Grand Arena Scoring Hide Suggestion

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
    20556 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
    3733 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
    20556 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
    20556 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.
  • Bulldog1205
    2824 posts Member
    I know this is digging up an old thread, but I didn’t want to start a new one and this also serves as a reminder of this discussion that seems to pop up every month or so.

    Today’s Grand Arena was an absolute perfect example of how I used attacking last to give myself a major advantage, and I wanted to try and showcase that:

  • CCyrilS
    1617 posts Member
    So attack early, but hold back one good team to throw off the opponent?
  • Bulldog1205
    2824 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    So attack early, but hold back one good team to throw off the opponent?

    I mean, sure, that could catch someone off guard in a perfect scenario. Nobody is going to think you have no teams left though unless you’ve failed several battles, at which point you’ve still given your opponent an advantage. If my opponent above had kept his DR team to beat my DR team, for example, it may have actually fooled me. But what good would it have done?

    And it still gets back to my overall point. If holding back surprise teams for the last minute turns out to be a potential strategy, that is just one less option for those who can’t be on in the final minutes, and that isn’t fair.
  • Saada
    59 posts Member
    Nothing wrong with seeing the points, if anything it's an advantage to go first. If you score high and it means your opponent will have to try and get extra banners there is a good chance they'll use the wrong squad or using an undersized squad will backfire
  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    edited May 26
    I know this is digging up an old thread, but I didn’t want to start a new one and this also serves as a reminder of this discussion that seems to pop up every month or so.

    Today’s Grand Arena was an absolute perfect example of how I used attacking last to give myself a major advantage, and I wanted to try and showcase that:


    His comments support my point:

    The advantage is only, that you may know, that you don't need to do your best performance, but you can relax a bit during your offense and not play to get your optimal score.

    You still can't perform any better than your best - neither by going first, nor second.

    I didn't see any new points in this video. Nothing that wasn't written/commented before in this thread. I see no reason for the necro.
  • Bulldog1205
    2824 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    I know this is digging up an old thread, but I didn’t want to start a new one and this also serves as a reminder of this discussion that seems to pop up every month or so.

    Today’s Grand Arena was an absolute perfect example of how I used attacking last to give myself a major advantage, and I wanted to try and showcase that:


    His comments support my point:

    The advantage is only, that you may know, that you don't need to do your best performance, but you can relax a bit during your offense and not play to get your optimal score.

    You still can't perform any better than your best - neither by going first, nor second.

    I didn't see any new points in this video. Nothing that wasn't written/commented before in this thread. I see no reason for the necro.

    It’s simply illustrating the point with real life gameplay. Going last allowed me to turn a toss up match into an easy win. Some people still deny that going last can have advantages. I’ve had 3 people since this video tell me they used this strategy to pick up a win they didn’t expect.
  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    edited May 26
    Waqui wrote: »
    I know this is digging up an old thread, but I didn’t want to start a new one and this also serves as a reminder of this discussion that seems to pop up every month or so.

    Today’s Grand Arena was an absolute perfect example of how I used attacking last to give myself a major advantage, and I wanted to try and showcase that:


    His comments support my point:

    The advantage is only, that you may know, that you don't need to do your best performance, but you can relax a bit during your offense and not play to get your optimal score.

    You still can't perform any better than your best - neither by going first, nor second.

    I didn't see any new points in this video. Nothing that wasn't written/commented before in this thread. I see no reason for the necro.

    It’s simply illustrating the point with real life gameplay. Going last allowed me to turn a toss up match into an easy win. Some people still deny that going last can have advantages. I’ve had 3 people since this video tell me they used this strategy to pick up a win they didn’t expect.

    How did going last improve your score?

    What I saw was, that after seeing your opponent's low score, you could relax a bit, not push hard and still win.
  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    You didn't win because you went second. You won because your opponent used several attempts on several teams, f.ex. 2 attempts on your JKR, 3 (yes, three!) on your smugglers, and one more team as well. You say so yourself about 1 minute in.
  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    If you had gone first instead and pushed hard to get the best score possible instead of taking it easy, how would that help your opponent (who then goes second) win?
    If you had gone first, still takien it easy and scored the same as you did in the video, how would it help your opponent win? How would it help him take out your smugglers in the first attempt instead of in the third attempt?

    Please explain, how your opponent would have an advantage by going second instead of first? How would it make him score even one - just one - more banner?
  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    Quoting you from the video:
    "If your opponent didn't clear the board, going last will be a huge advantage".

