Grand Arena Megathread

Replies

  • Gannon
    1473 posts Member
    Streve wrote: »
    I do not have Revan nor am I going to spend hundreds of dollars just to get him. Grand Arena really sucks when my opponent did spend the dollars to get him. It's an automatic loss for me.

    He's free.. There was more than enough time to get him.. You're not doing something right if that's your complaint.
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rebel73 wrote: »
    Droideka wrote: »
    This is the most brain dead layout I have ever seen. The ship territory is in the back and very irrelevant, because it is in the hardest to reach territory. Grand Arena is back to punishing players who focuses on ships, because what good are these ship territory if you need the ground teams to reach them first?

    I believe matchmaking is, as much as possible, done separately on both character GP and ship GP, i.e. you'll be matched with people who have the same ratio of character to ship GP as you do. Most people in my current league have almost identical points in both. I've focused on ships quite heavily (regularly #1 on my shard - or I was until OT Falcon anyway :D) and I am not at a disadvantage in GA any more.
    Nope. It is based on total GP without regard to the fleet/squad breakdown. I know that because I analyzed it for the two 3v3 squad-only GAs. The spread in total GP across my brackets was a fraction of one percent while the spread in squad GP was up to 45%.

    According to the latest official road ahead post, future squad-only GAs will be matched on character GP rather that total GP.
    Rebel73 wrote: »
    The ship zone being in the rear just adds a layer of strategy. For instance, I've put my strongest two defensive teams in the lower zone and also kept a couple of strong teams for offense, knowing that if they punch through the just-about-ok teams I've set to defend my top row, my ships will definitely hold. Whereas I have the firepower to take their top row entirely because I've saved some good teams for offense and then I will take their ship zone too. I have enough ship power to both defend and attack with confidence, so I am going to win.
    The ship zone being in the front adds a layer of strategy.

    I hate ships, I would totally be against this. Battles take too long and are very rng heavy even between very similar matchups imo.
    I could get behind ships being on a separate row tho, so nothing is blocked or can 'hide'
  • ANH
    10 posts Member
    Dear CG,
    GA is by far my favorite mode in the game. So, thanks for that!
    That said, a few months back, you told us you were going to fix the situation when people failed to set defenses. You even released something along these lines but pulled it back.
    One of the reasons GA is so great is the chance to strategize your battles on offense, but when the opponent takes that away from you by not setting defense, they destroy half of the fun of the mode. Besides, they steal your shot at $600k+ of tokens.
    When can we expect auto-defense to be implemented?
    Thanks!
  • Dk_rek
    3163 posts Member
    edited February 12
    Gannon wrote: »
    Streve wrote: »
    I do not have Revan nor am I going to spend hundreds of dollars just to get him. Grand Arena really sucks when my opponent did spend the dollars to get him. It's an automatic loss for me.

    He's free.. There was more than enough time to get him.. You're not doing something right if that's your complaint.
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Rebel73 wrote: »
    Droideka wrote: »
    This is the most brain dead layout I have ever seen. The ship territory is in the back and very irrelevant, because it is in the hardest to reach territory. Grand Arena is back to punishing players who focuses on ships, because what good are these ship territory if you need the ground teams to reach them first?

    I believe matchmaking is, as much as possible, done separately on both character GP and ship GP, i.e. you'll be matched with people who have the same ratio of character to ship GP as you do. Most people in my current league have almost identical points in both. I've focused on ships quite heavily (regularly #1 on my shard - or I was until OT Falcon anyway :D) and I am not at a disadvantage in GA any more.
    Nope. It is based on total GP without regard to the fleet/squad breakdown. I know that because I analyzed it for the two 3v3 squad-only GAs. The spread in total GP across my brackets was a fraction of one percent while the spread in squad GP was up to 45%.

    According to the latest official road ahead post, future squad-only GAs will be matched on character GP rather that total GP.
    Rebel73 wrote: »
    The ship zone being in the rear just adds a layer of strategy. For instance, I've put my strongest two defensive teams in the lower zone and also kept a couple of strong teams for offense, knowing that if they punch through the just-about-ok teams I've set to defend my top row, my ships will definitely hold. Whereas I have the firepower to take their top row entirely because I've saved some good teams for offense and then I will take their ship zone too. I have enough ship power to both defend and attack with confidence, so I am going to win.
    The ship zone being in the front adds a layer of strategy.

