What team without Grievous should I farm and gear to unlock 7 star Padme in 1-2 months (next return)

"Letareus;c-1900487" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1900179" wrote:
Regardless of your meager protestations you are arguing about something that doesn't concern you and mistaken in 90% of your counterarguments anyway.

For the last and final time, please get my words out of your mouth (that means don't quote me, don't argue with me, and for the love of pete don't let your ego tell you to explain how you're "right" yet again)

Your arguments had no merit to begin with. I told you exactly why I didn't bother putting more in it in my last short post. Accept that truth because it will set you free from your egotistical posturings. You really have only discord to sow by responding to me again.

Your own words are far more appropriately applied to yourself.

My primary arguments all ultimately respond directly to or relate to things you said directly to me. For example, the viability of a team without Grievous is a topic that you addressed me on directly me many, many times and which is of primary importance to my ultimate goal here. Now, according to you, it is something that doesn't concern me.

I support all my arguments with evidence, detail, and/or specifics. You do not. You mostly ignore evidence and respond with unsupported general claims to the effect of "you're wrong lulz." It is easy to say anything you want when you don't back it up. Your arguments are the ones without merit.

And you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of when you responded to MasterSeedy in your last post. Exactly the same thing. MasterSeedy was clearly addressing @Shadowscream, not you. By your logic, "you are arguing about something that doesn't concern you." Pure hypocrisy.

More examples of your ego leading you to spew troll bait. I respond to an opinion saying "I disagree", you responded saying "you're wrong". Subtle nuances of words that just go right over your head. Over and over and over and over again...

No hypocrisy on my part. Nothing incorrect in my statements. Just your glaring inability to take my corrections of your misinterpretation and insisting opinions are wrong while trying to use insufficient evidence to "prove me wrong" on the few factual things you address.

I didn't get offended at anything you said. I got frustrated at your pigheaded ineptitude despite repeated corrections.

So what did you accomplish here? Sowing discord and feeding your ego all because you can't recognize the conversation you are having. Please, for the love of pete realize you are not even addressing what I'm saying let alone understanding it.

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
I respond to an opinion saying "I disagree", you responded saying "you're wrong". Subtle nuances of words that just go right over your head. Over and over and over and over again...

Not that it matters, but I never actually said "you're wrong," in response to you or anyone else in this thread Actually, MasterSeedy was the only one who used that specific phrase in response to you, and MightyWizard said something to you to the same effect as well. But even if I had said that there'd be nothing wrong with it. Whether one says "I disagree" or "you're wrong" is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with responding to posts that were directed toward someone else. And you do it yourself. There's nothing wrong with that either except that you pick on me for doing the same.

Hypothetical example:
Person A to Person B: Treatment X is an effective remedy for your illness.
Me: . That treatment has been completely discredited by empirical, scientific testing.
Person A to me: I wasn't talking to you, so your objection is invalid. Everything I said is true.

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
No hypocrisy on my part. Nothing incorrect in my statements. Just your glaring inability to take my corrections of your misinterpretation and insisting opinions are wrong while trying to use insufficient evidence to "prove me wrong" on the few factual things you address.

I guess you missed the couple of instances where I admitted fault and accepted your corrections. But you've misinterpreted many of my statements as well and have never admitted fault. That, as well as your own responses to posts not directed at you, is hypocrisy.

The evidence in favor of the viability of a Padme 7* unlock team without Grievous that I assume is what you claim is insufficient is solid and far stronger than your evidence against it. The feat was replicated by far too many people in far too short a period of time for it to be as unlikely to the extreme that you describe. In addition, the viability of such a team will be greatly increased the next time around with the addition of reworks.

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
I didn't get offended at anything you said.

You didn't get offended when I referenced your arena record? You did say it was "below the belt" which was not the intention but which highly suggests offense. Anyway, if you didn't, that's good and I stand corrected. I do regret that specific action but not the intent, and you did completely misinterpret the intent of that (I have still never clearly stated what that intent is).

