Grand Arena Scoring Hide Suggestion

Replies

  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Go for max banners every time. Problem solved. No hiding scores.

    This advice misunderstands the problem. Suppose you can go in to your final attack with a five-toon squad, and have a 75% chance of earning the max score of 60 banners. Or you can go in with a three-toon squad, and have a 10% chance of earning the max score of 62 banners.

    The way I interpret your advice, you’d always choose the former strategy, since it has the higher expected value.

    The problem is when you’re down 61 banners, and you HAVE to get 62 to win. It doesn’t matter that playing conservative will maximize your expected number of banners. Taking the risky strategy is the only way you have any chance at all to WIN. And the only way you get to make this calculation is if you can afford to wait until the other guy has played out all his attacks.

    In other words, yeah, displaying scores gives a slight advantage to the player who can wait until the last minute to attack.

    But it's not really an advantage, it's a calculated risk. Yes he may know he needs to do it to win, but its doesnt make it easier to win the battle.

    This is why it's a strategy and not an advantage. Both sides could play this way (without waiting) as he is suggesting. Just by always going for maximum points, with no regard for the "ever present risk".

    It’s a strategy, sure. But if only one player has the realistic ability to implement the strategy because of a time zone disparity, that’s an advantage.

    Personally, I’d expect the advantage to be quite small and probably not worth worrying about. But it is an advantage.

    How does it making winning the match a toon (or 2) down easier?

    It doesn't. There is no advantage, just the knowledge that if you dont try you lose. That's not an edge, it's called being painted into a corner.

    The advantage is the knowledge that you’re painted into a corner. Only the side that attacks last can know this. I don’t know how much more obvious this could be.

    So knowing I have painted myself into a corner allows me to fly to the door and not touch the paint?

    Much the same way knowing i need to win with 3 or 4 toons and have full health on all 3(or 4) is easier with this knowledge?

    No not at all. You can execute this decision with or without that knowledge and the difficulty is exactly the same. Knowing makes no difference, winning makes all the difference.

    I'm not saying that knowing this doesn't make it feel like you have no other choice and will try something you may have not otherwise because the risk may have been too big for the perceived reward, but at no point does know change the difficulty. If the difficulty doesnt change, I wouldnt call that an advantage.

    To the point stated earlier, you just always be going for those max points if you feel you can get them, it's all the same difficulty.
  • Think of it this way: if you had a way of guaranteeing that your football team would have the final possession in all of its games all season long, wouldn’t that be an advantage?

    I can't wait for the posts about two guys who waited and waited and waited and then the timer expired and neither attacked.
    Ally Code 766-465-766 swgoh.gg/u/trystansr/collection/
  • Kyno wrote: »
    If the difficulty doesnt change, I wouldnt call that an advantage.

    Then you don’t know what an advantage is. If a reasonable player would make one choice from a position of ignorance, and a different choice given accurate knowledge of the facts, then it is an advantage to have the knowledge.
    To the point stated earlier, you just always be going for those max points if you feel you can get them, it's all the same difficulty.

    I really don’t understand what you think you’re saying here. If you’re saying that in general, a good strategy is to choose your attackers in such a way that you maximize your expected number of banners, then I generally agree. As in football, most of the time, the high percentage play is the way to go. But also as in football, there are numerous, obvious exceptions.

    You don’t call the same plays in the fourth quarter down by two scores that you called on the opening drive. And in GA, if you’re down by 61 with one defender left to clear, you don’t send in a 5-man squad that guarantees 60 points (even though that’s frequently the optimal strategy!)—you send in a 3- or 4-man squad that gives you a shot at the win, even though the probability of conversion is low.
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    If the difficulty doesnt change, I wouldnt call that an advantage.

    Then you don’t know what an advantage is. If a reasonable player would make one choice from a position of ignorance, and a different choice given accurate knowledge of the facts, then it is an advantage to have the knowledge.
    To the point stated earlier, you just always be going for those max points if you feel you can get them, it's all the same difficulty.

    I really don’t understand what you think you’re saying here. If you’re saying that in general, a good strategy is to choose your attackers in such a way that you maximize your expected number of banners, then I generally agree. As in football, most of the time, the high percentage play is the way to go. But also as in football, there are numerous, obvious exceptions.