    I hate ships, I would totally be against this. Battles take too long and are very rng heavy even between very similar matchups imo.
    I could get behind ships being on a separate row tho, so nothing is blocked or can 'hide'

    So your saying your totally against anything that gives someone else the benefit of having an amazing fleet he can use to hide an area in the back with his weak toons but your not against being able to hide your weak ships or maybe ok, good, or great ships, behind your revan an or traya so he cannot get to the ships...

    meh not sure why it's ok for one person to have an area no one can get to but then not have a GA where someone else might be able to do the same to them....that's ridiculous

    now maybe that's not what your saying (it sounds like it) but maybe not so if i'm wrong I apologize...what I won't apologize for is that there ARE a lot of people who ARE actually saying that.... I mean that's horrible people only want to play when they have the total dominating advantage where they can't lose but then whine when people don't place a defense....that's silly.

    Again you may not be saying that...lots are tons of posts all over people basically saying they are only for things when it gives them a clear advantage..... see when I"m beat I'm beat, I'll get them the next time when the door swings both ways and I'll cross the streams because then it's my advantage....

    I do like the fact that they can mix things up so people with different rosters can have a chance to NOT FINISH in last place every time....

    I dont' have a roster where i will ever EVER finish in first place...I'm cool with that.... give me a Grand Arena where it's ships only...then I can take first place... ( I know I know it will never happen because we will never have enough capitals or ships to do it.......one can dream tho :)
  • Dk_rek
    3163 posts Member
    ANH wrote: »
    Dear CG,
    GA is by far my favorite mode in the game. So, thanks for that!
    That said, a few months back, you told us you were going to fix the situation when people failed to set defenses. You even released something along these lines but pulled it back.
    One of the reasons GA is so great is the chance to strategize your battles on offense, but when the opponent takes that away from you by not setting defense, they destroy half of the fun of the mode. Besides, they steal your shot at $600k+ of tokens.
    When can we expect auto-defense to be implemented?
    Thanks!

    A majority of people who do not set defenses have 0 and i mean ZERO chance of winning there are "some" the minority who probably could win but just don't care.... so I call shenanagain on the strategizing part... there is basically no strategy involved when you have 40 more G12 20 more zetas 100 + speed mods on them....the fun is in you getting to obliterate someone. There is ZERO strategy involved in those matchups and I have no problem with people not setting defense I just got my first win by on this war.

    I do think CG should just give you your credits when someone does not place defense if just to stop the incessant whining about it. Then make an achievement with 3 zeta mats or something granted to you for winning 5 GA matches without winning a battle then people would be begging for it...

    If your going to Obliterate me congrats you get 12 modulators, guarenteed NOT last place unlike me so laugh it up enjoy the rewards, enjoy the downtime use the extra time to scout your next two possible opponents you may need it....

    CG just give people their stinking credits already and continue to give people the freedom of choice to not get embarrased by horrible matchmaking
  • ANH wrote: »
    Dear CG,
    GA is by far my favorite mode in the game. So, thanks for that!
    That said, a few months back, you told us you were going to fix the situation when people failed to set defenses. You even released something along these lines but pulled it back.
    One of the reasons GA is so great is the chance to strategize your battles on offense, but when the opponent takes that away from you by not setting defense, they destroy half of the fun of the mode. Besides, they steal your shot at $600k+ of tokens.
    When can we expect auto-defense to be implemented?
    Thanks!

    Agreed, today was the third time that I’ve opened up ga to see my opponent didn’t set any defense. Super frustrating because I need to win 1 more battle with gk to get that gear 12 piece. And since my guild currently can’t complete herioc sith it’s the only way I can get g12+ without whaling out.

    Really need an auto set feature or maybe have consequences for people who don’t set defenses multiple times.
  • ANH
    10 posts Member
    A majority of people who do not set defenses have 0 and i mean ZERO chance of winning there are "some" the minority who probably could win but just don't care.... so I call shenanagain on the strategizing part...