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
So what did you accomplish here? Sowing discord and feeding your ego all because you can't recognize the conversation you are having. Please, for the love of pete realize you are not even addressing what I'm saying let alone understanding it.

I won't allow you to spew nonsense about me uncontested. What I'm trying to accomplish, and it's an ongoing process, is defending myself, correcting the record, and trying in vain to get you to stop posting here. I will concede that you have a few good points. However, you've also made many bad points and are dogged in your defense of them (which was a factor in how this all started). Moreover, you don't believe in the viability of a team without Grievous and thus only detract from and cannot contribute to the primary purpose of this thread.

Of course, nobody can stop you except yourself. What are you trying to accomplish here? If you feel the way you feel, why are you even posting in this thread anymore except to harass me and sow the very discord you supposedly decry?

"Letareus;c-1901245" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
I respond to an opinion saying "I disagree", you responded saying "you're wrong". Subtle nuances of words that just go right over your head. Over and over and over and over again...

Not that it matters, but I never actually said "you're wrong," in response to you or anyone else in this thread Actually, MasterSeedy was the only one who used that specific phrase in response to you, and MightyWizard said something to you to the same effect as well. But even if I had said that there'd be nothing wrong with it. Whether one says "I disagree" or "you're wrong" is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with responding to posts that were directed toward someone else. And you do it yourself. There's nothing wrong with that either except that you pick on me for doing the same.

Hypothetical example:
Person A to Person B: Treatment X is an effective remedy for your illness.
Me: . That treatment has been completely discredited by empirical, scientific testing.
Person A to me: I wasn't talking to you, so your objection is invalid. Everything I said is true.

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
No hypocrisy on my part. Nothing incorrect in my statements. Just your glaring inability to take my corrections of your misinterpretation and insisting opinions are wrong while trying to use insufficient evidence to "prove me wrong" on the few factual things you address.

I guess you missed the couple of instances where I admitted fault and accepted your corrections. But you've misinterpreted many of my statements as well and have never admitted fault. That, as well as your own responses to posts not directed at you, is hypocrisy.

The evidence in favor of the viability of a Padme 7* unlock team without Grievous that I assume is what you claim is insufficient is solid and far stronger than your evidence against it. The feat was replicated by far too many people in far too short a period of time for it to be as unlikely to the extreme that you describe. In addition, the viability of such a team will be greatly increased the next time around with the addition of reworks.

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
I didn't get offended at anything you said.

You didn't get offended when I referenced your arena record? You did say it was "below the belt" which was not the intention but which highly suggests offense. Anyway, if you didn't, that's good and I stand corrected. I do regret that specific action but not the intent, and you did completely misinterpret the intent of that (I have still never clearly stated what that intent is).

"Woodroward;c-1901043" wrote:
So what did you accomplish here? Sowing discord and feeding your ego all because you can't recognize the conversation you are having. Please, for the love of pete realize you are not even addressing what I'm saying let alone understanding it.

I won't allow you to spew nonsense about me uncontested. What I'm trying to accomplish, and it's an ongoing process, is defending myself, correcting the record, and trying in vain to get you to stop posting here. I will concede that you have a few good points. However, you've also made many bad points and are dogged in your defense of them (which was a factor in how this all started). Moreover, you don't believe in the viability of a team without Grievous and thus only detract from and cannot contribute to the primary purpose of this thread.

Of course, nobody can stop you except yourself. What are you trying to accomplish here? If you feel the way you feel, why are you even posting in this thread anymore except to harass me and sow the very discord you supposedly decry?

Very insufficient. The forums are where the elite people go. Finding ONLY 5 people that won without GG is not evidence that it is easy, not even close.

It's not hypocrisy. AGAIN, my complaint was that you responded to an opinion saying I was wrong. To which I responded I wasn't even talking to you, mind your own business. If you had said "I disagree" I wouldn't have. Go reread. You are way off base in every one of your posts directed towards me.

I didn't get offended. I told you you were diverting from an intellectual argument to enter a show-off contest. It's like trying to prove you're a better person than someone else because you have more money. It is below the belt.

