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?
Sigh. I already provided video of a factual, real life example of when going 2nd significantly increased my odds of winning.
We can argue all day long about how often that will occur, whether it’s actually the best strategy to try and create that situation, or whether it’s significant enough to warrant a change in how the game works. Those are all opinions. It’s a fact though that going 2nd can be an advantage. I can’t make it any clearer than I already have.
You can't score more or less by choosing to attack first or second. The battles are the same difficulty, and your squad options are the same. But knowing your opponent's banner score before you attack can be a strategic advantage because, in GA, you are not trying to score the most possible banners. You are trying to score more banners than one opponent.
There is a second possible advantage/benefit to attacking second in GA on maps with a front and back zone. I can often guess if my opponent has a DR or JKR hidden in a back zone based on how they attack my front defenses. It's a fair strategy, and it doesn't always help me, but there have been matches where the knowledge has led me to change my attack squads for a more reliable win condition.
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?
Sigh. I already provided video of a factual, real life example of when going 2nd significantly increased my odds of winning.
I don't agree, for the reasons already given. You won. You won easily. But it had nothing to do with going second.
It’s a fact though that going 2nd can be an advantage.
It's a fact that going second will not help you score more banners than you could by going first.
You can't score more or less by choosing to attack first or second. The battles are the same difficulty, and your squad options are the same. But knowing your opponent's banner score before you attack can be a strategic advantage because, in GA, you are not trying to score the most possible banners. You are trying to score more banners than one opponent.
Yes, going second can help you to a less stressfull attack phase, while still winning. However, how does that give you an advantage? If you win by going second, you could have won by going first as well. If you loose when going first and doing your absoloutely best, how could going second instead have helped you win? How is going second an advantage?
There is a second possible advantage/benefit to attacking second in GA on maps with a front and back zone. I can often guess if my opponent has a DR or JKR hidden in a back zone based on how they attack my front defenses.
Please give an example of this - real or constructed. (I believe you have a guess, but you don't know for sure).
Round 2
Attacked right away, and I knew he had zzz Darth Revan from scoping his inventory. Surprised it wasn't on defence, so I went for maximum banners right out of the gate and hoped he stumbled on even one attack. Won by 20+/- banners.
Round 3
Went second because of my work schedule. Knew he had zzz Jedi Revan. Saw his banners and knew I'd have to A - one shot everything, B - average about 58.2 banners per win. Won by 2 banners.
Going first or second wouldn't help me, neither would choosing better defence. I, incorrectly, assumed that they would see my roster without DR or JKR and place theirs on defence. It would have most likely guaranteed them a win. It's what I would have done. I set specific defences on round 1, and then just let it auto deploy in 3&4.
1. There are plenty of matchups where going first or second won't end up changing the outcome. But when it does matter, it's always a strategic advantage to go last. Consider the scenario I mentioned earlier, with a slight modification. If you and your opponent are tied with one battle left each, would you rather attack first or second? In that battle, if you could run a 3-person squad with a win rate of 40%, or a 5-person squad with a win rate of 95%+, wouldn't it be an advantage to know before the battle how many banners you need? Of course all of this acknowledges that RNG plays a role and it's all just percentage odds. I could choose to go first and play the 40% odds, win the battle, and my opponent would give up. But I could just as easily lose that 40% battle and give my opponent a much higher chance to win. So in select scenarios late in rounds, banner totals can absolutely provide a strategic battle advantage. A fair one, I might add.
2. I would agree that I can only determine educated guesses about possible back zone defenses, not certain knowledge. I recall a GA before DR where my opponent put heavy defense in the front zones, but not JKR. Something like Bossk, Traya, CLS, and NS. I had my JKR on D, and I was needed to decide whether I would see their JKR in a back zone. They proceeded to defeat my JKR in one battle. I guessed they used their own JKR, so I decided to use my best O up front. Thankfully, I was right and they had weak back zone D. Again, all you can get is an educated guess, but it can be helpful nonetheless.
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.
Both players are either fair or unfair at the same time. One goes first and puts the pressure on, advantage taken. The other goes second and can see how the first one did, advantage taken too. The only fair situation is if no one has joined GA in first place.
In your logic both players are unfair because each has an advantage, if they want or not. Following your thoughts the whole game is unfair because everyone is always taking an advantage over you - arena, ships, TW - basically everywhere. Again the only fair situation is just not to fight which means stop playing the game. As long as you play you're unfair every second while everyone else is in the same situation.
"Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
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.
Both players are either fair or unfair at the same time. One goes first and puts the pressure on, advantage taken. The other goes second and can see how the first one did, advantage taken too. The only fair situation is if no one has joined GA in first place.
In your logic both players are unfair because each has an advantage, if they want or not. Following your thoughts the whole game is unfair because everyone is always taking an advantage over you - arena, ships, TW - basically everywhere. Again the only fair situation is just not to fight which means stop playing the game. As long as you play you're unfair every second while everyone else is in the same situation.
What? I can’t even follow this...
It’s unfair to people who live in Russia, for example, and they can’t be on at the beginning/end of GA because it’s in the middle of the night.
If they changed it so GA started the same time as events like omega battles (3 am eastern), people in the US would be outraged, no doubt about it. This is because it’s not a fair situation.
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.
Both players are either fair or unfair at the same time. One goes first and puts the pressure on, advantage taken. The other goes second and can see how the first one did, advantage taken too. The only fair situation is if no one has joined GA in first place.
In your logic both players are unfair because each has an advantage, if they want or not. Following your thoughts the whole game is unfair because everyone is always taking an advantage over you - arena, ships, TW - basically everywhere. Again the only fair situation is just not to fight which means stop playing the game. As long as you play you're unfair every second while everyone else is in the same situation.
What? I can’t even follow this...
It’s unfair to people who live in Russia, for example, and they can’t be on at the beginning/end of GA because it’s in the middle of the night.
If they changed it so GA started the same time as events like omega battles (3 am eastern), people in the US would be outraged, no doubt about it. This is because it’s not a fair situation.
I'm in the US. I generally attack right away, sometimes wait a few hours. I would not be outraged. It doesn't matter to me at all when it starts, as long as I have 24 hours.
It’s unfair to people who live in Russia, for example, and they can’t be on at the beginning/end of GA because it’s in the middle of the night.
If they changed it so GA started the same time as events like omega battles (3 am eastern), people in the US would be outraged, no doubt about it. This is because it’s not a fair situation.
Come on, it's not that hard to understand. Like you said - every advantage is unfair. And every battle against another player is unfair because you're always having an advantage as attacker. Conclusion: The whole game is unfair. Next level of your logic.
And not everyone is sleeping at night by the way.
"Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
Attacking first isn't an advantage. If you choose to attack first with a bold and risky strategy, you can create an advantage if you are successful. But attacking first is never an advantage on its own. On the other hand, attacking second can give you an advantage before you start your battles. Not always, but sometimes. Obviously in matchups where one player has a far superior roster, attacking first or second will make no difference.
Attacking first isn't an advantage. If you choose to attack first with a bold and risky strategy, you can create an advantage if you are successful. But attacking first is never an advantage on its own. On the other hand, attacking second can give you an advantage before you start your battles. Not always, but sometimes. Obviously in matchups where one player has a far superior roster, attacking first or second will make no difference.
The advantage of attacking first is putting the pressure on the enemy and of course you need to win to do so. You'll need to win when attacking second too. The only difference is at which point you're taking the advantage - attacking first after the battles, attacking second before the battles - but both players have one.
"Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
For two evenly matched players with nearly equal rosters, there is no advantage to attacking first. "Putting pressure" on your opponent is not a natural advantage - you take a risk first, and if you are successful only then have you created a strategic advantage. For the person attacking second, they may have to match your risky strategy, or they may be able to avoid risk and choose their optimal strategy to win. I most often attack second and I've never once felt pressured by my opponent. I have, however, been surprised by my opponent's success or failure and adjusted my strategy accordingly. That is an advantage.
QoL request: To remove the ability to see what your opponent is doing during the attack phase of GA.
Reasoning: One of the main draws of GA was that you had a whole day to do it. The majority of the time, my opponents wait until the last hour of GA to see what I have done before battling. This is obviously beneficial as if you have made a mistake, they know they can just use full 5-toon teams instead of trying for smaller teams, etc.
Instead GA is now just like other time-related game modes (squad arena / raids / etc.) where you have to be online at a specific time. It also isn't really fair that this time is always during work for some people and in leisure time for others.