    Evidence, please? This sounds like a statement of fact, when it's really just a guess. Who are you to call how I feel about what I like, "shenanagain" ?

    You don't know me, and you don't know how I feel, other than what I claimed. I can see why you passive-aggressively called me a liar, as though that code were hard to crack. You have less evidence of me lying than what you have to support your first statement.
    there is basically no strategy involved when you have 40 more G12 20 more zetas 100 + speed mods on them....the fun is in you getting to obliterate someone. There is ZERO strategy involved in those matchups and I have no problem with people not setting defense I just got my first win by on this war.

    This is true. Little strategy is needed in cases where the match is ridiculously one-sided. In such cases, another player still should not have a right to deprive me of a chance to try some new combos with my toons. There are few enough chances to actually use our toons in this game.
    I do think CG should just give you your credits when someone does not place defense if just to stop the incessant whining about it. Then make an achievement with 3 zeta mats or something granted to you for winning 5 GA matches without winning a battle then people would be begging for it...

    Again, the passive-aggressive approach to insult me, and also apparently others who have legitimate claims to want defenses to fight against. Just come out and insult us directly.
    If your going to Obliterate me congrats you get 12 modulators, guarenteed NOT last place unlike me so laugh it up enjoy the rewards, enjoy the downtime use the extra time to scout your next two possible opponents you may need it....

    If that's all this game is to you, then you've made your point. Me, I prefer to actually play the game. Playing is not just about the credits. For me, it's about actually using these digital artifacts that we collect.

    Any other ridiculous responses to my post?
  • QOL suggestions for GA. Option to enable notifications when you get attack! :smiley:
  • Gorem
    1185 posts Member
    matchmaking. GP means nothing. WHY do they insist on thinking that GP means anything for matchmaking.

    I hate winning all the time because my roster is a billion times better against every single guy I go up against.

    usually only one guy in the entire roster I go up against that has anything that resembles what I have or more.

    The wierd part is I usually go up against the only actual real fight in the first round, and have won all of them, but this one cause I finally went up against someone who has 3 more entire G12 squads with 4 more squads of Arena level mods. It took a lot for the terrible matchmaking algorithm to finally give me my first loss.
  • A test of skill...?

    My opponent has about 130k more character GP than I do and although there is a fleet zone, it is protected behind a two-squad ground zone because everyone knows ground assault comes before the space battle or it's supposedly more balanced or just because reasons. Who knows.

    I go for a balanced strategy while my opponent simply hunkers down his heavy squads on defense.

    No way I can break either of his frontal ground zones but I could defeat a couple of squads.

    First exchange, he defeats one of my squads but fails to defeat a second despite 3 attempts. I defeat one of his squads in an almost flawless victory. I am ahead by 2 points.

    Sometime later a second exchange sees him defeat another of my squads. My only option is to pit a 70k squad against his 80k squad. I win but lose two of my squad in the process. Now he is ahead by four points.

    Stalemate. I cannot beat his remaining frontline squads, he cannot beat mine.

    So hunkering down and zerging your opponent with a 130k GP roster advantage cemented by a poorly-balanced map is apparently the definition of skill in GA.
  • Not setting defenses is an automatic win. If they fail to attack, you end up with a win based on points from deployment. If they attack and kill everything you have on maximum hp and protection, you win again because you get automatic max score on clearing his defenses plus the deployment points.

    Therefore, people who do not have any time at all just register and forget about it, and get rewards for bottom tier. Nothing wrong or bad in that from their point of view. What we lose is the gold from the successful attacks.
  • Drazhar
    729 posts Member
    edited February 12
    The game just crashed with no error message during a battle. I will most likely lose due to this. This doesn't even happen in beta games some months after the end of the development. Is it so hard to implement a "resume battle" thing with a timeout and which obviously ends with the end of the phase?
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    A test of skill...?

    My opponent has about 130k more character GP than I do and although there is a fleet zone, it is protected behind a two-squad ground zone because everyone knows ground assault comes before the space battle or it's supposedly more balanced or just because reasons. Who knows.

