Shorter GA

vincentlondon

What about we set defenses once for the 3 battles instead of spending 3 days to set defenses ? It would make GA shorter

Blackbeardpepe

Idk. Sometimes I'm so impressed by what my opponent used on defense I want to switch it up and try what they did.

DarthBrobdignagian

Blackbeardpepe wrote: »

Idk. Sometimes I'm so impressed by what my opponent used on defense I want to switch it up and try what they did.

Same, also I have occasionally fat fingered a placement and would hate to be stuck with that in all 3 phases. Maybe a "select squad" type of thing where you can pre set teams for each configuration of GA?

Dwinkelm

I look at my opponent’s roster and deploy my defenses accordingly, it’s an indispensable part of my strategy

Gannon

How about smaller groupings? 👀
4 players: 1 winner, 2 in mid bracket, only one loser.
Keep rewards as they are so everyone is more happy and less annoyed at the time it takes

Droideka

Dwinkelm wrote: »

I look at my opponent’s roster and deploy my defenses accordingly, it’s an indispensable part of my strategy

Yeah, this. I may not be so keen on putting NS on defense if they have an Inmperial Troopers teams. Strategy is a core part of GA.

Stick

Can’t do that , I don’t use the same strategy on everyone , why would you? You see an opponent with massive imperial troopers , Are you going to put your nightsisters on defence ? No f-in way. Next opponent it may be perfectly usable to do so.

I wish there was a simple way to reduce the time , It’s my favourite game mode and I always just want to get going. But clearly the time is needed , as a number of times my opponents are attacking with 30 min left or less.

Kisakee

Stick wrote: »

But clearly the time is needed , as a number of times my opponents are attacking with 30 min left or less.

It's not, they're just playing their games with you. I'm doing this for myself, the goal of it is getting a strategical advantage. It's easy: Wait till your opponent made his steps and plan your attacks accordingly. If he failed at some point just make sure to beat the same amount of teams as he did without failing on your side and you'll win. You don't need to obliterate him, you just need more banners.

Darth_DeVito

Dwinkelm wrote: »

I look at my opponent’s roster and deploy my defenses accordingly, it’s an indispensable part of my strategy

What Dwinkelm said. In the current round, I'm only using two strong teams on defense because I know that my opponent can't beat them. I threw him a bone by letting him beat 2 out of 6 and earn some credits at least, and I put utter trash in the back territories because he'll never make it that far. This way I have plenty left for offense and can likely wipe his side of the table. I'd use a very different strategy if he had a scarier roster.

Darthvanity

Kisakee wrote: »

Stick wrote: »

But clearly the time is needed , as a number of times my opponents are attacking with 30 min left or less.

It's not, they're just playing their games with you. I'm doing this for myself, the goal of it is getting a strategical advantage. It's easy: Wait till your opponent made his steps and plan your attacks accordingly. If he failed at some point just make sure to beat the same amount of teams as he did without failing on your side and you'll win. You don't need to obliterate him, you just need more banners.

That's not entirely true. Sure I've tried that in a difficult matchup before. But I have also beat all the defenses of my opponent in the 20 minutes after the attack phase starts, and my opponent waited until the final hour to attack. So what's your explanation to that?

Gifafi

Gannon wrote: »

How about smaller groupings? 👀
4 players: 1 winner, 2 in mid bracket, only one loser.
Keep rewards as they are so everyone is more happy and less annoyed at the time it takes

THIS

Kisakee

Darthvanity wrote: »

Kisakee wrote: »

Stick wrote: »

But clearly the time is needed , as a number of times my opponents are attacking with 30 min left or less.

It's not, they're just playing their games with you. I'm doing this for myself, the goal of it is getting a strategical advantage. It's easy: Wait till your opponent made his steps and plan your attacks accordingly. If he failed at some point just make sure to beat the same amount of teams as he did without failing on your side and you'll win. You don't need to obliterate him, you just need more banners.

That's not entirely true. Sure I've tried that in a difficult matchup before. But I have also beat all the defenses of my opponent in the 20 minutes after the attack phase starts, and my opponent waited until the final hour to attack. So what's your explanation to that?

Laziness? Demoralization? Of course that's not always the case, how could it. Some people may have time issues but i believe that's the vast minority. A lot of us are taking this way more serious than you would ever imagine, for us that's fun.