I disagree. When I review that I know right then if I will even try or not. Lately it’s been I do not. My opponent usually has all the chars I do not so I know I will be crushed.
Or you could always attack with the intent of maximizing your score? Regardless what your opponent does, this should be everyone’s goal in attack phase. I don’t care what my opponent does, only what I can do.
QoL request: To remove the ability to see what your opponent is doing during the attack phase of GA.
Reasoning: One of the main draws of GA was that you had a whole day to do it. The majority of the time, my opponents wait until the last hour of GA to see what I have done before battling. This is obviously beneficial as if you have made a mistake, they know they can just use full 5-toon teams instead of trying for smaller teams, etc.
Instead GA is now just like other time-related game modes (squad arena / raids / etc.) where you have to be online at a specific time. It also isn't really fair that this time is always during work for some people and in leisure time for others.
What difference does it make weather you or they attack first?
It will not make your task any easier or theirs any harder.
Their score has no impact on yours because ultimately it's up to you to chose your squads and play.
For this GA, I got home from work at 5 and went to town.
I had already looked through his roster and studied it.
I planned. I plotted. I plundered. I already knew what teams I'd use to counter his. I knew his best teams stats.
Easy pickings.
So - He hadn't played as of when I went to bed last night.
But just because he knows the score I got, it won't make it any easier as I already had my line up set. Based of course on my hunches what he was goin gto put etc.
We shall see if he beat me or not. But I honestly don't feel I gave him any advantage by wiping out his team first...
In fact, I feel I put the pressure on him. he's more likely to make a mistake now.
I disagree. When I review that I know right then if I will even try or not. Lately it’s been I do not. My opponent usually has all the chars I do not so I know I will be crushed.
Or you could always attack with the intent of maximizing your score? Regardless what your opponent does, this should be everyone’s goal in attack phase. **** what my opponent does, only what I can do.
You could and to do that you would have to try use 4 toons, etc. which will make it more likely you will make mistakes... if you know you can beat your opponent after they have gone with using full sized squads, you don’t need to try optimize your squads. It’s common sense.
Or you could always attack with the intent of maximizing your score? Regardless what your opponent does, this should be everyone’s goal in attack phase. **** what my opponent does, only what I can do.
And then you end up losing out on a 1000 points because you took a unnecessary risk to eek out an extra 3 points.
People complain about there not being enough to do and then want to take away one of the fun activities in the game, which is watching my opponent flail around helplessly against my D.
Replies
Sigh. I already provided video of a factual, real life example of when going 2nd significantly increased my odds of winning.
We can argue all day long about how often that will occur, whether it’s actually the best strategy to try and create that situation, or whether it’s significant enough to warrant a change in how the game works. Those are all opinions. It’s a fact though that going 2nd can be an advantage. I can’t make it any clearer than I already have.
There is a second possible advantage/benefit to attacking second in GA on maps with a front and back zone. I can often guess if my opponent has a DR or JKR hidden in a back zone based on how they attack my front defenses. It's a fair strategy, and it doesn't always help me, but there have been matches where the knowledge has led me to change my attack squads for a more reliable win condition.
I don't agree, for the reasons already given. You won. You won easily. But it had nothing to do with going second.
It's a fact that going second will not help you score more banners than you could by going first.
Please try.
Yes, going second can help you to a less stressfull attack phase, while still winning. However, how does that give you an advantage? If you win by going second, you could have won by going first as well. If you loose when going first and doing your absoloutely best, how could going second instead have helped you win? How is going second an advantage?
Please give an example of this - real or constructed. (I believe you have a guess, but you don't know for sure).
Attacked right away, and I knew he had zzz Darth Revan from scoping his inventory. Surprised it wasn't on defence, so I went for maximum banners right out of the gate and hoped he stumbled on even one attack. Won by 20+/- banners.
Round 3
Went second because of my work schedule. Knew he had zzz Jedi Revan. Saw his banners and knew I'd have to A - one shot everything, B - average about 58.2 banners per win. Won by 2 banners.
Going first or second wouldn't help me, neither would choosing better defence. I, incorrectly, assumed that they would see my roster without DR or JKR and place theirs on defence. It would have most likely guaranteed them a win. It's what I would have done. I set specific defences on round 1, and then just let it auto deploy in 3&4.