    You don’t call the same plays in the fourth quarter down by two scores that you called on the opening drive. And in GA, if you’re down by 61 with one defender left to clear, you don’t send in a 5-man squad that guarantees 60 points (even though that’s frequently the optimal strategy!)—you send in a 3- or 4-man squad that gives you a shot at the win, even though the probability of conversion is low.

    Yes I am just saying that your earlier statements of going for max points at "every turn" should be the general goal.

    And for the foot ball reference, I always attack the teams from most difficult to least, meaning that my 4th quarter/last teams standing are the easier ones I can save, allowing me to make the tough call if I'm feeling lucky or just from understanding my opponents roster and seeing what he placed on defense that I should take the risk.
    If I wanted to help you become a millionaire and plan a bank heist to do it, does know where the best bank to have quick access to a series of highways that will easily lead to me getting away, make it easier to get away from the cops?

    No it's still about my skills as a driver and how I execute my plan.

    This is one case where GI Joe was wrong and knowing is not half the battle. The battle is the battle.

  • I’ll just reiterate that although I think it’s an advantage to have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to attack, I don’t think it’s an unfair advantage. There are lots of advantages people can have in the game that aren’t really unfair—e.g., having an uncrowded arena payout time, or having essentially unlimited funds to spend.

    I think that a match between two players who are both playing chicken by delaying attacks is strategically extremely rich, and I wouldn’t want to end the possibility of such interesting matches by hiding scores. Particularly when the advantage that a chicken-playing player has against a non-chicken-playing player is almost always going to be non-determinative of the outcome.
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • Liath
    3733 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    If the difficulty doesnt change, I wouldnt call that an advantage.

    Then you don’t know what an advantage is. If a reasonable player would make one choice from a position of ignorance, and a different choice given accurate knowledge of the facts, then it is an advantage to have the knowledge.
    To the point stated earlier, you just always be going for those max points if you feel you can get them, it's all the same difficulty.

    I really don’t understand what you think you’re saying here. If you’re saying that in general, a good strategy is to choose your attackers in such a way that you maximize your expected number of banners, then I generally agree. As in football, most of the time, the high percentage play is the way to go. But also as in football, there are numerous, obvious exceptions.

    You don’t call the same plays in the fourth quarter down by two scores that you called on the opening drive. And in GA, if you’re down by 61 with one defender left to clear, you don’t send in a 5-man squad that guarantees 60 points (even though that’s frequently the optimal strategy!)—you send in a 3- or 4-man squad that gives you a shot at the win, even though the probability of conversion is low.

    Yes I am just saying that your earlier statements of going for max points at "every turn" should be the general goal.


    That’s not how it works in football and you were the one that originally presented the football analogy, arguing that this situation is ok because it happens in sports.

    If you were always to go for max points, everybody would try for the two point conversion every time. In fact they hardly ever go for it unless the scoring situation makes it necessary to take that risk.

    I could understand if you were arguing that the advantage of knowing whether you need to take a risk is too small to warrant a change or that the number of matches in which it will make a difference is too small. But arguing that it’s not actually an advantage because you knowing you need the two points doesn’t make converting easier is ridiculous.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Yes I am just saying that your earlier statements of going for max points at "every turn" should be the general goal.

    See, here’s where I don’t think you’re being sufficiently clear. I’m talking about maximizing expected number of banners. That’s not the same thing as “going for max points at ‘every turn,’” which would mean sending in one-toon squads to every battle, even when they have essentially no chance of doing significant damage. That’s the equivalent of throwing Hail Marys every down. Not a good strategy.
    If I wanted to help you become a millionaire and plan a bank heist to do it, does know where the best bank to have quick access to a series of highways that will easily lead to me getting away, make it easier to get away from the cops?

    No it's still about my skills as a driver and how I execute my plan.

    This is one case where GI Joe was wrong and knowing is not half the battle. The battle is the battle.

    I have to say, I am dumbfounded that you think this example helps your case.

    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    If I wanted to help you become a millionaire and plan a bank heist to do it, does know where the best bank to have quick access to a series of highways that will easily lead to me getting away, make it easier to get away from the cops?

    No it's still about my skills as a driver and how I execute my plan.

