Grand Arena Hitting Last an Advantage?

"4Lateralus7;c-1956728" wrote:
Rotating start times seems reasonable. I think those who are arguing that going last has no advantage whatsoever are being disingenuous... If you know you can 100% win with 5, but know that you need to try with 4 or 3 it adds uncertainty that you might not otherwise risk... To prove my point, what would people think if banner count and wins/losses were not displayed at all until the end of the time or both players clear all territories? This would fully resolve the whole issue/discussion for everyone who has posted... "Hey, that takes away excitement because then you wouldn't know..."...Exactly.

Those arguing against rotating start times are just being hypocrites because they are either
A) whaling the heck out of div 3 and 4
B) living in the timezone where it works for them

I’ll be very glad if my opponent clears me with 60 pts on each node from the get go so i actually get to know that i really shouldnt be attempting to clear so many feats this round. It doesn’t give me pressure, just information i can use to my advantage.

"evoluza;c-1956656" wrote:
I always hit first and lost only once since gac. Don't know what advantage you need.
Player your teams as effective as you can and the rest isn't on you

Yep, agreed. I guess when people aren't good PVP players or don't have good rosters, they seek out every advantage they can get, lol.

I go first and get max score using undersized teams to win when I can so it doesn't matter to me.

The rest of u should consider the doing your best strategy...

If you can kill it with 2 why use 5? Sure 5 is safer and if you only need 50 to win but it hurts you in the ranking vs peers if u going for top 200.

It's never beneficial to score less points because your going second and only need 40 points for a win so u dont try to get your max. That's just a bad decision.

Being able to go second has the following advantages:

Knowing the exact banner count you need and whether you can afford ot have to take chances you otherwise might not.

Being able to reasonably deduce what the opponent might have place defense given their efficiency on clearing your teams.


There is a clear advantage for the last attacker as they have more information to start. They still need to execute, of course, but they have a better understanding on what it takes.

"Kyno;c-1956894" wrote:

"Stokat;c-1956887" wrote:

"Nauros;c-1956875" wrote:

"UltimateZeus;c-1956873" wrote:

"Kyno;c-1956867" wrote:

"Dmitry_M81;c-1956855" wrote:
And it's huge advantage when you know opponent's banners, so you can either use undersized squads for extra banners or full squads for guaranteed win.
If banners (and maybe even squads defeated) are hidden - noone has advantage or disadvantage, fair deal for me.

Please explain how knowing you need to use an undersized team, makes winning the match easier??

It doesn't but if you are 45 score behind (excluding territory victory points) and you have 1 battle left... you know you can just send in 5 toons and clear it up instead of sending in an undersized squad to take a gamble to get a higher score.

This is just common sense.

Also, if you are 60 points behind, you know you have to take the risk and go undersized even if you wouldn't otherwise.

Exactly. I I don’t understand after being spelled out so many times why ppl still don’t grasp this basic concept. It’s not rocket science, just common sense.

The concept of that is not hard to understand, the problem is that this game mode is not won by knowing a team can be 4 or 5. Nothing about attacking first or second makes playing the game easier. A percieved advantage because a player who is unsure of their own skills doesnt mean they can win the battles they need to because they feel better about it, it also doesnt mean they would lose if they didnt know how to feel about it.

The same attack strategy can be used both first or second and score the maximum points that a player can reach based on their roster, opponent and skill.

You are missing the point. If I know I have leeway, I can choose a safer counter. If I know I have to push for points, I can be more aggressive and take more chances. You can also make a more rational deduction about their possible defense, You are making attack decisions with more information, which is ALWAYS an advantage. It has nothing to do with playing, you still have to execute the plan against an RNG based system, but it allows you to optimize your plan better.

"DarthBarron;c-1957898" wrote:

"Kyno;c-1956894" wrote:

"Stokat;c-1956887" wrote:

"Nauros;c-1956875" wrote:

"UltimateZeus;c-1956873" wrote:

"Kyno;c-1956867" wrote:

"Dmitry_M81;c-1956855" wrote:
And it's huge advantage when you know opponent's banners, so you can either use undersized squads for extra banners or full squads for guaranteed win.
If banners (and maybe even squads defeated) are hidden - noone has advantage or disadvantage, fair deal for me.

Please explain how knowing you need to use an undersized team, makes winning the match easier??

