Grand Arena Scoring Hide Suggestion

124Next

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    the possible advantage that it could serve in the extreme cases, seems like an outlier at best.

    Let's just declare victory and move on, people.
    I demand Grand Arena Elo ratings.
  • It's pretty simple really. If you want to wait until 2 minutes to midnight in the hopes that you will divine some previously unforeseen path to ultimate victory, more power to you.

    I'm going to continue to do what has won me 2 and gotten me 2nd place in the other two - look at the opponent's roster, plan my defense, and let slip the dogs of war when the attack phase goes live.
    Ally Code 766-465-766 swgoh.gg/u/trystansr/collection/
  • Kyno wrote: »

    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.

    I go into certain battles with 4 toons because I have enough experience to know when a 5th toon costs you points.

    Beating zBossk led BH? zVeers, Starck, Range, Snow is enough. Adding a 5th Trooper is a waste of points.

    Beating pretty much any team with CLS, Chewy, Han +2? No need for the other 2.

    Using JTR, BB8, R2, RT? No need for a 5th.

    Using Bastila led Jedi? GMY, Hoda, Ezra will obliterate most teams without taking a scratch, especially when your GMY hits as hard as mine.

    These aren’t risks. They’re the actions of someone who knows how to play with meta squads.
    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.

    Again, I cannot agree with that. Once you get past the above squads and need to use things like a cobbled together EP led Empire team, or Rex led Wampa squads, there is now genuine risk involved. These teams can win with only 4 members, but it’s much less certain than when using the above squads I mentioned. By waiting, I learned that I did not need to take the risk. It’s not a case of “feeling more comfortable”, this isn’t an emotional issue. It’s about knowing what’s required to win versus guessing what’s required to win.

    You’re suggesting that I could have hit those battles without knowing whether or not my total score would win. And that’s exactly my point. I just don’t understand how you can’t see a difference between doing that and hitting the battles knowing exactly what you need to do to win.

    You seem to keep coming back to the actual battles themselves being of the same difficulty whether you know the score or not. Part of the battle process is selecting your toons. Knowing the score makes that process easier. Can I go in with 5 toons and win safely? Or do I need to take a risk?

    TL:DR- when you have 7 battles to win, you may need to take risks. If you know exactly what score you need to get to win, you can avoid taking unnecessary risks.

  • Kyno
    19211 posts Moderator
    Liath wrote: »
    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.

    What is superior or favorable about knowing you can use a team to win, if you could have used that team for the same reason without that knowledge?

    I could win with X team and score more points vs I have to use X team to score more points. That is not an advantage, the knowledge is meaningless. The battle with X team is no easier nor scores you more points without that knowledge.

    Knowledge making you feel better about a decision is not an advantage, because the situation is the same.
  • Liath
    3040 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    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.

    What is superior or favorable about knowing you can use a team to win, if you could have used that team for the same reason without that knowledge?

    I could win with X team and score more points vs I have to use X team to score more points. That is not an advantage, the knowledge is meaningless. The battle with X team is no easier nor scores you more points without that knowledge.

    Knowledge making you feel better about a decision is not an advantage, because the situation is the same.

    Please see every other post I have made in this thread (along with many others. We have already explained MANY MANY times why it’s favorable to have knowledge vs to not have that knowledge.
  • Kyno
    19211 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »

    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.

    I go into certain battles with 4 toons because I have enough experience to know when a 5th toon costs you points.

    Beating zBossk led BH? zVeers, Starck, Range, Snow is enough. Adding a 5th Trooper is a waste of points.

    Beating pretty much any team with CLS, Chewy, Han +2? No need for the other 2.

    Using JTR, BB8, R2, RT? No need for a 5th.

    Using Bastila led Jedi? GMY, Hoda, Ezra will obliterate most teams without taking a scratch, especially when your GMY hits as hard as mine.

    These aren’t risks. They’re the actions of someone who knows how to play with meta squads.
    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.