    This is one case where GI Joe was wrong and knowing is not half the battle. The battle is the battle.

    You're wrong. You could be the greatest driver in the history of the world, and if the bank you choose to rob is in the middle of a completely gridlocked city with construction happening all around the bank blocking sidewalks and side roads, your skill as a driver is meaningless.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    If I wanted to help you become a millionaire and plan a bank heist to do it, does know where the best bank to have quick access to a series of highways that will easily lead to me getting away, make it easier to get away from the cops?

    No it's still about my skills as a driver and how I execute my plan.

    This is one case where GI Joe was wrong and knowing is not half the battle. The battle is the battle.

    You're wrong. You could be the greatest driver in the history of the world, and if the bank you choose to rob is in the middle of a completely gridlocked city with construction happening all around the bank blocking sidewalks and side roads, your skill as a driver is meaningless.

    I can do amazing things on a motorcycle.
  • I’ll just reiterate that although I think it’s an advantage to have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to attack, I don’t think it’s an unfair advantage. There are lots of advantages people can have in the game that aren’t really unfair—e.g., having an uncrowded arena payout time, or having essentially unlimited funds to spend.

    I think that a match between two players who are both playing chicken by delaying attacks is strategically extremely rich, and I wouldn’t want to end the possibility of such interesting matches by hiding scores. Particularly when the advantage that a chicken-playing player has against a non-chicken-playing player is almost always going to be non-determinative of the outcome.

    See, this is what I expected the counter argument to be (although I disagree with your choice of word when you say unfair). The advantage isn’t significant enough to change the system, and it might be more exciting as is. I can respect that opinion. I disagree with it, but it’s a reasonable stance to take. I’m kind of dumbfounded that there are so many arguments saying it isn’t an advantage at all.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes I am just saying that your earlier statements of going for max points at "every turn" should be the general goal.

    See, here’s where I don’t think you’re being sufficiently clear. I’m talking about maximizing expected number of banners. That’s not the same thing as “going for max points at ‘every turn,’” which would mean sending in one-toon squads to every battle, even when they have essentially no chance of doing significant damage. That’s the equivalent of throwing Hail Marys every down. Not a good strategy.
    If I wanted to help you become a millionaire and plan a bank heist to do it, does know where the best bank to have quick access to a series of highways that will easily lead to me getting away, make it easier to get away from the cops?

    No it's still about my skills as a driver and how I execute my plan.

    This is one case where GI Joe was wrong and knowing is not half the battle. The battle is the battle.

    I have to say, I am dumbfounded that you think this example helps your case.

    No maximizing your points is like going for a touchdown instead of settling for a field goal when you think it's worth it to play the odds. Much like taking down a team with 4v5 because you are in a situation where it can mean the win in the end. Startegy not blind faith.

    You can strategically maximize your points without going for a hail mary. Just like you can pick your battles and counters and other factors in your control to win a free battles down 1 or 2 toons.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Liath wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    If the difficulty doesnt change, I wouldnt call that an advantage.

    Then you don’t know what an advantage is. If a reasonable player would make one choice from a position of ignorance, and a different choice given accurate knowledge of the facts, then it is an advantage to have the knowledge.
    To the point stated earlier, you just always be going for those max points if you feel you can get them, it's all the same difficulty.

    I really don’t understand what you think you’re saying here. If you’re saying that in general, a good strategy is to choose your attackers in such a way that you maximize your expected number of banners, then I generally agree. As in football, most of the time, the high percentage play is the way to go. But also as in football, there are numerous, obvious exceptions.

    You don’t call the same plays in the fourth quarter down by two scores that you called on the opening drive. And in GA, if you’re down by 61 with one defender left to clear, you don’t send in a 5-man squad that guarantees 60 points (even though that’s frequently the optimal strategy!)—you send in a 3- or 4-man squad that gives you a shot at the win, even though the probability of conversion is low.

    Yes I am just saying that your earlier statements of going for max points at "every turn" should be the general goal.


    That’s not how it works in football and you were the one that originally presented the football analogy, arguing that this situation is ok because it happens in sports.

    If you were always to go for max points, everybody would try for the two point conversion every time. In fact they hardly ever go for it unless the scoring situation makes it necessary to take that risk.

