Forum Discussion

BeeblebroxRocks's avatar
BeeblebroxRocks
7 years ago

Grand Arena Scoring Loophole/Flaw..?

Hey, hope this is the right place to put this. After seeing the results of one of my guildmate's Grand Arena matchups it seems that there is a flaw or loophole in the way the game awards the "Banners"
So, in this instance his opponent hadn't set ANY (out of 6) defensive squads so he was awarded the 2*120 sector conquer banners plus the per slot bonus of 6*30 plus he set a full defence so got 6*90 for that giving him a total of 960 banners and so he will win...BUT:

Because the game doesn't award you any Banners for 'beating' squads if your opponent doesn't put a squad into a defensive slot it is theoretically possible to, well, I don't want to use the word 'cheat' but to win sneakily if you have a few strong squads but not enough to play fair, for example:

What Player-1 (P1) COULD have done is to set 3 Defensive squads in 1 sector (3 STRONG squads), and then lets assume that P1 is also capable of attacking and beating all 6 of Player-2's (P2) deployed defensive squads first time and without losing any attackers and all of them ended with Full Health but only 1 out of 30 ended up with Full Protection, in that instance P1 would score 270 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers, plus 180 for 6 squad conquers, plus 337 for battle wins and associated bonuses for survivors/health/prot etc. giving P1 a total of 1027 Banners
PLAYER-2 (Worst Case Scenario): P2 has gone ahead and set all 6 Defensive squads, but is unable to beat any of P1's 3 strong defensive squads so he only scores 540 for settings defences, plus 120 for 1 sector conquer (of the empty sector), plus 90 for 3 squad conquers (of the empty sector), and 0 for winning battle bonuses giving P2 a total of 750 Banners = LOSS
PLAYER-2 (Average Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat 2 out of the 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 120 for 1 sector conquer (of the empty sector) plus 150 for 5 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the two wins were comprehensive P2 gets 120 for two first time victories with all surviving and having full health and full protection remaining thus giving P2 a total of 930 Banners = LOSS
PLAYER-2 (Good Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat all 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers (including the empty sector) plus 180 for 6 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the three wins were hard fought and on 3rd attempt (or later) P2 gets 60 for three victories with all surviving but none of his chars having full health or full protection remaining and thus giving P2 a total of 1020 Banners = LOSS
PLAYER-2 (Perfect Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat all 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers (including the empty sector) plus 180 for 6 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the three wins were first time wins P2 gets 180 for three victories with all surviving and all having full health and full protection remaining and thus giving P2 a total of 1140 Banners = WIN

So, as you can see it is possible for P1 to put less defence and thus save more for attack and by doing so gain the scoring advantage in a large proportion of scoring outcomes, and P2 who actually placed a full defence can end up losing more often than not unless they have an awesome run of attack results.

SOLUTION: This kind of scoring loophole that allows squad-savers to win more easily could be avoided by awarding a player who comes up against an empty sector (i.e. P2) with the 120 Sector Conquer banners, plus the 30-per-slot Squad Conquer banners as it currently is but ALSO awarding them 50-per-slot Battle Win banners for each of the 'empty' slots (i.e. assume that they won on the first attempt and with all 5 characters surviving) - just my first thought on potential scoring update, could be fine-tuned, but certainly it seems a bit unfair to players that when they come up against an empty sector they aren't awarded any 'battle win' banners

....aaaand discuss :smile:
  • BeeblebroxRocks's avatar
    BeeblebroxRocks
    7 years ago
    "Boov;c-1716879" wrote:
    tl;dr
    there's no loophole


    Except that there clearly IS! But hey, reading and understanding math isn't for everyone, so don't feel bad!
  • EdisonQJames's avatar
    EdisonQJames
    7 years ago
    Your math makes sense for what you're doing. I don't know if the First Win bonuses go to a player for empty spaces, but even if not... Here's my problem with your theory here, and please don't take any offense from it:

    PLAYER-2 (Good Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat all 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers (including the empty sector) plus 180 for 6 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the three wins were hard fought and on 3rd attempt (or later) P2 gets 60 for three victories with all surviving but none of his chars having full health or full protection remaining and thus giving P2 a total of 1020 Banners = LOSS

    That's not a good scenario. That's not even close to a good scenario. If it takes someone 3+ battles to take down a single team, then they deserve to lose. That's either from lacking the proper team builds, or choosing the wrong counters. If even one of those battles were a win on the second attempt then you have a win based on your numbers above (which I'm not even going to validate, because I still think your scenario is poor).

    This game mode will reward those who can win on the first battles, or who know how to clean it up after the fact.
  • NyKynoe's avatar
    NyKynoe
    7 years ago
    So here is my math and I could be wrong:
    P1:
    3 defenses = 270
    6 wins = 270
    2 territories = 240
    6 conquered teams = 180
    Total = 960

    P1 (worst case as OP put it)
    6 defenses = 540
    3 wins = 135
    2 territories = 240
    3 conquered teams = 90
    Total = 1005

    Players 2 wins by placing more defenses.

