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
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
2
This discussion has been closed.
- 61.6K General Discussion
- -35 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.7K Arena and Character Strategy
- 3.2K Individual Events
- 5.5K Guild Events
- 4.7K PVP and Rivalry
- 51K Guild Recruitment
- 751 Art and Media
- 4.2K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
there's no loophole
Except that there clearly IS! But hey, reading and understanding math isn't for everyone, so don't feel bad!
yw
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.
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.
+90 > +16-64
It's impossible to get more banners by defeating a team than by placing a team on def.
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
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.
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
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!
appology accepted. It's okay, i'm wrong from time to time aswell.
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
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.
No, it's not there. Setting less teams on defense decreases your chance of winning, period. Setting a really weak def team however could be a solid strategy, but setting none is not in any shape or form beneficial.
If you lose vs a player that didn't fill all his def slots, you would have lost by a larger margin if he did fill all the slots. Even if he fill those slots with lvl 1, g1 toons.
You'll get +90 banners for a def team, but only max +64 for defeating a team on offense. So you're missing out on 90 banners while the opponent only misses out on potentially64 banners max if you choose not to fill a def slot.
So again, there's no loophole.
Are you sure, that the points for conquering territories and potential flawless victories in battles wasn't added to your score? DO you have any screenshots?
Total banners doesn’t affect anything though.
My opponent did this:
Node Top 1: Set 0 of 2 defenses.
Node Top Ships: 1 of 1
Node Bottom 1: 1 of 1, best defense
Node Bottom 2: ? (Assuming 1 of 1 by looking at the starting score)
He won because he got the bonuses for eliminating my squads on that first node. So, I was met with nothing and got an automatic +180, but he used those squads to fight and therefore got +244 with the offensive bonuses. Super lame.