    I could understand if you were arguing that the advantage of knowing whether you need to take a risk is too small to warrant a change or that the number of matches in which it will make a difference is too small. But arguing that it’s not actually an advantage because you knowing you need the two points doesn’t make converting easier is ridiculous.

    How does it making it easier to win knowing?

    Please explain the advantage of knowing, in terms where you gain something that makes it easier or better to know.

    Knowing you have to use 4 toons in the last battle or 3 toons in the last battle and come out with full health, makes it easier?

    I'm pretty sure the battle is the same difficulty no matter what you know going into it. Maybe I'm wrong.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    I’ll just reiterate that although I think it’s an advantage to have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to attack, I don’t think it’s an unfair advantage. There are lots of advantages people can have in the game that aren’t really unfair—e.g., having an uncrowded arena payout time, or having essentially unlimited funds to spend.

    I think that a match between two players who are both playing chicken by delaying attacks is strategically extremely rich, and I wouldn’t want to end the possibility of such interesting matches by hiding scores. Particularly when the advantage that a chicken-playing player has against a non-chicken-playing player is almost always going to be non-determinative of the outcome.

    But an advantage gives you something or makes something easier. Single person in a PO, provably has an easier climb, but still has to beat the same teams as other. They get the advantage of not worrying about being sniped in the last minute, or hitting someone that would hit them back because they are on the same climb.

    Waiting to attack and knowing you have to use a team with lesser toons has no advantage, nothing is easier, nothing is simpler. If you can do it, you could have done it without that knowledge. Again maybe I'm wrong, but you gain nothing and nothing is easier, so there is no advantage.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I’ll just reiterate that although I think it’s an advantage to have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to attack, I don’t think it’s an unfair advantage. There are lots of advantages people can have in the game that aren’t really unfair—e.g., having an uncrowded arena payout time, or having essentially unlimited funds to spend.

    I think that a match between two players who are both playing chicken by delaying attacks is strategically extremely rich, and I wouldn’t want to end the possibility of such interesting matches by hiding scores. Particularly when the advantage that a chicken-playing player has against a non-chicken-playing player is almost always going to be non-determinative of the outcome.

    But an advantage gives you something or makes something easier. Single person in a PO, provably has an easier climb, but still has to beat the same teams as other. They get the advantage of not worrying about being sniped in the last minute, or hitting someone that would hit them back because they are on the same climb.

    Waiting to attack and knowing you have to use a team with lesser toons has no advantage, nothing is easier, nothing is simpler. If you can do it, you could have done it without that knowledge. Again maybe I'm wrong, but you gain nothing and nothing is easier, so there is no advantage.

    Here, let me give you a different example. Let’s say I have 1 team left in the match. Normally I would use my NS, because they are awesome and can beat almost any team. If I don’t know the score that’s who I’m using.

    But what if it turns out I need 58 points to win? My NS team usually gives me 55 points. They don’t have any way to regain protection. If I go first and don’t know what I need I lose, even if I win that battle easily. If I had known that, I could have used my Bossk BH team. They aren’t quite a good, but they regen a ton of protection. They gave me a chance to win the entire match, even if my chance of losing the battle is higher, because they can score more bonus points. Going last can make a difference.
  • And sometimes it doesn’t have to be just a few points. Don’t forget about the suicide IPD strategy. Send him in to blow up the leader and cripple the team for the 2nd run. If you know how many points you need you can decide if this is a viable strategy. If you don’t know how many points you need it makes it more of a gamble.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    And sometimes it doesn’t have to be just a few points. Don’t forget about the suicide IPD strategy. Send him in to blow up the leader and cripple the team for the 2nd run. If you know how many points you need you can decide if this is a viable strategy. If you don’t know how many points you need it makes it more of a gamble.

    Unless your opponent has or you think he is going to not win a first round attack, this is a horrible strategy. Any unmatched loss means a loss, 99% guaranteed.

    So while it's a startegy it's not a very good one, even if you wait and see you opponent did hit a second round win, you could try for the first round win with a real team and finish it off with a second, to have a chance at a first time win.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    I’ll just reiterate that although I think it’s an advantage to have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to attack, I don’t think it’s an unfair advantage. There are lots of advantages people can have in the game that aren’t really unfair—e.g., having an uncrowded arena payout time, or having essentially unlimited funds to spend.