    Other factors like open spots and health/protection bonuses can make a difference but all that being equal the player placing more defenses wins.

    Now players can strategize placing less units and then trying to make up the points with blank spots and perfect health/protection but if you can do that I think you earn the win. 45 points is a hard margins to make up that way.

    6 matches each 1 man down = 24 points
    Then you need 21 toons out of those matches to come out with full health/protection or some combination.

    Yes that seems doable but will be counter balanced by the other player having some combination of those points also.

    I'm not seeing how setting less defenses will land you a win.

    I think the OP didnt realize you get points for a conquer when a territory is blank.
  • BeeblebroxRocks's avatar
    BeeblebroxRocks
    7 years ago
    "Edison;c-1716895" wrote:
    Your math makes sense for what you're doing. I don't know if the First Win bonuses go to a player for empty spaces, but even if not... Here's my problem with your theory here, and please don't take any offense from it:

    PLAYER-2 (Good Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat all 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers (including the empty sector) plus 180 for 6 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the three wins were hard fought and on 3rd attempt (or later) P2 gets 60 for three victories with all surviving but none of his chars having full health or full protection remaining and thus giving P2 a total of 1020 Banners = LOSS

    That's not a good scenario. That's not even close to a good scenario. If it takes someone 3+ battles to take down a single team, then they deserve to lose. That's either from lacking the proper team builds, or choosing the wrong counters. If even one of those battles were a win on the second attempt then you have a win based on your numbers above (which I'm not even going to validate, because I still think your scenario is poor).

    This game mode will reward those who can win on the first battles, or who know how to clean it up after the fact.


    Yeah Edison, maybe "good" isn't the right word, lol, I was trying to give them scenario names that went from worst to best and was running out of "middling" descriptors :smile:
  • NyKynoe's avatar
    NyKynoe
    7 years ago
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716902" wrote:
    "Edison;c-1716895" wrote:
    Your math makes sense for what you're doing. I don't know if the First Win bonuses go to a player for empty spaces, but even if not... Here's my problem with your theory here, and please don't take any offense from it:

    PLAYER-2 (Good Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat all 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers (including the empty sector) plus 180 for 6 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the three wins were hard fought and on 3rd attempt (or later) P2 gets 60 for three victories with all surviving but none of his chars having full health or full protection remaining and thus giving P2 a total of 1020 Banners = LOSS

    That's not a good scenario. That's not even close to a good scenario. If it takes someone 3+ battles to take down a single team, then they deserve to lose. That's either from lacking the proper team builds, or choosing the wrong counters. If even one of those battles were a win on the second attempt then you have a win based on your numbers above (which I'm not even going to validate, because I still think your scenario is poor).

    This game mode will reward those who can win on the first battles, or who know how to clean it up after the fact.


    Yeah Edison, maybe "good" isn't the right word, lol, I was trying to give them scenario names that went from worst to best and was running out of "middling" descriptors :smile:


    If you lose because you didnt strategize your plan and then didnt win the matches you need to. You got beat. It's not a loophole or flaw, you lost.
  • EdisonQJames's avatar
    EdisonQJames
    7 years ago
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716902" wrote:


    Yeah Edison, maybe "good" isn't the right word, lol, I was trying to give them scenario names that went from worst to best and was running out of "middling" descriptors :smile:


    Haha. I run into that problem when I'm sending emails at work and the client keeps messaging back and I keep running out of friendly endings "Regards" "Thanks so much!" "Let me know if you need anything else" "Uh... Bye?"

    I can appreciate validating the viability of a game mode, especially one that figures will be important once it's in full swing. I ended up winning my battle, and it came down to the opponent having one extra attempt on one battle on one zone, and that was the difference maker. It felt good, but it put into perspective just how important that first offensive effort is.
  • BeeblebroxRocks's avatar
    BeeblebroxRocks
    7 years ago
    "Edison;c-1716905" wrote:
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716902" wrote:


    Yeah Edison, maybe "good" isn't the right word, lol, I was trying to give them scenario names that went from worst to best and was running out of "middling" descriptors :smile:


    Haha. I run into that problem when I'm sending emails at work and the client keeps messaging back and I keep running out of friendly endings "Regards" "Thanks so much!" "Let me know if you need anything else" "Uh... Bye?"

    I can appreciate validating the viability of a game mode, especially one that figures will be important once it's in full swing. I ended up winning my battle, and it came down to the opponent having one extra attempt on one battle on one zone, and that was the difference maker. It felt good, but it put into perspective just how important that first offensive effort is.


    Yeah I work in support some days, I know those clients!!

    I got beat in my Grand Arena but deserved to lose, they had 1 awesome squad that I had no way to beat - oh well, try again next time - I just don't want people to see not putting defences in 1 sector as a viable win option as this new game mode gets more mature as it could ruin the fun of it
  • BeeblebroxRocks's avatar
    BeeblebroxRocks
    7 years ago
    "Boov;c-1716912" wrote:
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716910" wrote:
    "Edison;c-1716905" wrote:
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716902" wrote:


    Yeah Edison, maybe "good" isn't the right word, lol, I was trying to give them scenario names that went from worst to best and was running out of "middling" descriptors :smile:


    Haha. I run into that problem when I'm sending emails at work and the client keeps messaging back and I keep running out of friendly endings "Regards" "Thanks so much!" "Let me know if you need anything else" "Uh... Bye?"