1. There are plenty of matchups where going first or second won't end up changing the outcome. But when it does matter, it's always a strategic advantage to go last. Consider the scenario I mentioned earlier, with a slight modification. If you and your opponent are tied with one battle left each, would you rather attack first or second? In that battle, if you could run a 3-person squad with a win rate of 40%, or a 5-person squad with a win rate of 95%+, wouldn't it be an advantage to know before the battle how many banners you need? Of course all of this acknowledges that RNG plays a role and it's all just percentage odds. I could choose to go first and play the 40% odds, win the battle, and my opponent would give up. But I could just as easily lose that 40% battle and give my opponent a much higher chance to win. So in select scenarios late in rounds, banner totals can absolutely provide a strategic battle advantage. A fair one, I might add.
2. I would agree that I can only determine educated guesses about possible back zone defenses, not certain knowledge. I recall a GA before DR where my opponent put heavy defense in the front zones, but not JKR. Something like Bossk, Traya, CLS, and NS. I had my JKR on D, and I was needed to decide whether I would see their JKR in a back zone. They proceeded to defeat my JKR in one battle. I guessed they used their own JKR, so I decided to use my best O up front. Thankfully, I was right and they had weak back zone D. Again, all you can get is an educated guess, but it can be helpful nonetheless.
Both players are either fair or unfair at the same time. One goes first and puts the pressure on, advantage taken. The other goes second and can see how the first one did, advantage taken too. The only fair situation is if no one has joined GA in first place.
In your logic both players are unfair because each has an advantage, if they want or not. Following your thoughts the whole game is unfair because everyone is always taking an advantage over you - arena, ships, TW - basically everywhere. Again the only fair situation is just not to fight which means stop playing the game. As long as you play you're unfair every second while everyone else is in the same situation.
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
What? I can’t even follow this...
It’s unfair to people who live in Russia, for example, and they can’t be on at the beginning/end of GA because it’s in the middle of the night.
If they changed it so GA started the same time as events like omega battles (3 am eastern), people in the US would be outraged, no doubt about it. This is because it’s not a fair situation.
I'm in the US. I generally attack right away, sometimes wait a few hours. I would not be outraged. It doesn't matter to me at all when it starts, as long as I have 24 hours.
Come on, it's not that hard to understand. Like you said - every advantage is unfair. And every battle against another player is unfair because you're always having an advantage as attacker. Conclusion: The whole game is unfair. Next level of your logic.
And not everyone is sleeping at night by the way.
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
The advantage of attacking first is putting the pressure on the enemy and of course you need to win to do so. You'll need to win when attacking second too. The only difference is at which point you're taking the advantage - attacking first after the battles, attacking second before the battles - but both players have one.
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
Reasoning: One of the main draws of GA was that you had a whole day to do it. The majority of the time, my opponents wait until the last hour of GA to see what I have done before battling. This is obviously beneficial as if you have made a mistake, they know they can just use full 5-toon teams instead of trying for smaller teams, etc.
Instead GA is now just like other time-related game modes (squad arena / raids / etc.) where you have to be online at a specific time. It also isn't really fair that this time is always during work for some people and in leisure time for others.
Bury yourself in this thread. This has been requested, refuted etc multiple times
What difference does it make weather you or they attack first?
It will not make your task any easier or theirs any harder.
Their score has no impact on yours because ultimately it's up to you to chose your squads and play.
For this GA, I got home from work at 5 and went to town.
I had already looked through his roster and studied it.
I planned. I plotted. I plundered. I already knew what teams I'd use to counter his. I knew his best teams stats.
Easy pickings.
So - He hadn't played as of when I went to bed last night.
But just because he knows the score I got, it won't make it any easier as I already had my line up set. Based of course on my hunches what he was goin gto put etc.
We shall see if he beat me or not. But I honestly don't feel I gave him any advantage by wiping out his team first...
In fact, I feel I put the pressure on him. he's more likely to make a mistake now.
Lol this argument makes no sense
You could and to do that you would have to try use 4 toons, etc. which will make it more likely you will make mistakes... if you know you can beat your opponent after they have gone with using full sized squads, you don’t need to try optimize your squads. It’s common sense.
And then you end up losing out on a 1000 points because you took a unnecessary risk to eek out an extra 3 points.
Dude, you linked to this thread in your previous comment. This is not a new thread. It's a necro.
No dude, it was merged.
Oh! Makes sense.
Duuuuude!