    I think that a match between two players who are both playing chicken by delaying attacks is strategically extremely rich, and I wouldn’t want to end the possibility of such interesting matches by hiding scores. Particularly when the advantage that a chicken-playing player has against a non-chicken-playing player is almost always going to be non-determinative of the outcome.

    But an advantage gives you something or makes something easier. Single person in a PO, provably has an easier climb, but still has to beat the same teams as other. They get the advantage of not worrying about being sniped in the last minute, or hitting someone that would hit them back because they are on the same climb.

    Waiting to attack and knowing you have to use a team with lesser toons has no advantage, nothing is easier, nothing is simpler. If you can do it, you could have done it without that knowledge. Again maybe I'm wrong, but you gain nothing and nothing is easier, so there is no advantage.

    Here, let me give you a different example. Let’s say I have 1 team left in the match. Normally I would use my NS, because they are awesome and can beat almost any team. If I don’t know the score that’s who I’m using.

    But what if it turns out I need 58 points to win? My NS team usually gives me 55 points. They don’t have any way to regain protection. If I go first and don’t know what I need I lose, even if I win that battle easily. If I had known that, I could have used my Bossk BH team. They aren’t quite a good, but they regen a ton of protection. They gave me a chance to win the entire match, even if my chance of losing the battle is higher, because they can score more bonus points. Going last can make a difference.

    But you could do that without knowing, so knowing gave you no advantage, you just made a different choice, but it's a choice you could have made at that juncture to maximize your point gain without that knowledge. That's a wash, not an advantage.

    I'm not trying to be difficult, but there just doesnt seem to be any advantage to doing something that you could always have done, just because you feel forced to do it at the end.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I’ll just reiterate that although I think it’s an advantage to have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to attack, I don’t think it’s an unfair advantage. There are lots of advantages people can have in the game that aren’t really unfair—e.g., having an uncrowded arena payout time, or having essentially unlimited funds to spend.

    I think that a match between two players who are both playing chicken by delaying attacks is strategically extremely rich, and I wouldn’t want to end the possibility of such interesting matches by hiding scores. Particularly when the advantage that a chicken-playing player has against a non-chicken-playing player is almost always going to be non-determinative of the outcome.

    But an advantage gives you something or makes something easier. Single person in a PO, provably has an easier climb, but still has to beat the same teams as other. They get the advantage of not worrying about being sniped in the last minute, or hitting someone that would hit them back because they are on the same climb.

    Waiting to attack and knowing you have to use a team with lesser toons has no advantage, nothing is easier, nothing is simpler. If you can do it, you could have done it without that knowledge. Again maybe I'm wrong, but you gain nothing and nothing is easier, so there is no advantage.

    Here, let me give you a different example. Let’s say I have 1 team left in the match. Normally I would use my NS, because they are awesome and can beat almost any team. If I don’t know the score that’s who I’m using.

    But what if it turns out I need 58 points to win? My NS team usually gives me 55 points. They don’t have any way to regain protection. If I go first and don’t know what I need I lose, even if I win that battle easily. If I had known that, I could have used my Bossk BH team. They aren’t quite a good, but they regen a ton of protection. They gave me a chance to win the entire match, even if my chance of losing the battle is higher, because they can score more bonus points. Going last can make a difference.

    But you could do that without knowing, so knowing gave you no advantage, you just made a different choice, but it's a choice you could have made at that juncture to maximize your point gain without that knowledge. That's a wash, not an advantage.

    I'm not trying to be difficult, but there just doesnt seem to be any advantage to doing something that you could always have done, just because you feel forced to do it at the end.

    I’m going to take you at your word one last time that you don’t understand the points that are being made. I will try once more to explain and then I’m done.

    It is true that you could send in small squads all GA long, in an attempt to get the maximum number of points possible in any GA. The point is that doing so is almost always a suboptimal strategy. Just imagine two scenarios: scenario A in which the player sends in small, relatively high-risk squads before his opponent has attacked, and scenario B, in which the player sends in precisely the same small, high-risk squads after his opponent has attacked, and precisely because he’s seen the opponent’s score and knows he will need the extra banners.

