Grand Arena Hitting Last an Advantage?

"Rosstheboss89;c-1957686" wrote:
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.

What you describe is not really an advantage. The information, you got in that situation, simply helps you to a less stressfull attack phase. You score less than your best and still win easily. It didn't help you perform better in this situation.

"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.

"Rhunne;c-1957525" wrote:
There is no advantage to going first or second, sure you can calculate what you need to win, but that just adds to the stress of trying to get there instead of just enjoying the ga

I'm reasonably sure the folks who are hardcore all about this being an advantage have never enjoyed anything in their life. Except maybe overanalyzing things in general.

"Rosstheboss89;c-1957686" wrote:
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.

Except that there are material benefits to you if you full clear anyway. There are feats, for one, and the more banners you get the better your rank will be which gives you better rewards both when you promote and when the event ends. You should be going for a full clear every time. Saying that going second is a worthwhile advantage and then saying it's because you know you don't need to get the most banners possible is like saying taking three days off at work is an advantage because you know you only need two days pay to make rent.

"plindboe;c-1957760" wrote:
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

People aren't saying it's not an advantage. They're saying it's a negligible advantage that doesn't really matter and that people are blowing it out of proportion. They're also saying that going first has its own set of advantages that are being overlooked by the OP and their supporters.

"IntrepidFox;c-1957761" wrote:

"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."

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.

"plindboe;c-1957760" wrote:
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

At the same time others claim that it's a fact that attacking first is an advantage.
And yet others claim that you don't perform better wether you attack first or second.

How do you feel about that? What's your moon made of? Gingerbread?

"IntrepidFox;c-1957761" wrote:

"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"

No. The answer should be: "Whatever helps me to the better score."

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.

Cue everyone who doesn't like losing their "advantage" but are unwilling to admit that a rotating time would be fair to start calling this a bad idea.

"kalidor;c-1957840" wrote:
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.

This is far too much common sense for this forum!! Remove this person.

I think if some people feel it is an advantage for them, but they never get the chance to exercise that advantage because of the fixed time of the event, then it seems fair to rotate the event start time. I think all of the counter arguments against that are just mental gymnastics people are undertaking in order to support their own bias, conscious or otherwise.

"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.