    I go for a balanced strategy while my opponent simply hunkers down his heavy squads on defense.

    No way I can break either of his frontal ground zones but I could defeat a couple of squads.

    First exchange, he defeats one of my squads but fails to defeat a second despite 3 attempts. I defeat one of his squads in an almost flawless victory. I am ahead by 2 points.

    Sometime later a second exchange sees him defeat another of my squads. My only option is to pit a 70k squad against his 80k squad. I win but lose two of my squad in the process. Now he is ahead by four points.

    Stalemate. I cannot beat his remaining frontline squads, he cannot beat mine.

    So hunkering down and zerging your opponent with a 130k GP roster advantage cemented by a poorly-balanced map is apparently the definition of skill in GA.

    Actually it is. Balanced split between offense and defense when at a power disadvantage is a bad strategy that you chose to use when you had all the information to make the decision.

    When at a disadvatange, you should always favor offense and try to use effective underdeveloped defense teams. This is because A- offense is easier than defense in this game, so you mitigate your weakness by playing the teams yourself against ai, and B- the fact that a territory is hidden makes it so your opponent, who lacks information (doesn’t know what’s behind, nor what you saved for offense), might make mistakes when attacking by trying to save strong squads or making suboptimal decisions.

    The problem in this game (and all others, it’s just human) is that a lot of people are not able to take a step back and self reflect. They think they are responsible for their wins but not for their losses. A lot of people do not realize that there is actual strategic depth in this game, and just because they lost to a stronger opponent does not mean it was impossible to win, and they played perfectly.

    By the way, a fleet territory on the front adds zero strategy, in the current state of the game. There is only one fleet to attack and one to keep for defense, so it’s just a random stat check. On the other side, making sure you keep strong enough squads to open the fleet territory, or making your own more accessible because you trust your fleet defense, is an actual strategy. The day there are enough ships in this game to make for 3-4 attacks and defenses, there will be strategy with a front fleet territory.
  • Streve wrote: »
    I do not have Revan nor am I going to spend hundreds of dollars just to get him. Grand Arena really sucks when my opponent did spend the dollars to get him. It's an automatic loss for me.

    I got him 100% free, had the whole kotor team ready, close to two months ago. You just didn't farm the right characters at the right time and now you are upset. At this point it has zero to do with money
  • Rath_Tarr
    2340 posts Member
    edited February 12
    JohnAran wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    A test of skill...?

    My opponent has about 130k more character GP than I do and although there is a fleet zone, it is protected behind a two-squad ground zone because everyone knows ground assault comes before the space battle or it's supposedly more balanced or just because reasons. Who knows.

    I go for a balanced strategy while my opponent simply hunkers down his heavy squads on defense.

    No way I can break either of his frontal ground zones but I could defeat a couple of squads.

    First exchange, he defeats one of my squads but fails to defeat a second despite 3 attempts. I defeat one of his squads in an almost flawless victory. I am ahead by 2 points.

    Sometime later a second exchange sees him defeat another of my squads. My only option is to pit a 70k squad against his 80k squad. I win but lose two of my squad in the process. Now he is ahead by four points.

    Stalemate. I cannot beat his remaining frontline squads, he cannot beat mine.

    So hunkering down and zerging your opponent with a 130k GP roster advantage cemented by a poorly-balanced map is apparently the definition of skill in GA.

    Actually it is. Balanced split between offense and defense when at a power disadvantage is a bad strategy that you chose to use when you had all the information to make the decision.

