"richardchambers;c-2042599" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042582" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042570" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042569" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042567" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042533" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042524" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042514" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042511" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042199" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042174" wrote:"Gifafi;c-2042140" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042137" wrote:
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
"littleMAC77;c-2042582" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042570" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042569" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042567" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042533" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042524" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042514" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042511" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042199" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042174" wrote:"Gifafi;c-2042140" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042137" wrote:
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
"Ravens1113;c-2042530" wrote:
The cheat bot is messed up in its coding.
"Ravens1113;c-2042530" wrote:
If someone places those 3 on defense, it’s still
Better than placing no teams and costing points.
"Ravens1113;c-2042530" wrote:
Hilarious that the attacker, or anyone for that matter is getting banned for this lol.
"Rath_Tarr;c-2042616" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042582" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042570" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042569" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042567" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042533" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042524" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042514" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042511" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042199" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042174" wrote:"Gifafi;c-2042140" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042137" wrote:
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
That is true, however there is no good tactical case for taking these three valuable toons from their respective squads (weakening them) and setting them together on defense in a squad which from their kits will either instantly flee or defend but be unable to do any damage, thus falling to any halfway decent attacking squad. There's just no legitimate upside to it.
"richardchambers;c-2042612" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042604" wrote:"richardchambers;c-2042599" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042582" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042570" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042569" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042567" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042533" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042524" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042514" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042511" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042199" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042174" wrote:"Gifafi;c-2042140" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042137" wrote:
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
If you read my post you would understand my suggestion is that the bot deals with Ban requests made manually by players and any that it cannot determine goes to an actual person. Therefore a Ban request would have to be made for the Bot to Ban the players and the person who set 3po wat hoda would then also have to report the player for them to be banned.
Alternatively this could be something the bot has picked up on it's own which would make it impossible to determine wheather or not the player had malicious intent which makes the debate pointless anyway.
You see how the bot is important?
"CG_SBCrumb;c-2042192" wrote:
I've escalated this to the team responsible for Fraud/Cheating. They will review to confirm but it appears that auto-retreating teams were causing some false positives. Thanks for the heads up folks.
"littleMAC77;c-2042604" wrote:"richardchambers;c-2042599" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042582" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042570" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042569" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042567" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042533" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042524" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042514" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042511" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042199" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042174" wrote:"Gifafi;c-2042140" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042137" wrote:
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
"richardchambers;c-2042648" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042645" wrote:"richardchambers;c-2042612" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042604" wrote:"richardchambers;c-2042599" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042582" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042570" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042569" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042567" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042533" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042524" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042514" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042511" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042199" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042174" wrote:"Gifafi;c-2042140" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042137" wrote:
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
The deciding factor would be how the bot works, seems unlikely they just pick up on these things I would guess the person would have to be reported first which would show clear malicious intent from the person who set the defense then again could esasily be the other way round in which it would be impossible to tell and you are having a pointless debate.
CG_SBCrumb care to end the debate please? Assuming you know how the bot works.
not sure how the bot has anything to do with the debate over the defense-setter being malicious. CG has never told us how the bot works, therefore how would its workings matter for what a player intended with their defense?
If you read my post you would understand my suggestion is that the bot deals with Ban requests made manually by players and any that it cannot determine goes to an actual person. Therefore a Ban request would have to be made for the Bot to Ban the players and the person who set 3po wat hoda would then also have to report the player for them to be banned.
Alternatively this could be something the bot has picked up on it's own which would make it impossible to determine wheather or not the player had malicious intent which makes the debate pointless anyway.
You see how the bot is important?
My bad, I guess I assumed this post implied an automatic process"CG_SBCrumb;c-2042192" wrote:
I've escalated this to the team responsible for Fraud/Cheating. They will review to confirm but it appears that auto-retreating teams were causing some false positives. Thanks for the heads up folks.
I'm not sure where you got that from all that gives us is confirmation it is an issue with the bot and not someone manually reviewing it. When you are having a debate you really need to read what people post more carefully.