    Again, I cannot agree with that. Once you get past the above squads and need to use things like a cobbled together EP led Empire team, or Rex led Wampa squads, there is now genuine risk involved. These teams can win with only 4 members, but it’s much less certain than when using the above squads I mentioned. By waiting, I learned that I did not need to take the risk. It’s not a case of “feeling more comfortable”, this isn’t an emotional issue. It’s about knowing what’s required to win versus guessing what’s required to win.

    You’re suggesting that I could have hit those battles without knowing whether or not my total score would win. And that’s exactly my point. I just don’t understand how you can’t see a difference between doing that and hitting the battles knowing exactly what you need to do to win.

    You seem to keep coming back to the actual battles themselves being of the same difficulty whether you know the score or not. Part of the battle process is selecting your toons. Knowing the score makes that process easier. Can I go in with 5 toons and win safely? Or do I need to take a risk?

    TL:DR- when you have 7 battles to win, you may need to take risks. If you know exactly what score you need to get to win, you can avoid taking unnecessary risks.

    In your description you went in and took a calculated risk and what you found to be an acceptable risk. If you had followed this strategy through, you would have won. You changed your strategy knowing the score and won... you would have won either way. The deciding factor there is your skill and assessment of the situation. Not the knowledge.

    Again, this is an edge case where you have some sort of benefit from knowing, in that you can take less of a risk, but your battles would be generally thought out, it's not like you would just leave yourself junk toons in your last battle and hope.

    There are (as I already said) some situations that are outliers to say there is an advantage, but if you cant win the battle, knowing the score is meaningless. If you would have won by implementing a proper startegy but were able to change it due to that knowledge, again not quite an advantage, since you would have won anyway.

    For them to change a game mode to remove a startegy, wouldnt it have to be something more detrimental to the person who may not be able to take full advantage? On top of that, this strategy doesnt guarantee anything since you still have to win to make it work.

    Sorry, I was not trying to be difficult, just not seeing anything that is going to cause someone to win a match just based on that knowledge alone. It's more of a personal thing, a more risk adverse person would benefit from waiting if they are on the losing side, and a less risk adverse would benefit from waiting if they are on the winning side. But most of the strategies stated to take advantage of this could just be followed without knowing the score and land the player in the same situation. In the end it's the players strategy that is winning, not the knowledge of the score.
  • That’s a good reply @Kyno - and I don’t think you’re being difficult having read it thoroughly.

    I see where you’re coming from. In the case of a GA that will be decided by one player clearing a map and the other not being able to, or one player clearing ships and 5/6 teams whilst the other clears ships and 4/6 teams, waiting around is not likely to make a difference. Waiting around to see if you need to beat the enemy g12 NS squad with your g9 clones for a win is not really gaining an advantage. You either can or you can’t. If you don’t need to, you never needed to.

    However, in the 9 GA rounds I’ve played, I’ve only once failed to clear the board (opponent owned Revan and the Qi’ra led scoundrel team with Vandor Chewy zeta which I failed to take down). My opponents have cleared the board 5 of the 8 times I have. Of those 5 “both full clear” matches I’ve lost one and won four. The margin has never been more than 15 points. The one I lost was 2 points.

    In matches like that, where simply clearing all teams first time is not enough to guarantee winning, playing the waiting game does give an “advantage”. It’s the knowing what score you need part that makes these things a “calculated” risk, rather than a stab in the dark. There are squads you could take out with Nest by herself - risky, but if you needed to you could try it. If you know you don’t need to risk it, obviously you wouldn’t risk it.

    Maybe I need to start setting one or two more strong defence teams to enjoy more one sided GA rounds - either one way or the other! These single digit margin matches are tense.
  • Kyno would you prefer to play blackjack with both dealer cards face up or just one ?
  • Kyno
    19211 posts Moderator
    That’s a good reply @Kyno - and I don’t think you’re being difficult having read it thoroughly.

    I see where you’re coming from. In the case of a GA that will be decided by one player clearing a map and the other not being able to, or one player clearing ships and 5/6 teams whilst the other clears ships and 4/6 teams, waiting around is not likely to make a difference. Waiting around to see if you need to beat the enemy g12 NS squad with your g9 clones for a win is not really gaining an advantage. You either can or you can’t. If you don’t need to, you never needed to.