    When at a disadvatange, you should always favor offense and try to use effective underdeveloped defense teams. This is because A- offense is easier than defense in this game, so you mitigate your weakness by playing the teams yourself against ai, and B- the fact that a territory is hidden makes it so your opponent, who lacks information (doesn’t know what’s behind, nor what you saved for offense), might make mistakes when attacking by trying to save strong squads or making suboptimal decisions.
    Wrong. Going offense against an opponent who has a significant squad GP advantage is a kamikaze strategy that will most likely result in a loss as your opponent can set a strong defense and still zerg your defense while there is no guarantee you can break theirs. Not that you would know what it's like to fight with a significant GP disadvantage, having a squad-heavy roster - https://swgoh.gg/p/113669163/
    JohnAran wrote: »
    The problem in this game (and all others, it’s just human) is that a lot of people are not able to take a step back and self reflect. They think they are responsible for their wins but not for their losses. A lot of people do not realize that there is actual strategic depth in this game, and just because they lost to a stronger opponent does not mean it was impossible to win, and they played perfectly.
    The problem with this game (and all others, it's just human) is people who think they are good because they win from an advantageous position and then act condescendingly to others in order to preserve their advantage because deep down they know thst without it they might lose and they fear that.
    JohnAran wrote: »
    By the way, a fleet territory on the front adds zero strategy, in the current state of the game. There is only one fleet to attack and one to keep for defense, so it’s just a random stat check. On the other side, making sure you keep strong enough squads to open the fleet territory, or making your own more accessible because you trust your fleet defense, is an actual strategy. The day there are enough ships in this game to make for 3-4 attacks and defenses, there will be strategy with a front fleet territory.
    * there are already enough ships available for four fleets
    * putting a fleet zone in front evens the playing field a little for those who do not have such a squad-heavy roster
  • ANH wrote: »
    That said, a few months back, you told us you were going to fix the situation when people failed to set defenses. You even released something along these lines but pulled it back.

    Yep, this should have been fixed by now. They pulled the feature on Dec. 13th due to bugs. 2 months should have been plenty of time to get this fixed.
  • I submitted a bug causing my game to simply crash with no error message during a GA battle. That crash probably caused my defeat in the first phase. The posts were removed both in the answers HQ and on this forum, almost simultaneously. What's happening?
  • ANH wrote: »
    That said, a few months back, you told us you were going to fix the situation when people failed to set defenses. You even released something along these lines but pulled it back.

    Yep, this should have been fixed by now. They pulled the feature on Dec. 13th due to bugs. 2 months should have been plenty of time to get this fixed.

    Orr.... you could be thankful they signed up and gave you a free win. I know it's hard to look at the positive side of things... but if you're really after randomly set teams by CG's system, Galactic War still exists and is available for you to not sim!
  • 3 QOL requests related to GA:

    1) PLEASE have the phases reset at a time that is close to...pretty much anything else in the game. I realize you want us to log on 50+ times a day, but GA starting several hours after arena payout really makes the timing of it awkward (to the point where I have missed setting defense twice, as I thought the setting defense phase started a day later). Which leads to:

    2) PLEASE have the phases of GA have in-game notifications (like guild orders, raid launches, etc. do).

    3) PLEASE have the icon on the right be DIFFERENT for each phase. Having the same exact icon for preview, set-up and attack phase is fairly useless - and, in fact confusing (again, I am in the game a lot and have missed 2 defense set up phases).

    Honestly, I think a majority of people not setting defenses are not trying to be difficult or don't care. The poor timing and poor notification system for GA makes it a challenge even for active players - especially those in active guilds with raids being launched at different times, events, arena payouts, TW and TB and even real-life.

    I really enjoy GA, and feel bad for my opponents when I inadvertently deny them the opportunity to participate. Please make it more user friendly.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Liath
    4610 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    3 QOL requests related to GA:

    1) PLEASE have the phases reset at a time that is close to...pretty much anything else in the game. I realize you want us to log on 50+ times a day, but GA starting several hours after arena payout really makes the timing of it awkward (to the point where I have missed setting defense twice, as I thought the setting defense phase started a day later). Which leads to:

    2) PLEASE have the phases of GA have in-game notifications (like guild orders, raid launches, etc. do).

    3) PLEASE have the icon on the right be DIFFERENT for each phase. Having the same exact icon for preview, set-up and attack phase is fairly useless - and, in fact confusing (again, I am in the game a lot and have missed 2 defense set up phases).

    Honestly, I think a majority of people not setting defenses are not trying to be difficult or don't care. The poor timing and poor notification system for GA makes it a challenge even for active players - especially those in active guilds with raids being launched at different times, events, arena payouts, TW and TB and even real-life.