Nothing I have said about you is nonsense. I correct your misinterpretations of my words (I said really necessary you say I said necessary. I correct you, you double down and say it doesn't mean anything). You did that again. Right here, in this post. "oh there's no difference between I disagree and you're wrong.... There's a huge difference. One terms is used for opinions (disagree), one is used for facts (wrong, incorrect). It's like I said, subtle nuances of words that go right over your head.

If you don't accept my corrections of your misinterpretations of my words, you are arguing against yourself, not me. You keep quoting me to not actually argue against me. I am no longer polite about it because you CONTINUE to do it despite being corrected over and over and over and over.

So yes you are the one sowing discord because your trample over posts like a bull in a china shop. No respect for their meanings, you just have to be right.

Hello everyone! Let's stop the personal arguments and keep things on topic. Let's talk solely about the game without being rude to each other. Please take a look at the forum guidelines and rules:

https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/127295/forum-guidelines

~EA_Joz

I will endeavor to respect EA_Joz's wishes.

"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
Very insufficient. The forums are where the elite people go. Finding ONLY 5 people that won without GG is not evidence that it is easy, not even close.

This part is completely on topic so I will address it fully. I never claimed that 7 starring Padme without Grievous would be easy. I do in fact believe it would be hard. Something can be hard but still be far from unlikely. My contention is that it's a viable option - difficult but far from unlikely to the extreme to which it was characterized.

And it was characterized as not merely unlikely, but unlikely to a very high degree with terms like "perfect RNG" and a "million attempts." First, it's at least 8 total people found in a brief search who were able to pull it off. 6 people replicated the attempt in the initial Reddit post in just a few days. That's more than enough to demonstrate that it's far from unlikely to an extreme - it doesn't take perfect RNG or a million attempts. If it was unlikely to the extent described, one would expect nobody would have been able to replicate the feat in the given timespan, or at most one. In addition, the reworks should significantly improve the likelihood of pulling it off without Grievous.

In my opinion, this would be an accurate description of the Grievous situation: To 7 star Padme, using Grievous is highly recommended. Grievous is the most ideal character for the task and makes the event significantly easier. However, if one is unable to obtain and gear Grievous and the rest of the team in time for the event, it is still possible to construct a viable team for the task.

"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
It's not hypocrisy. AGAIN, my complaint was that you responded to an opinion saying I was wrong. To which I responded I wasn't even talking to you, mind your own business. If you had said "I disagree" I wouldn't have. Go reread.

I did reread it, and I may have missed it but I believe that was someone else who said you were wrong in that instance. I did respond saying I agreed with that person.

"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
I didn't get offended. I told you you were diverting from an intellectual argument to enter a show-off contest. It's like trying to prove you're a better person than someone else because you have more money. It is below the belt.

That's totally not what I meant or was trying to do. My own record is nothing special. I won't elaborate as it may be off topic. If you agree, I'm wiling to take this and other parts to PM's.

"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
"oh there's no difference between I disagree and you're wrong.... There's a huge difference. One terms is used for opinions (disagree), one is used for facts (wrong, incorrect). It's like I said, subtle nuances of words that go right over your head.

That's not what I was saying.

"Letareus;c-1901767" wrote:
I will endeavor to respect EA_Joz's wishes.

"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
Very insufficient. The forums are where the elite people go. Finding ONLY 5 people that won without GG is not evidence that it is easy, not even close.

This part is completely on topic so I will address it fully. I never claimed that 7 starring Padme without Grievous would be easy. I do in fact believe it would be hard. Something can be hard but still be far from unlikely. My contention is that it's a viable option - difficult but far from unlikely to the extreme to which it was characterized.

And it was characterized as not merely unlikely, but unlikely to a very high degree with terms like "perfect RNG" and a "million attempts." First, it's at least 8 total people found in a brief search who were able to pull it off. 6 people replicated the attempt in the initial Reddit post in just a few days. That's more than enough to demonstrate that it's far from unlikely to an extreme - it doesn't take perfect RNG or a million attempts. If it was unlikely to the extent described, one would expect nobody would have been able to replicate the feat in the given timespan, or at most one. In addition, the reworks should significantly improve the likelihood of pulling it off without Grievous.