    However, in the 9 GA rounds I’ve played, I’ve only once failed to clear the board (opponent owned Revan and the Qi’ra led scoundrel team with Vandor Chewy zeta which I failed to take down). My opponents have cleared the board 5 of the 8 times I have. Of those 5 “both full clear” matches I’ve lost one and won four. The margin has never been more than 15 points. The one I lost was 2 points.

    In matches like that, where simply clearing all teams first time is not enough to guarantee winning, playing the waiting game does give an “advantage”. It’s the knowing what score you need part that makes these things a “calculated” risk, rather than a stab in the dark. There are squads you could take out with Nest by herself - risky, but if you needed to you could try it. If you know you don’t need to risk it, obviously you wouldn’t risk it.

    Maybe I need to start setting one or two more strong defence teams to enjoy more one sided GA rounds - either one way or the other! These single digit margin matches are tense.

    Not exactly, i am only thinking of full clears.

    in those cases, the calculations of risk are how effective you think you can do against the teams in front of you. if you know you can win with 4, why wouldn't you?

    yes high risk battles are something that needs to be handled with great care, but if your last battle has to be won with 5 members becuase of nest or some other factor, knowing doesn't make it any easier. thats the point.

    I'm not saying that there are not cases where things may end up seeming like an advantage, but in many its more perception than any actual advantage.

    in the cases where you need to win X battles with Y number of toons, it doesnt make the battle easier.

    if you can't win the battle you need to with whatever the team has to be for points, knowing changes nothing.

    these are some pretty solid facts.

    yes knowing may make a player take a risk they wouldn't have, but its not a guarantee to any result, its not even anything that helps with the actual battle.

    yes knowing may leave a player in a situation where they wont have to take a risk to win, but that also means the war was won before they knew and a confident plan would have been just as effective.

    there are just so many natural situations where knowing means nothing.

    each player has a different level of risk they are comfortable with, this is why some may see a bigger advantage than others.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Not exactly, i am only thinking of full clears.

    in those cases, the calculations of risk are how effective you think you can do against the teams in front of you. if you know you can win with 4, why wouldn't you?

    yes high risk battles are something that needs to be handled with great care, but if your last battle has to be won with 5 members becuase of nest or some other factor, knowing doesn't make it any easier. thats the point.

    I'm not saying that there are not cases where things may end up seeming like an advantage, but in many its more perception than any actual advantage.

    in the cases where you need to win X battles with Y number of toons, it doesnt make the battle easier.

    if you can't win the battle you need to with whatever the team has to be for points, knowing changes nothing.

    these are some pretty solid facts.

    yes knowing may make a player take a risk they wouldn't have, but its not a guarantee to any result, its not even anything that helps with the actual battle.

    yes knowing may leave a player in a situation where they wont have to take a risk to win, but that also means the war was won before they knew and a confident plan would have been just as effective.

    there are just so many natural situations where knowing means nothing.

    each player has a different level of risk they are comfortable with, this is why some may see a bigger advantage than others.

    Sometimes you don't know that you can win your last battle with 4. But if you're attacking second, you know whether or not you need to TRY to win that last battle with 4. Yes, if you can't win with 4, it's irrelevant to know that it's required, but this is a question of strategy optimization. Your claim throughout this thread that there is no advantage from having more knowledge than your opponent is ludicrous, because the advantage is in being able to optimize your strategy. As for your "if you know you can win with 4, why wouldn't you?" question, the answer is because this game can be HEAVILY dependent on rng. Sometimes you can go in with an optimal team and have everything go wrong and lose. Going in with an undersized team can exacerbate the effects of rng, so if you don't need to go in with 4, why would you? If my opponent does a super-efficient job that requires me to use multiple undersized teams to win, I'll use multiple undersized teams. If my opponent isn't super efficient, and say beats my last defensive team on his second try, I'll use full teams, because all I need is to clear first time. Planning my attack with that knowledge is an advantage over planning my attack with no idea what the score is.
Sign In or Register to comment.