It doesn't but if you are 45 score behind (excluding territory victory points) and you have 1 battle left... you know you can just send in 5 toons and clear it up instead of sending in an undersized squad to take a gamble to get a higher score.

This is just common sense.

Also, if you are 60 points behind, you know you have to take the risk and go undersized even if you wouldn't otherwise.

Exactly. I I don’t understand after being spelled out so many times why ppl still don’t grasp this basic concept. It’s not rocket science, just common sense.

The concept of that is not hard to understand, the problem is that this game mode is not won by knowing a team can be 4 or 5. Nothing about attacking first or second makes playing the game easier. A percieved advantage because a player who is unsure of their own skills doesnt mean they can win the battles they need to because they feel better about it, it also doesnt mean they would lose if they didnt know how to feel about it.

The same attack strategy can be used both first or second and score the maximum points that a player can reach based on their roster, opponent and skill.

You are missing the point. If I know I have leeway, I can choose a safer counter. If I know I have to push for points, I can be more aggressive and take more chances. You can also make a more rational deduction about their possible defense, You are making attack decisions with more information, which is ALWAYS an advantage. It has nothing to do with playing, you still have to execute the plan against an RNG based system, but it allows you to optimize your plan better.

You always need to be more aggressive if your competing for points against all other players in your division

"Indominable_J;c-1957885" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-1957873" wrote:

"Eddiemundie;c-1957872" wrote:

"Kyno;c-1956693" wrote:

"CordycepsX;c-1956675" wrote:
How about this.... a player sets an absolute FU defence. Both revans, GG, padme, etc, etc. Their best 8 teams straight onto defence. Then waits. If u full clear, they lose. If u don’t, they know exactly how many banners they need with whatever offence they have left. Their whole strategy revolves around hitting second. I’m not saying it’s an unfair strategy, it’s quite good, actually. The only thing I was asking originally is why not make the starting times fair for everyone?

You need 62 points in a battle, can you please explain how knowing this makes getting those points easier in battle?

The game is world wide, there is no time that works for everyone.

The solution was posted and suggested many times - rotate GAC starting times by 6hrs each round.

So now rounds last 30 hours? And a whole GA within GAC lasts 36 hours longer?

Are you sure the forums want that?

What?

Everybody starts at 5pm Eastern. Ends at 5pm Eastern. Now you have to wait 6 hours to start the next one at 11pm Eastern. Repeat over and over. GAC will take forever.

I'm all for rotating start times, but what's the practical implementation of it?

"FolsomTony;c-1958092" wrote:

"cannonfodder_iv;c-1957833" wrote:
Just don't show the number of banners the other player has until the offense period has closed. Nobody has an advantage or disadvantage. Problem solved.

And if CG applied the same mechanic of hiding scores until attack period ended on Territory Wars?

Would that make people content, or would there be a problem with that?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/sirYaPWyjCvEk/source.gif

"Eddiemundie;c-1957876" wrote:

"4Lateralus7;c-1956728" wrote:
Rotating start times seems reasonable. I think those who are arguing that going last has no advantage whatsoever are being disingenuous... If you know you can 100% win with 5, but know that you need to try with 4 or 3 it adds uncertainty that you might not otherwise risk... To prove my point, what would people think if banner count and wins/losses were not displayed at all until the end of the time or both players clear all territories? This would fully resolve the whole issue/discussion for everyone who has posted... "Hey, that takes away excitement because then you wouldn't know..."...Exactly.

Those arguing against rotating start times are just being hypocrites because they are either
A) whaling the heck out of div 3 and 4
B) living in the timezone where it works for them

Or, C), we realize it doesn’t matter one way or the other and just attack when we have time.

My GAC rounds start at 2:00pm, I don’t get home from work until around 5:00pm and go to sleep at 10:00pm. That’s 5 hours. That’s plenty of time. Next time you’re in GAC, try playing around your schedule instead of setting your schedule around the game. See how you finish and realize that all your supposed advantages don’t mean squat.

Example of going last.
Today I was late in checking gac as forgot to battle last night.
12mins to go.
Opponent has only battled 1 spot for 58.
I spent 10 mins clearing 2 zones and half of last one, opponent must have thought I was no show.
Today going last advantage win for me due to opponent not doing more than bare minimum.