    Please explain how it's any different than if he cleared the board with a low score? In both cases, you can just relax, clear the board without worrying too much.

    If you can't clear the board, then you can't clear it no matter wether you go first or second. There's neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. Your lost battle would not be caused by going first or second.

    Long story short:
    Your attacks and your opponent's attacks are completely independant events. One doesn't influence the other. It's all in your mind.
  • HowieWan
    42 posts Member
    In my last GA round, my opponent cleared all but 1 of my squads in one battle, then stopped. I did the same, and at that point I was down by 3 banners. I waited, and had a plan to use a 3 person squad for the final battle that would have been a high-risk decision. About 30 minutes before the end of the round, my opponent attacked my last squad and lost the first battle. I was then able to comfortably use a full squad to win my final battle and the round. Waiting hasn't always created this kind of advantage for me, but I've never been hurt by waiting.
  • The goal is to be efficient at defeating your opponent to earn the max number of banners you can, hence why there is the banner / point system for GA / TW. Going first or last wouldn't change that fact. If it does for yoy, you're playing this wrongly.
  • HowieWan
    42 posts Member
    The goal of GA and TW is not "to earn the max number of banners you can." The goal is to earn one more banner than your opponent. It's similar to match play in golf; you don't need to set a course record, you just need to beat your opponent. This often involves adjusting your strategy and decisions each hole based on the score and your position. GA is the same.
  • Bulldog1205
    2824 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    I know this is digging up an old thread, but I didn’t want to start a new one and this also serves as a reminder of this discussion that seems to pop up every month or so.

    Today’s Grand Arena was an absolute perfect example of how I used attacking last to give myself a major advantage, and I wanted to try and showcase that:


    His comments support my point:

    The advantage is only, that you may know, that you don't need to do your best performance, but you can relax a bit during your offense and not play to get your optimal score.

    You still can't perform any better than your best - neither by going first, nor second.

    I didn't see any new points in this video. Nothing that wasn't written/commented before in this thread. I see no reason for the necro.

    It’s simply illustrating the point with real life gameplay. Going last allowed me to turn a toss up match into an easy win. Some people still deny that going last can have advantages. I’ve had 3 people since this video tell me they used this strategy to pick up a win they didn’t expect.

    How did going last improve your score?

    What I saw was, that after seeing your opponent's low score, you could relax a bit, not push hard and still win.

    It didn’t improve my score. It allowed me to take 0 risks, increasing the chance that I scored above my opponent.

    If I hadn’t know my opponents score I would have attempted to match my top teams against his top teams. Had I won, I would have scored higher. Had I lost, I would have burned my top teams the way my opponent did, making everything down the line harder. My results may have looked just like my opponents did, or even worse. I actually won fewer battles than he did. But because I knew what I needed I put my top teams against his weakest teams to guarantee I got that score.
  • Bulldog1205
    2824 posts Member
    HowieWan wrote: »
    The goal of GA and TW is not "to earn the max number of banners you can." The goal is to earn one more banner than your opponent. It's similar to match play in golf; you don't need to set a course record, you just need to beat your opponent. This often involves adjusting your strategy and decisions each hole based on the score and your position. GA is the same.

    Exactly. I still think the better example is like abNCAA football OT. The team going 2nd usually has the advantage by knowing how many points they need. My match in the video above is like forcing a turnover on defense and then turning around and cautiously running the ball up the middle a few times and kicking a game winning field goal.
  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    HowieWan wrote: »
    In my last GA round, my opponent cleared all but 1 of my squads in one battle, then stopped. I did the same, and at that point I was down by 3 banners. I waited, and had a plan to use a 3 person squad for the final battle that would have been a high-risk decision. About 30 minutes before the end of the round, my opponent attacked my last squad and lost the first battle. I was then able to comfortably use a full squad to win my final battle and the round.

    Your opponent was ahead by 3 and didn't need to take any risks. He would probably have failed that final attempt disregarding weather he went first or second. But yes, the final battle was less stressful for you, which is nice.

  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    edited May 27
    Waqui wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    I know this is digging up an old thread, but I didn’t want to start a new one and this also serves as a reminder of this discussion that seems to pop up every month or so.