    You seem to be saying that the player is behaving rationally in either scenario. I disagree. In scenario A, the player is taking an unwarranted risk. He’s increasing the number of banners possible, but decreasing the number of expected banners. If the gamble pays off, and he wins, he’s merely lucky. If he loses, it’s very likely because he left easy banners on the table.

    On the other hand, in scenario B, the player is taking the only course of action that gives him any chance of victory. If he loses, as he probably will, he at least made good strategic decisions. If he wins, it’s because he made good strategic decisions and he got lucky.

    The point, more than anything, is that the optimal strategy for the first player and the second player is different. The first player has to attempt to maximize his number of expected offensive banners. The second player only has to maximize his probability of getting more banners than the first player. That’s a subtle distinction, and in most matches, it probably won’t matter. But in a narrow class of relatively evenly matched GAs, it could be decisive.
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    And sometimes it doesn’t have to be just a few points. Don’t forget about the suicide IPD strategy. Send him in to blow up the leader and cripple the team for the 2nd run. If you know how many points you need you can decide if this is a viable strategy. If you don’t know how many points you need it makes it more of a gamble.

    Unless your opponent has or you think he is going to not win a first round attack, this is a horrible strategy. Any unmatched loss means a loss, 99% guaranteed.

    So while it's a startegy it's not a very good one, even if you wait and see you opponent did hit a second round win, you could try for the first round win with a real team and finish it off with a second, to have a chance at a first time win.

    You realize that’s the exact point, right? It’s a terrible strategy if you don’t know what your opponent has done (unless you can’t win any other way). It’s a great strategy if you know what your opponent has done and you know you can spare a loss. We’ve given you examples of how both knowing you are ahead and knowing you are behind can be used in your benefit.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    And sometimes it doesn’t have to be just a few points. Don’t forget about the suicide IPD strategy. Send him in to blow up the leader and cripple the team for the 2nd run. If you know how many points you need you can decide if this is a viable strategy. If you don’t know how many points you need it makes it more of a gamble.

    Unless your opponent has or you think he is going to not win a first round attack, this is a horrible strategy. Any unmatched loss means a loss, 99% guaranteed.

    So while it's a startegy it's not a very good one, even if you wait and see you opponent did hit a second round win, you could try for the first round win with a real team and finish it off with a second, to have a chance at a first time win.

    You realize that’s the exact point, right? It’s a terrible strategy if you don’t know what your opponent has done (unless you can’t win any other way). It’s a great strategy if you know what your opponent has done and you know you can spare a loss. We’ve given you examples of how both knowing you are ahead and knowing you are behind can be used in your benefit.

    this is a terrible strategy not because of your opponent, but because you are giving up a first round win. That is a bad idea.
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I’ll just reiterate that although I think it’s an advantage to have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to attack, I don’t think it’s an unfair advantage. There are lots of advantages people can have in the game that aren’t really unfair—e.g., having an uncrowded arena payout time, or having essentially unlimited funds to spend.

    I think that a match between two players who are both playing chicken by delaying attacks is strategically extremely rich, and I wouldn’t want to end the possibility of such interesting matches by hiding scores. Particularly when the advantage that a chicken-playing player has against a non-chicken-playing player is almost always going to be non-determinative of the outcome.

    But an advantage gives you something or makes something easier. Single person in a PO, provably has an easier climb, but still has to beat the same teams as other. They get the advantage of not worrying about being sniped in the last minute, or hitting someone that would hit them back because they are on the same climb.

    Waiting to attack and knowing you have to use a team with lesser toons has no advantage, nothing is easier, nothing is simpler. If you can do it, you could have done it without that knowledge. Again maybe I'm wrong, but you gain nothing and nothing is easier, so there is no advantage.

    Here, let me give you a different example. Let’s say I have 1 team left in the match. Normally I would use my NS, because they are awesome and can beat almost any team. If I don’t know the score that’s who I’m using.

    But what if it turns out I need 58 points to win? My NS team usually gives me 55 points. They don’t have any way to regain protection. If I go first and don’t know what I need I lose, even if I win that battle easily. If I had known that, I could have used my Bossk BH team. They aren’t quite a good, but they regen a ton of protection. They gave me a chance to win the entire match, even if my chance of losing the battle is higher, because they can score more bonus points. Going last can make a difference.

