Grand Arena Hitting Last an Advantage?

It’s definitely an advantage to go second. My third round the guy was trying to save squads to beat my Best defence team and in doing so he used 4 attacks on one of my teams and 2 on the other. He also failed against my best defence.

I now know I don’t need to full clear. Just kill the weaker side efficiently and kill 1 team in the other front row defence and I’ve won. I know I don’t need to save toons for his DR.

So clear advantage imo.

"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's not about making it easy to win. It's not about guaranteeing a win. It's about the advantage which comes with knowledge.

Like when CG announce a new event with 48 hours notice. Sure giving people more notice wouldn't make it easier for them to get ready for the event. But if people know it's coming more people are going to be ready for it when it arrives.

If you'd announced it months in advance it wouldn't be easier that's true. But when armed with knowledge a player can plan and strategist effectively. Sure, without the knowledge plenty of players were ready for Malek. But at the same time, you threw in a surprise minimum GP, which led to many people who had prepared still being unable to get Malek, because at the end of the day it's just guess work.

Your argument is that guesswork and knowledge are as accurate and effective as each other. I disagree. Suspect the dictionary disagrees too.

Same thread with same people and same arguments on both sides.

Can't wait for the next thread next Tuesday.

I don't much care about the issue, but it bothers me way too much that there are people who deny the obvious fact that there's an advantage to attacking second. It's like people insisting that the Moon is made of cheese. Sure, it's a harmless belief, but I can't help getting irritated by it. :s

"Kyno;c-1957758" wrote:

"IntrepidFox;c-1957712" 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's not about making it easy to win. It's not about guaranteeing a win. It's about the advantage which comes with knowledge.

Like when CG announce a new event with 48 hours notice. Sure giving people more notice wouldn't make it easier for them to get ready for the event. But if people know it's coming more people are going to be ready for it when it arrives.

If you'd announced it months in advance it wouldn't be easier that's true. But when armed with knowledge a player can plan and strategist effectively. Sure, without the knowledge plenty of players were ready for Malek. But at the same time, you threw in a surprise minimum GP, which led to many people who had prepared still being unable to get Malek, because at the end of the day it's just guess work.

Your argument is that guesswork and knowledge are as accurate and effective as each other. I disagree. Suspect the dictionary disagrees too.

Guess work and knowledge have nothing to do with actually winning the points.

If you need 62 points and you have a team that can make that score and you go into the battle and come out with 61 points, guess what that knowledge did nothing for you and you could have done that attacking first or second.

A proper plan and strategy works no matter the time you choose to attack. The feeling that people get when the choice is made for them doesnt change the fact that they could have won or lost the battle regardless.

It's really cute talking about needing 62 points to win. The problem is obviously the fact I can't know I need that unless I've gone last.

Question: You're in the last battle of the round. You are facing a g11/g12 padme lead team. You have no idea how many points you need. How many points do you need?

The answer is - you don't know. So how many units do you take into the fight? If you 4 man it do you win? What about 3 manning it? Do you win?

Is the answer - "I don't know"

It should be. But from your response it seems the answer is to take in the units which are going to get the points needed.

Obi Wan: "I have the high ground Anakin"

Anakin: "It's not an advantage. It's possible to win either way."

I always hit first unless the other person attacks as soon as the attack phase starts. I prefer to attack without the distraction of what the other player is doing, as I'm going to clear it as efficiently as possible anyway. All the points I get go to my GAC total, so no reason to base my effort on what the other player does. Once I'm done, I don't look at the results again, and only find out in the "mail" notice. No pressure, no stress, quick to move on if I lose.

Whether attacking first or second gives you an advantage is likely based on your personality type - competitive, works under pressure, easily flustered, etc.

"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?

"BobcatSkywalker;c-1957904" wrote:

"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

Not at the risk of a loss, because +1000 for the win means a lot more in the overall championship score than an extra point or two per GA for "maximizing" banners.

"BobcatSkywalker;c-1957882" wrote:
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.

If you know your 2 can kill 5 that is fine. What if your 2 vs 5 is a 50/50 chance? Do you up it to 3 vs 5 then? What if the 3vs5 is a 75/25 chance? Do you up it to 4 then? At what point do you decide a 10% chance of losing the round is worth the extra 4 points for undersizing? At what point does that extra 4 points become worth risking losing 1000 points for losing the round in those close matches?

So long as you know you will win the round, use all the undersize squads you want for those bonus points. Or conversely if you know you are going to lose the round complete all the quests you can for the bonus quest points. A lot of matches are one or the other of these. For these matches there is nothing to be gained by any advantage in information.

Then there are the matches that are close - these matches its more important to win the round than gain a few extra points or complete an extra quest - because that 1000 point gain for winning is far more significant in global rankings than anything else. These are the matches when that extra information can be helpful in determing whether that 3vs5 75/25 risk is worth taking or not. The number of close matches you have vs the number of lopsided matches you have is what determines whether the advantage of extra knowledge is neglible in value or high in value.

"DarjeloSalas;c-1957948" wrote:

"TVF;c-1957909" wrote:

"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?

@Indominable_J - what he said.

Each of the 4 GAs that makes up a GAC consists of 7 24hr blocks. 1 for signup, 3 for setup, 3 for attack.

If start times are to be rotated by 6 hrs each time, then at the very least 3 of those phases need extended by 6 hours.

The forums are already full of posts from people saying “24 hrs is too long”. Rotating phases by 6 hrs would add a minimum of 18 hours to each GA.

I took "rotate GAC starting times by 6hrs each round" to mean each of the 4 GAs within each GAC, not each individual phase within each GA, which would add 18 hours to a month-long process.