Plz hide ga opponent's results

"Waqui;c-1912501" wrote:

"Scuttlebutt;c-1912315" wrote:

"Khezmell;c-1912310" wrote:
There was a debate regarding this topic during the exhibition. Going 1st/2nd isnt that important. If you dont want to go first, just wait

This has been debated since at least January or February if I remember right. There is a slight advantage to going second, but not big enough to merit a dedicated effort at changing it.

It was debated before. Going second doesn't help you perform better than your best. It can help make your offense less stressful. That's all. Whatever you score by going second you can score by going first as well.

Knowing how many points you need to win allows you to take risks that you wouldn’t normally take. I explained it in my post and thought Bulldog’s video explained it better. It’s not just less stressful, it’s a strategy. Some people have to cleverly pick their battles because completely destroying the opponent isn’t an option.

If I see a 50-50 shot at winning a match with wampa against rebels vs using a full NS which would almost certainly provide 58 points, and if I’m losing by 61, I would always gamble on using the wampa. If I go first or don’t know my opponent’s banners, I would most likely take the easier win and get 58 points...and thus lose the match.

That’s the strategy. It’s real...now if you want (I don’t because I already stated my opinion), we can argue it’s significance.

"Waqui;c-1912501" wrote:

"Scuttlebutt;c-1912315" wrote:

"Khezmell;c-1912310" wrote:
There was a debate regarding this topic during the exhibition. Going 1st/2nd isnt that important. If you dont want to go first, just wait

This has been debated since at least January or February if I remember right. There is a slight advantage to going second, but not big enough to merit a dedicated effort at changing it.

It was debated before. Going second doesn't help you perform better than your best. It can help make your offense less stressful. That's all. Whatever you score by going second you can score by going first as well.

While you’re right in that going second won’t make you “play better” it will help you decide what risks to take or not. If you’re unsure whether you can beat team A with an undersized squad, then knowing whether or not you need those extra 1 or 2 points for the win can help you decide if it’s worth risking losing 30 points by not finishing them with one team. And while the folks at the top of leaderboard always go for a full clear, some players may put in heavier defenses, hoping that their opponent won’t clear them out. In that case, knowing how many territories you need to win will determine things like whether, for example, you need to split up your Jedi into 2 teams for 2 questionable wins or keep them at 1 for a guaranteed win.

"Waqui;c-1912501" wrote:

"Scuttlebutt;c-1912315" wrote:

"Khezmell;c-1912310" wrote:
There was a debate regarding this topic during the exhibition. Going 1st/2nd isnt that important. If you dont want to go first, just wait

This has been debated since at least January or February if I remember right. There is a slight advantage to going second, but not big enough to merit a dedicated effort at changing it.

It was debated before. Going second doesn't help you perform better than your best. It can help make your offense less stressful. That's all. Whatever you score by going second you can score by going first as well.

It’s not about attacking being “stressful”, it’s about concrete advantages you get once you know exactly how many teams you need to beat and how many banners you need to win. Several examples of the strategic advantages of attacking second have already been mentioned,

You can either argue why you think none of those reasons matters or you can acknowledge that there may be strategical aspects of GAs that you have failed to understand but keep repeating “it has already been debated” is not an argument nor does it make it a fact.

If you're that concerned about who goes first, just play "chicken" with respect to your attacks. Don't ruin the mode for the 99% who don't care and / or enjoy seeing the opponents real time progress.

You could always do What I do since I hate waiting 23 hours my Opponent to attack. I attack half of his board then leave the other half for later. This normally prompts the opponent to at least try to match my progress. Then I can judge whether he can't even match what I have done so far so just take my time working on the rest or I need to be more optimal in my last 1/2 battles or they still don't attack until late which makes no difference anyway.

I always attack first. My opponents see that their @$S is handed to them and they generally don’t even try at that point.

"Waqui;c-1912503" wrote:

"Bulldog1205;c-1912475" wrote:

"Vos_Landeck;c-1912340" wrote:
Knowing how many banners you need doesn’t make it any easier to get them. If your opponents are full clearing you every time on single attempts and with multiple short-handed teams then your defense is too soft.

But the problem is it can! A strategy I’ve use a lot in past GAs has been to set an extremely tough defense that my opponent probably can’t clear, wait to see how many teams he leaves, and then ignore his top teams that I know I don’t even need to beat. If I know I need to win 4 battles to get the victory, I can choose the easiest 4 matchups. If I didn’t know how many I needed I would try to win as many as possible, which could open the door for losses that leave me in trouble. Here is a perfect example of that strategy playing out:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej225jPA2FQ

This video still only shows how going second made your offense less stressfull. It didn't improve your performance one bit.

Yes, it did. It eliminated any risk of a loss. If I had attacked first, it’s possible you could have seen the exact opposite result, where an early loss ruined my attack pattern and then my opponent got to cherry pick the easy battles.

"TVF;c-1912598" wrote:

"Austin9370;c-1912549" wrote:
If you're that concerned about who goes first, just play "chicken" with respect to your attacks. Don't ruin the mode for the 99% who don't care and / or enjoy seeing the opponents real time progress.

Can you play chicken with your rooster?

To put a chicken versus a rooster would be a slap in the face to FTP.

"TVF;c-1912598" wrote:

"Austin9370;c-1912549" wrote:
If you're that concerned about who goes first, just play "chicken" with respect to your attacks. Don't ruin the mode for the 99% who don't care and / or enjoy seeing the opponents real time progress.

Can you play chicken with your rooster?

You can....but it could lead to a very fowl ending.

Okay...ummm...I see the door...

"JediMindTricks;c-1913318" wrote:

"TooOldForThis;c-1912290" wrote:
Agree, right now there is no incentive to put good teams on defense. Just save your 6 or 8 strongest teams, do some simple math, and you almost can’t lose.

I’d have to disagree. I always put my best teams of defense and use the remainder of my mediocre teams to squeak out the win. Now I don’t always clear the entire table....but I have before. I also always go first.

I don’t always win with going hard on defense but I do win a lot more than I lose.

I’d rather both back to the old GA so matches like this get properly rewarded. Instead you get punished for leaving about 500 points on the board. Let’s say that is an average match for you and compare it to someone who goes full offense and always clears the board. Over a full season (15 matches) if you go 10-5 you will end up with the same score as someone who goes 3-12. Just think about that for a second...