    But you could do that without knowing, so knowing gave you no advantage, you just made a different choice, but it's a choice you could have made at that juncture to maximize your point gain without that knowledge. That's a wash, not an advantage.

    I'm not trying to be difficult, but there just doesnt seem to be any advantage to doing something that you could always have done, just because you feel forced to do it at the end.

    I’m going to take you at your word one last time that you don’t understand the points that are being made. I will try once more to explain and then I’m done.

    It is true that you could send in small squads all GA long, in an attempt to get the maximum number of points possible in any GA. The point is that doing so is almost always a suboptimal strategy. Just imagine two scenarios: scenario A in which the player sends in small, relatively high-risk squads before his opponent has attacked, and scenario B, in which the player sends in precisely the same small, high-risk squads after his opponent has attacked, and precisely because he’s seen the opponent’s score and knows he will need the extra banners.

    You seem to be saying that the player is behaving rationally in either scenario. I disagree. In scenario A, the player is taking an unwarranted risk. He’s increasing the number of banners possible, but decreasing the number of expected banners. If the gamble pays off, and he wins, he’s merely lucky. If he loses, it’s very likely because he left easy banners on the table.

    On the other hand, in scenario B, the player is taking the only course of action that gives him any chance of victory. If he loses, as he probably will, he at least made good strategic decisions. If he wins, it’s because he made good strategic decisions and he got lucky.

    The point, more than anything, is that the optimal strategy for the first player and the second player is different. The first player has to attempt to maximize his number of expected offensive banners. The second player only has to maximize his probability of getting more banners than the first player. That’s a subtle distinction, and in most matches, it probably won’t matter. But in a narrow class of relatively evenly matched GAs, it could be decisive.

    again, i see your point, but the risk doesn't change. if you go in with that team no matter what you know, the risk is the same. you also pin it at the very ends of the spectrum, there are some decent 4 man teams out there and there are some less than optimal defensive teams used much of the time.

    if its the difference of a 100% win vs a 75% chance win, there are probably more people that would consider that acceptable.

    but yes if it was an extreme case, you would do something you may not have before.... but thats a pretty particular case, many teams can win say a 4v5 on ewoks, there are some decent one that can do 4v5 on FO, or Pheonix. These are not uncommon teams to see.

    a strategy is about what you want to get done, its a plan based on your assessment of the situation. hiding the banners for a situation that could be avoided or accomplished by a different strategy seems a little unnecessary.

    the possible advantage that it could serve in the extreme cases, seems like an outlier at best. in most cases that player wouldn't be at such an disadvantage to hit a few teams with 4v5. IMO
  • Kyno wrote: »

    this is a terrible strategy not because of your opponent, but because you are giving up a first round win. That is a bad idea.

    If you weren’t a moderator I would swear you are trolling. If you know what your opponent has done, and they lost several battles already, then losing 1 battle to make the attack easier for the next team is a good strategy if you aren’t sure if you can beat that team straight up. Those bonus points don’t matter in that situation, only getting an eventual win does. Giving up a first try win is irrelevant.
  • I am convinced by this thread that kyno has never been wrong about anything in his entire life.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Grizz331 wrote: »
    I am convinced by this thread that kyno has never been wrong about anything in his entire life.

    it happened one time. I think it was a tuesday.
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »

    this is a terrible strategy not because of your opponent, but because you are giving up a first round win. That is a bad idea.

    If you weren’t a moderator I would swear you are trolling. If you know what your opponent has done, and they lost several battles already, then losing 1 battle to make the attack easier for the next team is a good strategy if you aren’t sure if you can beat that team straight up. Those bonus points don’t matter in that situation, only getting an eventual win does. Giving up a first try win is irrelevant.

    but the point is that waiting didn't make your opponent lose, that would be strategy. or a fault on their part. if you later take advantage of that that was created by a proper defensive plan, great. but as i said earlier, you could have seen that and played the odds by knowing how your opponent might play based on their roster and the defense you see.

    yes thats playing the gamble, but still there is no easy win that is given by knowing what your opponent did. just opportunities that you could have taken earlier now presented in a different light.
  • I’m wondering if Kyno, usually a voice of reason, has been hacked!