    I can appreciate validating the viability of a game mode, especially one that figures will be important once it's in full swing. I ended up winning my battle, and it came down to the opponent having one extra attempt on one battle on one zone, and that was the difference maker. It felt good, but it put into perspective just how important that first offensive effort is.


    Yeah I work in support some days, I know those clients!!

    I got beat in my Grand Arena but deserted to lose, they had 1 awesome squad that I had no way to beat - oh well, try again next time - I just don't want people to see not putting defences in 1 sector as a viable win option as this new game mode gets more mature as it could ruin the fun of it


    well, math isn't for everyone, so don't feel bad. Glad i could help ;)


    None of that mentioned any math, clearly your reading abilities haven't improved!
  • BeeblebroxRocks's avatar
    BeeblebroxRocks
    7 years ago
    "Kyno;c-1716904" wrote:
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716902" wrote:
    "Edison;c-1716895" wrote:
    Your math makes sense for what you're doing. I don't know if the First Win bonuses go to a player for empty spaces, but even if not... Here's my problem with your theory here, and please don't take any offense from it:

    PLAYER-2 (Good Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat all 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers (including the empty sector) plus 180 for 6 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the three wins were hard fought and on 3rd attempt (or later) P2 gets 60 for three victories with all surviving but none of his chars having full health or full protection remaining and thus giving P2 a total of 1020 Banners = LOSS

    That's not a good scenario. That's not even close to a good scenario. If it takes someone 3+ battles to take down a single team, then they deserve to lose. That's either from lacking the proper team builds, or choosing the wrong counters. If even one of those battles were a win on the second attempt then you have a win based on your numbers above (which I'm not even going to validate, because I still think your scenario is poor).

    This game mode will reward those who can win on the first battles, or who know how to clean it up after the fact.


    Yeah Edison, maybe "good" isn't the right word, lol, I was trying to give them scenario names that went from worst to best and was running out of "middling" descriptors :smile:


    If you lose because you didnt strategize your plan and then didnt win the matches you need to. You got beat. It's not a loophole or flaw, you lost.


    I know what you're saying, but if it is possible to set all 6 defence, win against the limited squads put in front of you (albeit not first time around), and still lose then that seems like a flaw - it's not a 'big' window of opportunity for sneaky approach, but it is there. It didn't affect me, so no skin off my nose, but it does seem open to misuse.

    Anyway, I've brought it up, so I guess EA/CG will now decide if it needs any tweaking or not :smile:
  • NyKynoe's avatar
    NyKynoe
    7 years ago
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716933" wrote:
    "Kyno;c-1716904" wrote:
    "Beeblebrox;c-1716902" wrote:
    "Edison;c-1716895" wrote:
    Your math makes sense for what you're doing. I don't know if the First Win bonuses go to a player for empty spaces, but even if not... Here's my problem with your theory here, and please don't take any offense from it:

    PLAYER-2 (Good Scenario): P2 sets all 6 Defensive squads, P2 manages to beat all 3 strong defensive squads set by P1 so P2 scores 540 for setting defences, plus 240 for 2 sector conquers (including the empty sector) plus 180 for 6 squad conquers (including the empty sector slots), and assuming the three wins were hard fought and on 3rd attempt (or later) P2 gets 60 for three victories with all surviving but none of his chars having full health or full protection remaining and thus giving P2 a total of 1020 Banners = LOSS

    That's not a good scenario. That's not even close to a good scenario. If it takes someone 3+ battles to take down a single team, then they deserve to lose. That's either from lacking the proper team builds, or choosing the wrong counters. If even one of those battles were a win on the second attempt then you have a win based on your numbers above (which I'm not even going to validate, because I still think your scenario is poor).

    This game mode will reward those who can win on the first battles, or who know how to clean it up after the fact.


    Yeah Edison, maybe "good" isn't the right word, lol, I was trying to give them scenario names that went from worst to best and was running out of "middling" descriptors :smile:


    If you lose because you didnt strategize your plan and then didnt win the matches you need to. You got beat. It's not a loophole or flaw, you lost.


    I know what you're saying, but if it is possible to set all 6 defence, win against the limited squads put in front of you (albeit not first time around), and still lose then that seems like a flaw - it's not a 'big' window of opportunity for sneaky approach, but it is there. It didn't affect me, so no skin off my nose, but it does seem open to misuse.

    Anyway, I've brought it up, so I guess EA/CG will now decide if it needs any tweaking or not :smile:


    How is poor planning on a players side an opening for misuse?

    If you do not plan to face the possible teams you opponent has, and then fail to win the points you could have with better planning, shouldn't you lose?

    How you place teams and plan to play your offense is called startegy, not a flaw.

About SWGOH General Discussion

Discuss and share your feedback on Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes with fellow players.

78,398 PostsLatest Activity: 3 minutes ago