    I really enjoy GA, and feel bad for my opponents when I inadvertently deny them the opportunity to participate. Please make it more user friendly.

    Since GA starts at the same (absolute, not local) time for everybody, how is 1 supposed to work? Putting it at a more convenient time for you would just mean it’s less convenient for somebody else.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Wrong. Going offense against an opponent who has a significant squad GP advantage is a kamikaze strategy that will most likely result in a loss as your opponent can set a strong defense and still zerg your defense while there is no guarantee you can break theirs.

    In between all of the arguing with another poster I think you missed a useful take away here. It's my preferred strategy at least that whether there is a missmatch or not having a strong offense is much more important than a strong defense. Weak defenses with lots of AOE or characters with kits people are not immediately familiar with will put a dent in their offence point score even if they full clear you. You should assume your opponent has looked at your roster beforehand, saved what they need for offense and will full clear you even if you have the better roster. Likewise, you should look at their roster, determine what their strongest defense could potentially be and save what you need to take that out.

    Then it's just up to you to full clear them and if they go with a vanila Revan/Traya/FO/Bossk etc. defense that you've seen 100 times before in GA and TW you know what you are doing and what you need to beat them. It's high risk high reward if you are on the wrong side of a missmatch... but if they actually do have a better roster than you they are going to clear you even if you put all your very strongest teams on defense so might as well clear them back as that's the only possible way you have of winning. If you are in a situation where they are not clearing you however then in my opinion that's not a missmatch at all. A missmatch is where you get wiped completely off the board in 10 mins.

    More generally speaking... I find it funny how some people complain that their opponent has 150k more character GP (making them much better and hence "missmatched") while a load of other people are complaining about GP having no relation to how good a roster is anyway.
  • JohnAran
    312 posts Member
    edited February 12
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    JohnAran wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    A test of skill...?

    My opponent has about 130k more character GP than I do and although there is a fleet zone, it is protected behind a two-squad ground zone because everyone knows ground assault comes before the space battle or it's supposedly more balanced or just because reasons. Who knows.

    I go for a balanced strategy while my opponent simply hunkers down his heavy squads on defense.

    No way I can break either of his frontal ground zones but I could defeat a couple of squads.

    First exchange, he defeats one of my squads but fails to defeat a second despite 3 attempts. I defeat one of his squads in an almost flawless victory. I am ahead by 2 points.

    Sometime later a second exchange sees him defeat another of my squads. My only option is to pit a 70k squad against his 80k squad. I win but lose two of my squad in the process. Now he is ahead by four points.

    Stalemate. I cannot beat his remaining frontline squads, he cannot beat mine.

    So hunkering down and zerging your opponent with a 130k GP roster advantage cemented by a poorly-balanced map is apparently the definition of skill in GA.

    Actually it is. Balanced split between offense and defense when at a power disadvantage is a bad strategy that you chose to use when you had all the information to make the decision.

    When at a disadvatange, you should always favor offense and try to use effective underdeveloped defense teams. This is because A- offense is easier than defense in this game, so you mitigate your weakness by playing the teams yourself against ai, and B- the fact that a territory is hidden makes it so your opponent, who lacks information (doesn’t know what’s behind, nor what you saved for offense), might make mistakes when attacking by trying to save strong squads or making suboptimal decisions.
    Wrong. Going offense against an opponent who has a significant squad GP advantage is a kamikaze strategy that will most likely result in a loss as your opponent can set a strong defense and still zerg your defense while there is no guarantee you can break theirs. Not that you would know what it's like to fight with a significant GP disadvantage, having a squad-heavy roster - https://swgoh.gg/p/113669163/
    JohnAran wrote: »
    The problem in this game (and all others, it’s just human) is that a lot of people are not able to take a step back and self reflect. They think they are responsible for their wins but not for their losses. A lot of people do not realize that there is actual strategic depth in this game, and just because they lost to a stronger opponent does not mean it was impossible to win, and they played perfectly.
    The problem with this game (and all others, it's just human) is people who think they are good because they win from an advantageous position and then act condescendingly to others in order to preserve their advantage because deep down they know thst without it they might lose and they fear that.
    JohnAran wrote: »
    By the way, a fleet territory on the front adds zero strategy, in the current state of the game. There is only one fleet to attack and one to keep for defense, so it’s just a random stat check. On the other side, making sure you keep strong enough squads to open the fleet territory, or making your own more accessible because you trust your fleet defense, is an actual strategy. The day there are enough ships in this game to make for 3-4 attacks and defenses, there will be strategy with a front fleet territory.
    * there are already enough ships available for four fleets
    * putting a fleet zone in front evens the playing field a little for those who do not have such a squad-heavy roster