    I won my most recent GA match as follows:

    -Took out his fleet first time
    -Took our 5 of his ground squads with my best attack squads, every single one of them with 4 toons rather than 5
    -Waited to see what he did

    Now I have no idea where in the world my opponent was from. Maybe they could have waited to attack later, or maybe they couldn’t. But what is clear is that waiting was to my advantage.

    He attacked, cleared all my squads and ships first time and I calculated I needed an average of 55 banners from defeating his last 2 teams to win by 1 point. I achieved this, comfortably, by sending in 5 man teams. So long as all toons survived with full heath and at least one had protection, I knew I’d win. Had I hit those battles without knowing that, I might have been cavalier and gone with 4 toons again, which may or may not have given me the points I needed.

    Kyno seems to be suggesting that these battles are no easier or harder than they would have been if I’d done them blind. I can’t argue with that. But I absolutely refute any claim that it wasn’t to my advantage to know what I needed to achieve in those battles instead of not knowing.
  • Liath
    3733 posts Member
    Kyno, are you familiar with the Monty Hall problem? Do you think knowing that there’s a goat behind curtain number 1 is an advantage?

    I can reach no other conclusion from your argument except that your definition of the word “advantage” is different from that of everybody else in this thread.
  • Knowing the other persons score makes ZERO difference in whether or not you win/lose. You're going to get the score you get either way.

    Either you can beat them or you can't. If knowing their score changes your strategy, get a new strategy.
  • TVF
    12654 posts Member
    Kyno is usually spot on with things.

    I think the hacked account theory is the most likely answer here.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    20556 posts Moderator
    Liath wrote: »
    Kyno, are you familiar with the Monty Hall problem? Do you think knowing that there’s a goat behind curtain number 1 is an advantage?

    I can reach no other conclusion from your argument except that your definition of the word “advantage” is different from that of everybody else in this thread.

    h1gdm8glanwu.jpg

    Knowing doesnt make the battle easier, give you and edge or any other described definition.

    The battle is the deciding factor, not knowing the score.

    If you can't win with the team you "need to use", how does knowing change anything.
    I’m wondering if Kyno, usually a voice of reason, has been hacked!

    I won my most recent GA match as follows:

    -Took out his fleet first time
    -Took our 5 of his ground squads with my best attack squads, every single one of them with 4 toons rather than 5
    -Waited to see what he did

    Now I have no idea where in the world my opponent was from. Maybe they could have waited to attack later, or maybe they couldn’t. But what is clear is that waiting was to my advantage.

    He attacked, cleared all my squads and ships first time and I calculated I needed an average of 55 banners from defeating his last 2 teams to win by 1 point. I achieved this, comfortably, by sending in 5 man teams. So long as all toons survived with full heath and at least one had protection, I knew I’d win. Had I hit those battles without knowing that, I might have been cavalier and gone with 4 toons again, which may or may not have given me the points I needed.

    Kyno seems to be suggesting that these battles are no easier or harder than they would have been if I’d done them blind. I can’t argue with that. But I absolutely refute any claim that it wasn’t to my advantage to know what I needed to achieve in those battles instead of not knowing.

    The fact that you went into attacks with 4 toons teams without know what your opponent will do is my point.

    You took that risk based on your knowledge of the situation, had the score been hidden or present, those battles would have been the same difficulty.

    Knowing the score, you changed your strategy, but you could have gone in with your assessment of the situation without knowing the score and won those battles. Done it with 4 toons if you wanted because you thought you could win.

    Knowing made you feel more comfortable, but any player can rank the risk vs reward of a battle without knowing whether it will give you a score that wins in the end. Knowing the score is moote to that point.

    Knowing your going to lose and therefore throwing a hail Mary doesn't mean your going to catch it or that it will not be blocked. It may force you to feel like you have to do something, but I wouldnt consider that an advantage, it's not a favorable situation.
  • Liath
    3733 posts Member
    Knowing doesnt make the battle easier, give you and edge or any other described definition.

    The battle is the deciding factor, not knowing the score.

    If you can't win with the team you "need to use", how does knowing change anything.

    Knowledge is a condition that puts the person with the knowledge in a superior or favorable position. That’s the definition you cited. We have explained why 100 times now.

    You really aren’t making any sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.