Forum Discussion
"Anrath;c-1465523" wrote:
Though it is true we have not seen it in play yet, it is clear that this change is going to take more time, effort, communication, and thought from both the players and the officers!
So as a QoL change, this change is utterly horrible! This is more like an ANTI-quality of life change.
As a game feature, on first & second reading it is too complicated.
As a fix to tie breakers, this is far too complicated!!!
Yeah pretty much sums up my thoughts.
And no I don't have to see it in action to know. This isn't a new toon or game mode. A simple tiebreaker was asked for and instead we got this.- I wish they had just made a counter for how many teams each guild used and then decided based on that fact at the end of the TW. That way it would literally only impact the guilds that actually tied and wouldn't change anything for the guilds that aren't experiencing ties.
"leef;c-1467050" wrote:
Your poll options are little too complicated. Keeping it simple will probably result in more "usefull" results.
Kay. Will try to keep to 5 or less options next time"6The6Bull6;c-1465466" wrote:
No option for I currently hate tw and the changes won't make me hate tw any less.
This.- They just complicate a simple matter (draws). With a lot less changes they could correct it.
- @Kyno the new change actually hinders any strategic development and it encourages spending. I get you need to encourage spending. I applaud it but let's not confuse that with strategic development. Ties were irritating people who got a huge advantage in a mismatch and you have rewarded them by taking any strategic advantage out of play.
"Notnukin;c-1481929" wrote:
Kyno the new change actually hinders any strategic development and it encourages spending. I get you need to encourage spending. I applaud it but let's not confuse that with strategic development. Ties were irritating people who got a huge advantage in a mismatch and you have rewarded them by taking any strategic advantage out of play.
I truly believe that the beat f2p are some of the best strategists out there. Doing more with less is the goal, that takes strategy.
As always if you want to spend you have an advantage, but this doesn't force spending it forces strategy, balance of O and D, getting the correct matchup ,developing counter teams and an overall top level strategy that will get you into the back wall with more fire power than the other guy. This can all be done without $$.
I believe that many people confuse $$ with strategy, but more along the lines that you are stating, not that they can overcome the former with the latter. IMHO.- 35 teams for each sectin is stupid. Too much teams in defense.
All other add are nice, but the fun definitively gone with those 35 def squad. Now it's a pain. "Boba_The_Fetter;c-1466892" wrote:
+1 banner for successful defence. That's literally all they needed to not affect TW in any way other than when a tie occurs
^this.
We finally had a strategy down and now its changed. Old strategy didn't fair well in new setup and we actually had an even matchup. Take for example the banners you get for placing a ship squad, why do you receive fewer banners for not filling all reinforcement slots? I've never seen an arena battle go longer than having 2 reinforcements emerge, so why penalize a player for taking game play into consideration when setting a defense????- I don't care because we have no chance against the guild with 30m GP more than us. The point system is irrelevant. ;)