    Today’s Grand Arena was an absolute perfect example of how I used attacking last to give myself a major advantage, and I wanted to try and showcase that:


    His comments support my point:

    The advantage is only, that you may know, that you don't need to do your best performance, but you can relax a bit during your offense and not play to get your optimal score.

    You still can't perform any better than your best - neither by going first, nor second.

    I didn't see any new points in this video. Nothing that wasn't written/commented before in this thread. I see no reason for the necro.

    It’s simply illustrating the point with real life gameplay. Going last allowed me to turn a toss up match into an easy win. Some people still deny that going last can have advantages. I’ve had 3 people since this video tell me they used this strategy to pick up a win they didn’t expect.

    How did going last improve your score?

    What I saw was, that after seeing your opponent's low score, you could relax a bit, not push hard and still win.

    It didn’t improve my score. It allowed me to take 0 risks, ...

    Yes, we agree on that. That has already been stated several times in the thread. Your video brings nothing new, which justifies a necro, although your video might be entertaining.
    ... increasing the chance that I scored above my opponent.

    It made you score less than you could have if you pushed harder. How does scoring less increase the chance to score higher than your opponent? Please explain this.
    If I hadn’t know my opponents score I would have attempted to match my top teams against his top teams. Had I won, I would have scored higher. Had I lost, I would have burned my top teams the way my opponent did, ...

    The reason your opponent failed so many attempts, is not that he went first. The reason is, that apparently he didn't have counter teams for your defense. F.ex. he put his Traya on defense, while you kept yours for offense. Your opponent could have used that Traya team on offense to take out your smuggler team in the first attempt instead of the third. Furthermore, since he didn't leave a JKR team on defense, I assume he used it on offense, most likely against your own JKR team, and apparently he failed his first attempt (yes, a lot of assumptions).

    None of this has got anything to do with going first or second. Going second would in no way have helped your opponent score higher in those battles. Using a different strategy would.
    ...making everything down the line harder. My results may have looked just like my opponents did, or even worse. I actually won fewer battles than he did.

    By comparing his defense with which teams you had available for offense, you could easily have won more battles - maybe even cleared the board. This has nothing to do with going first or second.
    But because I knew what I needed I put my top teams against his weakest teams to guarantee I got that score.

    Yes, you had a less stressfull attack phase, and an easy win, which is nice. We agree on this. However, if you hade gone first and cleared more teams than you actually did (because you obviously could), it wouldn't have given your opponent any higher chance at winning. Going second would not have made your opponent beat your JKR or smugglers in the first attempt. Using a different strategy, executing it better or having better gear/mods on his attackers could have.
  • Kisakee
    272 posts Member
    In todays GA i went first in attacking and oneshotted all enemy squads. My opponent failed once and now i'll win this round.
    Can i now claim going first, oneshotting everything and putting the pressure on my enemy to do better than i is an unfair advantage? Neither going first or second is a disadvantage by itself, it's always what you make out of it. If you fail you'll fail, no matter who attacked first. Both strategies have their positive and negative arguments and one may take attacking second to a much better use instead of attacking first, but it's not unfair.
    Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid.
  • Bulldog1205
    2824 posts Member
    Kisakee wrote: »
    In todays GA i went first in attacking and oneshotted all enemy squads. My opponent failed once and now i'll win this round.
    Can i now claim going first, oneshotting everything and putting the pressure on my enemy to do better than i is an unfair advantage? Neither going first or second is a disadvantage by itself, it's always what you make out of it. If you fail you'll fail, no matter who attacked first. Both strategies have their positive and negative arguments and one may take attacking second to a much better use instead of attacking first, but it's not unfair.

    Any advantage (whether going first or second is irrelevant) is unfair, because both parties don’t necessarily have the same opportunity to take such advantage.
  • Waqui
    5177 posts Member
    edited May 27
    Kisakee wrote: »
    In todays GA i went first in attacking and oneshotted all enemy squads. My opponent failed once and now i'll win this round.
    Can i now claim going first, oneshotting everything and putting the pressure on my enemy to do better than i is an unfair advantage? Neither going first or second is a disadvantage by itself, it's always what you make out of it. If you fail you'll fail, no matter who attacked first. Both strategies have their positive and negative arguments and one may take attacking second to a much better use instead of attacking first, but it's not unfair.

    Any advantage (whether going first or second is irrelevant) is unfair, because both parties don’t necessarily have the same opportunity to take such advantage.

    Please explain what the advantage is exactly? How can you score more by going second? Or first?
Sign In or Register to comment.