Grand Arena Hitting Last an Advantage?

I can't help but attack first!! I've been studying their roster for hours. I've written down all the teams I think I'll see on D. Written down my counters. Prepared my defense for them. By the time GAC begins, I'm ready to go! I just can't not attack!!!

I am just one person. And by no means do I think my situation is like everyone else nor do I speak for anyone else.

I have attacked first and cleared all 6 rounds thus far. I haven't lost. No one has full cleared me. And I have full cleared everyone.

If there is a disadvantage to attacking first, I seemed to have weathered it well. Though i don't believe there is.

"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?

"ToxicFish;c-1958197" wrote:
Today going last advantage win for me due to opponent not doing more than bare minimum.

No, your advantage was your opponent didn’t care. They could (and should) have attacked more so they could get more banners and run up their own score. They didn’t. And they weren’t going to care if you attacked first or last.

A counterexample—round 2 of the past GA, I attacked twice and lost, then attacked two more times and won for a total of one win in each territory. Their defenses were very good. This was at 6:00pm, with 20 hours to go. My opponent never bothered to attack.

Me saying that attacking first was the advantage here has the same weight as you saying attacking last was your advantage. Our advantage was the opponent didn’t care at all, not when we attacked.

My last opponent and I both set DR on defence. He attacked first and couldn’t kill mine. I realised that I didn’t need to clear his to win, so used all my best teams for other battles and won by 10 points.

I won a close match purely because of going second. Clearly going second doesn’t work for every scenario (going first and doing well puts your opponent under pressure to take risks), but in this example it did

"Kyno;c-1956867" wrote:


If I think I can win with 4, I go in with 4. That's how you play the game. I have my teams I know I can score better with, i strategize around using them to their max ability and work the plan. Waiting to attack second doesnt mean you will be able to earn the point you need to win, even if you know that number.

Last time I watched the movies, Anakin won that war. But maybe that's just how I view it when he killed Obi Wan. Thinking you have an advantage doesnt mean you do, and it certainly doesnt mean you will win.

Pretty sure he got shish kabobed. Although it's true that 30 years later Obi Wan let Vader cut him down, making him even more powerful and allowing him to mentor the next generation, leading to the eventual destruction of the Empire.

That's probably the victory you speak of yes? :)

On a serious note - we're not going to see eye to eye. I'm sticking with those who believe knowing more than your enemy is an advantage; A great many SWGOH players, Sun Tzu, Napoleon, Nelson, Palpatine, Rommel and Churchill. I'm obviously wrong - but at least I'm in good company.

Really? Going last is the hugest advantage. In general the more information you have, the easier the GAC becomes. Once your opponent goes, you will understand how many banners you absolutely need to win, AND you can make a pretty good estimate based on how he cleared you on what he used for his offensive teams and guesstimate what he may have put in the back walls. In what world is it ever more advantageous to go first?

These forum posts just need to be closed as soon as they open lol. Either side will never convince the other that they are right.

"TVF;c-1958627" wrote:

"cannonfodder_iv;c-1958626" wrote:

If you'd rather rotate start times, that's fine too. I would follow @Indominable_J 's advice and push each GA back six hours, providing for a 30 hour join period and adding 18 hours onto the total event timeline. Easy peasy, no stress.

I'm sure no one will complain about that.

If only. Love the new-ish avatar.

"cannonfodder_iv;c-1958626" wrote:

"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?

@FolsomTony Personally I wouldn't care either way. You've somehow managed to conjoin a false equivalency with classic what-about-ism in just two quick sentences!

No, just trying to be fair in an assessment of what players would deem acceptable in an event, which a banner count over a 24 hour period determines the winner.

I don't see it as a what-about-ism question. It's really more that a precedent set in TW, that some players may use to calculate strategy in GAC. This is applying a currently used mechanic in the game, to another game mode.

A what-about-ism would be: All names/rosters should be hidden during the defense setting stage, so a defense based on knowledge of opponents squads doesn't give anyone an advantage. If you have an "unbeatable" squad, knowing the opponents roster is an unfair advantage. Therefore, it should be hidden. I can see the difference between the two. One is a mechanic in the game currently, the other is asking for a change, based on perceived advantages.

If you think the false equivalency is because the order of magnitude of the event, I would suggest since the event rewards are very similar, then it could a fair comparison, Though the number of players zones/squads involved, perhaps that's a fair assessment. Not for me to decide.

And, personally, I also would not care if they chose to hide progress of battles in GAC.

Going second is absolutely an advantage.

However I would absolutely vote against hiding banners. I think showing the score adds so much more fun to the game. Hiding them removes the competitive aspect. It would reduce the decision making, make it just a boring banner hunt where you finish the board in the first thirty minutes, then forget about it for 23.5 hours until you check back to see what actually happened.