    Your seem to be a sensitive/argumentative person and i’m really not interested in entertaining people who like to pick fights.

    I didn’t attack you in anyway. I tried to offer you a piece of strategic advice because you seemed to have used a suboptimal strategy in the situation you were in and didn’t realize it given your conclusion. Then i expressed my opinion on a unrelated matter (fleet territories).
    I never, not even remotely, said that i was the best, i was never condescending, you have no idea what my ga experience has been and are just assuming things for the sake of being offensive and argumentative. I gave you an advice, you are free to ignore it if you think you know better.

    I could go much deeper into details as to why favoring offense when at a firepower disadvantage is the best course of action but you are obviously not interested anyway, so keep doing your thing, i couldn’t care less.

    Edit : EduardoCadav expended a bit on that and i agree with what was said.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Wrong. Going offense against an opponent who has a significant squad GP advantage is a kamikaze strategy that will most likely result in a loss as your opponent can set a strong defense and still zerg your defense while there is no guarantee you can break theirs.

    In between all of the arguing with another poster I think you missed a useful take away here. It's my preferred strategy at least that whether there is a missmatch or not having a strong offense is much more important than a strong defense. Weak defenses with lots of AOE or characters with kits people are not immediately familiar with will put a dent in their offence point score even if they full clear you. You should assume your opponent has looked at your roster beforehand, saved what they need for offense and will full clear you even if you have the better roster. Likewise, you should look at their roster, determine what their strongest defense could potentially be and save what you need to take that out.
    I spend plenty of time studying my opponent's roster before deciding my overall strategy and setting my defense. What I cannot study however is their mindset and assuming that they will behave in a manner I would consider rational is a gamble at best.

    I have just over 50% of my total GP invested in fleet. That means I am almost always facing opponents with more squad GP than me. Best case there is a fleet zone tucked behind a squad zone. Worst case it's all squad zones. (And yes, I know they are fixing the latter to matchmake on squad GP in future)

    So I have a lot of experience of fighting against opponents with more squad GP available than me, what works and what doesn't. I even won 3-0 in the last 3v3 GA, despite being out-matched in every round. But that does not make it balanced, as the devs have acknowledged with the upcoming change.
    Then it's just up to you to full clear them and if they go with a vanila Revan/Traya/FO/Bossk etc. defense that you've seen 100 times before in GA and TW you know what you are doing and what you need to beat them. It's high risk high reward if you are on the wrong side of a missmatch... but if they actually do have a better roster than you they are going to clear you even if you put all your very strongest teams on defense so might as well clear them back as that's the only possible way you have of winning.
    Not necessarily.

    My arena team has very rarely been defeated and often remains untouched. They are well geared and modded and Bossk's grin is rather unsettling.

    My top defensive B-team also has a rather good record for holding firm, even in the face of losses, just as it did this time.

    If I had saved all of my best teams for offense my opponent would almost certainly have broken all three of my squad zones with sheer numbers of B- and C-teams while I would only have been able to break two of their squad zones or one squad and fleet at best.
    If you are in a situation where they are not clearing you however then in my opinion that's not a missmatch at all. A missmatch is where you get wiped completely off the board in 10 mins.
    Given that the matchmaker is producing brackets with a total GP-spread of a fraction of one percent, I would suggest that the game designers disagree with you.
    More generally speaking... I find it funny how some people complain that their opponent has 150k more character GP (making them much better and hence "missmatched") while a load of other people are complaining about GP having no relation to how good a roster is anyway.
    GP is indeed a flawed measure but it is currently the only one we have.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    GP is indeed a flawed measure but it is currently the only one we have.

