbMon;c-1651908" wrote:
On this forum sit alone critics. You'd be better off supporting improvements to the game, offering your options for improvements rather than criticizing what you don't like. If I don't like any topic, I personally don't go into it at all.

I will gladly support improvements to the game. However, your suggestions are not improvements in my oppinion.
I don't like your suggestions. I would rather not have them implemented in the game. Of course I discuss and criticize them and point out the flaws. Now, if you really want changes, then I'd suggest that you realize, the flaws of your suggestions and think of a way to 'repair' those flaws. Alter your suggestions. You may end up with a good suggestion that actually could be an improvement and could gain support from me and others.

"Kyno;c-1651959" wrote:

Here is what I see:
1st suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins.

This would end with both the attacking and defensive team being removed and I guess no points awarded.
- I lose a chance for points but get the advantage of not having to actually beat the team to get past them. If this was done and my guild completes the zone we get points for clearing the zone, even though we didnt.

2nd suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins.

This would end with both teams being restored, as if the battle never happened, no points awarded.
- I couldn't win, but lose nothing. I get the advantage of basically playing with a team until I win for full points. The defense gets nothing for not letting me win, which is also an advantage for me. At any point in a match if I'm not going to win. I just let it time out to a draw and attack again, this is an advantage because i get to play only the match with the best RNG for me.

3rd suggestion - 2 teams go in, attacker cannot beat all 5 toons, but also will not be defeated in 5 mins
This would lead to an endless timer

- You cant win within the time allotted for the game mode, so you get the advantage of extra time. The defense now loses the advantage of "getting points" that you couldn't beat, because you would lose points in this scenario in the current scheme.

Any of the changes you are suggesting, dont fix a problem as much as they give even more advantage to the offensive guild. In all likelihood ending in more TW ties, due to less of the little point differences per match.

Part of the issue with any changes to the "draw mechanism" is that any player can force this to happen. This basically gives them an "out" to take should the match not go the way they want. This negates part of the points system which is what I keep referring to as a benefit.

About 1st and 2nd suggestions we now have figured out that they are worse than 3rd. But what about the 1st offer I wrote about this initially, but the 2nd proposal is worse only because it would be possible to play till the best times. And I also wrote about it in one of my answers. This will be the only way, because no points after recovery, no one will get - it is also easy to understand, and it should be taken into account by the developers. 3-its proposal will not lead to an endless timer-the timer will be replenished only 1 time. Well, it is quite easy to understand - you create the impression of an infantile-thinking person. Although I respect you as a moderator, but do not need to interfere in every post with ill-conceived claims.