There are millions of people who play this game. It is installed several thousand times a day according a site I looked at. There are thousands of people on the forums. of those thousands you found 5. So less than 1% of the population is on the forums. Of those elite less than 1% players, less than 1% of them did it without GG.

A million to a thousand is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001. A thousand to single digits is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001.

.001 * .001 = .000001 or .0001% Your finding those 5 people who got it without GG is equivalent to showing that .0001% of the game population did it without GG (1 out of 1,000,000). It is evidence that it is extremely unlikely to get it without GG. Now if you had a whole thread where every response in it was people doing it without GG, that'd be another thing. Your evidence literally supports it being 1 in a million at this point.

Point is, your evidence is flimsy at best. Now please stop arguing with me, for the last time.

EDITED to clarify math.

"Woodroward;c-1902171" wrote:
There are millions of people who play this game. It is installed several thousand times a day according a site I looked at. There are thousands of people on the forums. of those thousands you found 5. So less than 1% of the population is on the forums. Of those elite less than 1% players, less than 1% of them did it without GG.

A million to a thousand is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001. A thousand to single digits is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001.

.001 * .001 = .000001 or .0001% Your finding those 5 people who got it without GG is equivalent to showing that .0001% of the game population did it without GG (1 out of 1,000,000). It is evidence that it is extremely unlikely to get it without GG. Now if you had a whole thread where every response in it was people doing it without GG, that'd be another thing. Your evidence literally supports it being 1 in a million at this point.

Point is, your evidence is flimsy at best. Now please stop arguing with me, for the last time.

First, to be clear, I found 8 total, but it's true that in this context there's not much difference between 5 and 8. There were also many people in that thread who posted in support who did not explicitly say they pulled it off, so I didn't count them. And if I looked for more than a few minutes, I could probably find more. But that's a minor point.

The total sample which you used as a dividend is inappropriate. It should not be the entire game population (like any mobile game, most download the game to try it or mess around for a short period of time, then lose interest), nor even the entire forum population. It should only be those among forum posters who actually attempted to 7 star Padme without Grievous. A case can be made to include those who tried it with Grievous as well, though I don't think they should.

Regardless, it should be successful attempts among forum posters out of total attempts among forum posters. I don't know what that number is, but I'd guess it's a lot less than a million or even a thousand. Here's an analogy: to calculate a particular US college's acceptance rate, it should be number of acceptances to that college out of total applicants to that specific college - total forum users would be like everyone who applied to any college that year, and total game base would be like the entire US population.

Think about it, if you use your total sample, it would seem extremely unlikely for even people with Grievous to succeed in the event. Even if you grant 100 forum posters (a made up number) reporting success with Grievous (the actual number is probably much lower, I'd guess 2-3 dozen at most), 100 out of 1 million (1/10k) is still an extremely low success rate which does not reflect the true effectiveness of a proper Grievous team in the event which I would guess to be above 70-90% or higher.

Is it more likely that at least 8 people managed to defy million to 1 odds in a few days, or that the odds aren't quite that bad? That's all I was saying my evidence showed. I wasn't saying it was evidence that a team without Grievous was a good idea; indeed, I don't believe that to be the case. It's evidence that one has a real shot without Grievous and should at least try; if the odds were as dire as portrayed, one shouldn't even bother to try. And those odds were for the last time around - the reworks should greatly improve them.

Also, on reflection, I believe it's possible that some of our disagreements are misunderstandings on both sides, and I extend an offer to clear them up, not to argue, via PM's if you are willing and can keep an open mind. It is perfectly understandable if you decline.

i ran g9 Nute (lead) | g12 zDooku | g12 zzAsajj | g8 Jango | g8 Sun Fac to unlock her at 7* and i did it in one attempt on auto

I used Bugs.



I think Poggle was worse at G8 back then but the rest are probably close to what I passed 7* with.

Jango Fett

MVP for getting Padme 7* easily. His kills = no rez