    Elo rating is simple and would be much more fair.
    You win a lot? You get matched with stronger opponents.

    It would not only make for fair, exciting matchups where skill actually matters, but it also resolves the biggest problem with the current GA: this is a collection game. You shouldnt be punished for collecting stuff..

    ^ I agree.
    Massive SWGOH Community On Discord - https://discord.gg/QWvTUBZ
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    GP is indeed a flawed measure but it is currently the only one we have.

    Elo rating is simple and would be much more fair.
    You win a lot? You get matched with stronger opponents.

    It would not only make for fair, exciting matchups where skill actually matters, but it also resolves the biggest problem with the current GA: this is a collection game. You shouldnt be punished for collecting stuff..
    And you shouldn’t get punished for winning. Which is exactly what that kind of matchmaking will do. If you do well, you will eventually be put on a bracket where you will lose.
  • Droideka wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    GP is indeed a flawed measure but it is currently the only one we have.

    Elo rating is simple and would be much more fair.
    You win a lot? You get matched with stronger opponents.

    It would not only make for fair, exciting matchups where skill actually matters, but it also resolves the biggest problem with the current GA: this is a collection game. You shouldnt be punished for collecting stuff..
    And you shouldn’t get punished for winning. Which is exactly what that kind of matchmaking will do. If you do well, you will eventually be put on a bracket where you will lose.

    Following your logic, when you finally break into top20 of squad arena, you shouldnt be matched equally skilled top class squads, but randomly getting a squad picked from the rank 1000-1500 range? Because you deserve to win?
    Instead of actually having a balanced fight?
  • Droideka wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    GP is indeed a flawed measure but it is currently the only one we have.

    Elo rating is simple and would be much more fair.
    You win a lot? You get matched with stronger opponents.

    It would not only make for fair, exciting matchups where skill actually matters, but it also resolves the biggest problem with the current GA: this is a collection game. You shouldnt be punished for collecting stuff..
    And you shouldn’t get punished for winning. Which is exactly what that kind of matchmaking will do. If you do well, you will eventually be put on a bracket where you will lose.

    Following your logic, when you finally break into top20 of squad arena, you shouldnt be matched equally skilled top class squads, but randomly getting a squad picked from the rank 1000-1500 range? Because you deserve to win?
    Instead of actually having a balanced fight?

    The rewards in squad arena make up for the harder matchups. If you want an elo rating system to work and be fair you need to scale rewards so that losing in a tier gives more than winning in the tier below. This would mechanically reduce the rewards for people who are losing a lot compared to universal rewards like we have now (or increase a lot but we all know what’s more likely to happen)
    Not saying it’s impossible to do, but it’s really not that simple/obvious.

    The point of ga now is everyone can meet everyone and everyone gets the same rewards. If you change that, you don’t just change matchmaking, you also change the spirit behind the game mode i feel.
  • Droideka wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    GP is indeed a flawed measure but it is currently the only one we have.

    Elo rating is simple and would be much more fair.
    You win a lot? You get matched with stronger opponents.

    It would not only make for fair, exciting matchups where skill actually matters, but it also resolves the biggest problem with the current GA: this is a collection game. You shouldnt be punished for collecting stuff..
    And you shouldn’t get punished for winning. Which is exactly what that kind of matchmaking will do. If you do well, you will eventually be put on a bracket where you will lose.

    Following your logic, when you finally break into top20 of squad arena, you shouldnt be matched equally skilled top class squads, but randomly getting a squad picked from the rank 1000-1500 range? Because you deserve to win?
    Instead of actually having a balanced fight?
    Currently GA matches you with opponent of similar GP. Squad arena does not.
  • I'd like to be able to see the squads that attacked my squads. It could be only in the review phase, but I'm not really learning what can beat my squads when I have no idea what my opponent attacked me with.
  • Can anyone tell me how the scoring between the 8 teams works for the whole 3 rounds I don't see that anywhere?

    Is it a ladder system, or the first 4 teams that win are playing for top 4, others for 5 -8, or is it just whoever has the most banners after all 3 rounds wins?
Sign In or Register to comment.