"littleMAC77;c-2042644" wrote:"Rath_Tarr;c-2042616" wrote:"littleMAC77;c-2042582" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042570" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042569" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042567" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042533" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042524" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042514" wrote:"Jack1210;c-2042511" wrote:"AvatarofCynicism;c-2042199" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042174" wrote:"Gifafi;c-2042140" wrote:"Daerovius;c-2042137" wrote:
Quite dumb from CG, and a real **** move from the one who put them on defense... Those are the ones who should get a ban
why?
Because it gets other people banned? And setting something that get people banned IS quite a **** move...
It is entirely possible that whoever set the team just wanted to see what would happen. I don't think we've had a situation like this before were a team auto-retreats and someone gets banned.
There's this cool mode called galactic war for testing like that. It is hard to say this was not a malicious move by the guy who placed them on D.
So there's an in-game message that tells everyone who plays that if a team auto-retreats on defense in GAC, the attacking player gets insta-banned? Or there's a well publicized thread or reddit post about someone being insta-banned for the same thing? Please, point me to them. Otherwise, how would anyone know what would happen? Prove malicious intent.
How would anyone know? I literally told you, galactic war. Take a step back and logically look at it. Why would you place 3 toons on defense that you know immediately retreat without testing it out? See what happens? Well GW would give you an instant answer, so its not curiosity. Collusion? Unlikely, since the detailed post on reddit about this made it clear the attacker was surprised by the placement. Just to mess with the opponent? Seems most likely, especially since people seem to think auto-D or purposely setting one team is funny and somehow hurts CG and not the opponent. Prove anything but malicious intent
So you ignore the actual point of my question, which is about being insta-banned for beating that team in GAC, and instead just rehash what you've already said. And then you somehow bring it back to being malicious, even though there can't be anything malicious involved without knowing an insta-ban is a definite outcome. OK.
Kinda how you ignored what I said about GW being a tester? Ya that's annoying. Again, some of the above scenarios are possible, but that requires some thought. You would think something as well thought out as your proposed scenario would include a battle attempt somewhere. Simmed galactic war already? Good thing these plenty of nodes to test this since opponent quality is irrelevant.
I didn't ignore your "GW scenario"; it's just irrelevant to being "malicious". You still haven't answered how setting that team on D is malicious since we've never had a report of someone being auto banned for winning a battle in suspicious fashion.
But keep pretending like you have a defensible opinion on it if it helps you sleep at night. Or should we just agree that you're maliciously trolling since you know you're wrong?
As if your name wasn't enough..... It is relevant. Someone who was curious what would happen has all the opportunity to find out.
Not being curious =/= Being malicious
that is the point you are missing here. There is no proof at this time that the opponent set a team with malicious intent.
That is true, however there is no good tactical case for taking these three valuable toons from their respective squads (weakening them) and setting them together on defense in a squad which from their kits will either instantly flee or defend but be unable to do any damage, thus falling to any halfway decent attacking squad. There's just no legitimate upside to it.
i already laid out why it could be thought of as a defensive team, but I will repeat myself. If you are looking for banner efficiency, you need any team you can find that steals banners in some way. This team could be viewed as a banner stealer by either (1) the user placing the team not knowing they would all escape and thus thinking their placement of dots on the attackers would steal 1-3 banners or (2) the user placing the team hoping that the opponent wastes multiple useful characters on the team without knowing they could have gotten an easy 64. These are both reasonable things to expect to have happen, and I would argue they are atleast as likely as someone maliciously placing a team to get an opponent banned (why would someone do that, I doubt they ban them immediately, meaning you would still lose the round).
Sure, each of these characters are generally useful, but some people have different rosters developed. I know from personal experience, I have nowhere for 3po in 3v3, so I place him in a random def team. Sure, wat and hoda are great, but if you have a better developed team that you use more than you need to find ways to maximise your roster.
"Baby_Yoda;c-2042787" wrote:
How would they retreat?
Isnt it like if you have 1 ally they dont retreat?
Bruh this game
