Hide points for GA

There is strategy to be played by seeing the points. So no

Shouldn’t your strategy be try to earn the most points with bonuses no matter what the opponent does? Time of attacks has nothing to do with it.

I like it as is. You can both provoke your opponent by half clearing and letting him wonder what you have left or come in late or just get done with it. This brings in another poker like strategy element.

"3pourr2;c-1731906" wrote:
Shouldn’t your strategy be try to earn the most points with bonuses no matter what the opponent does? Time of attacks has nothing to do with it.

No. The goal is to earn more points than your opponent. Whether you win by 1 or 100 is irrelevant. Thus, the optimal strategy is to obtain that point total in the way with the lowest possible risk. If my opponent clears my board, but has to use 2 attacks against one team, my strategy is simply to clear his teams first try. So when I get to his phoenix team, while I could attempt to clear it with just wampa, since my strategy is simply first clears, I run wampa as part of a full team. Why take the risk of just pure horrible rng? If my opponent clears my board on the first try, then I can figure out how many points I need to average per team to win, so I can figure out the optimal configuration. Maybe I run a couple of teams using 4 characters to ensure I cover the gap. Maybe I run full teams except against phoenix or whatever. The more information you have, the more you can optimize your strategy to achieve the ultimate goal which is outscoring your opponent. So there's a definite advantage to attacking second.

I thought about it and my conclusion was that if you are in a scenario where you can win by using less toons, then by all means go for it. It doesn't make winning on offense any easier but much tougher since we are exhausted from using our best teams while the opposing defense might be a strong one and we only have the scraps to use

Alternately, you can attack late if that's your thing. I like to know hours ahead if I'm losing or winning rather than waiting for the round to end to find out

"3pourr2;c-1731906" wrote:
Shouldn’t your strategy be try to earn the most points with bonuses no matter what the opponent does? Time of attacks has nothing to do with it.

This.

"Ultra;c-1731902" wrote:
I thought about it and my conclusion was that if you are in a scenario where you can win by using less toons, then by all means go for it. It doesn't make winning on offense any easier but much tougher since we are exhausted from using our best teams while the opposing defense might be a strong one and we only have the scraps to use

Alternately, you can attack late if that's your thing. I like to know hours ahead if I'm losing or winning rather than waiting for the round to end to find out

This. If you can do it you should.

"Ultra;c-1731902" wrote:
I thought about it and my conclusion was that if you are in a scenario where you can win by using less toons, then by all means go for it. It doesn't make winning on offense any easier but much tougher since we are exhausted from using our best teams while the opposing defense might be a strong one and we only have the scraps to use

Alternately, you can attack late if that's your thing. I like to know hours ahead if I'm losing or winning rather than waiting for the round to end to find out

Based on what i've seen so far, the rng element in the fights also means that your bonus from sending in an underdog team could be negated. E.g. Sending in bastilla yoda, but having all 3 enemies focusing mostly on yoda might make u lose the max prot bonus, giving u 54 instead of 55. Or worse, it could totally screw up and u dont clear it. Being the first attacker, most would generally player the safer options if they have enough toons available. As the second attacker however, if you know u WILL lose if you don't take the gamble, the option is clear.

And not everyone has the liberty to attack in the last hour because of timezone issues. Like yourself, i prefer to attack early, but most times i have to wait till the next morning to know what happened in the night before.

"Obi1_son;c-1731901" wrote:
There is strategy to be played by seeing the points. So no

This is clearly the strategy i am against when it boils down to a close matchup. It doesnt sit well knowing that you could wake up with your opponent winning by just 1 point simply because he saw your points and could attack based on that while you were asleep.

So wait to attack then.

"TVF;c-1731941" wrote:
So wait to attack then.

Oh i would totally do that if GA cycles dont end at 5am for me. This isnt an issue for TW because with guilds, the chance that someone is there to help mop up in the last 2 hrs of TW is way higher than if you had to stay up till 3-4am to decide how to proceed.

Alot of information is in the points. It lets u take a calculated gamble. Ever heard of conditional probability?

Just my take on it. I'm playing at <2.75mil bracket. As soon as the first round of deployment opens. I scan my opponents rosters quickly and see who will be a challenge. Do I care when I'm 2-0 and go against the other 2-0, and we are close in points, definitely. It's up to the player to predict their opponent's strategy on offense/defense based on their opponent's characters. That's a lot of the fun of close matches. Points shouldn't dictate your moves if you planned well.