Darthvanity

Kisakee wrote: »

Darthvanity wrote: »

Kisakee wrote: »

Stick wrote: »

But clearly the time is needed , as a number of times my opponents are attacking with 30 min left or less.

It's not, they're just playing their games with you. I'm doing this for myself, the goal of it is getting a strategical advantage. It's easy: Wait till your opponent made his steps and plan your attacks accordingly. If he failed at some point just make sure to beat the same amount of teams as he did without failing on your side and you'll win. You don't need to obliterate him, you just need more banners.

That's not entirely true. Sure I've tried that in a difficult matchup before. But I have also beat all the defenses of my opponent in the 20 minutes after the attack phase starts, and my opponent waited until the final hour to attack. So what's your explanation to that?

Laziness? Demoralization? Of course that's not always the case, how could it. Some people may have time issues but i believe that's the vast minority. A lot of us are taking this way more serious than you would ever imagine, for us that's fun.

Exactly, that's the point. Time is needed. I take grande arena seriously, I play to win and more often than not i do.

Kisakee

Darthvanity wrote: »

Exactly, that's the point. Time is needed. I take grande arena seriously, I play to win and more often than not i do.

Of course you need some time. It's just that people that decide to attack with only one hour left won't change at all. Even with 6 hours less time to do GA they still would wait for the last hour to start their attacks. That's based on how much time they were given, not the other way around.

Eddiemundie

Darthvanity wrote: »

Kisakee wrote: »

Stick wrote: »

But clearly the time is needed , as a number of times my opponents are attacking with 30 min left or less.

It's not, they're just playing their games with you. I'm doing this for myself, the goal of it is getting a strategical advantage. It's easy: Wait till your opponent made his steps and plan your attacks accordingly. If he failed at some point just make sure to beat the same amount of teams as he did without failing on your side and you'll win. You don't need to obliterate him, you just need more banners.

That's not entirely true. Sure I've tried that in a difficult matchup before. But I have also beat all the defenses of my opponent in the 20 minutes after the attack phase starts, and my opponent waited until the final hour to attack. So what's your explanation to that?

I can bet you >50% of the time, your opponent is playing the waiting game.

It’s a lame strategy and introduces a significant imbalance due to the amount of information you provide to your opponent by wiping him first. Reasons why I think the banners should just follow TW style, be hidden, or we should have GAs rotate through timezones.

Problem is, matches are pretty imbalanced still so you’ll usually only be facing these tight matchups and waiting games at the final round

Kyno

Eddiemundie wrote: »

Darthvanity wrote: »

Kisakee wrote: »

Stick wrote: »

But clearly the time is needed , as a number of times my opponents are attacking with 30 min left or less.

It's not, they're just playing their games with you. I'm doing this for myself, the goal of it is getting a strategical advantage. It's easy: Wait till your opponent made his steps and plan your attacks accordingly. If he failed at some point just make sure to beat the same amount of teams as he did without failing on your side and you'll win. You don't need to obliterate him, you just need more banners.

That's not entirely true. Sure I've tried that in a difficult matchup before. But I have also beat all the defenses of my opponent in the 20 minutes after the attack phase starts, and my opponent waited until the final hour to attack. So what's your explanation to that?

I can bet you >50% of the time, your opponent is playing the waiting game.

It’s a lame strategy and introduces a significant imbalance due to the amount of information you provide to your opponent by wiping him first. Reasons why I think the banners should just follow TW style, be hidden, or we should have GAs rotate through timezones.

Problem is, matches are pretty imbalanced still so you’ll usually only be facing these tight matchups and waiting games at the final round

TW banners are not hidden.

rokota

The funny thing is IF something unexpected will happen in real life to the opponent who is delaying his moves to last hour it may end not so well for this one ;-)

I faced such a player in the final round of one GA, and attacked first, as i always do (because i don't like to be under pressure^^). And he decided to wait, and wait, and then he could not finish the last battle because GA time was over. I don't really know what happened but i watched it live how one team after another was beaten. And his roster was much stronger than mine so he could have won IF he started to fight earlier.

It's a bit like in arenas, if you wait until the last mins to snipe someone out of the leaderboard, it may happen that you will get a bad rng, and there's no time left for another try.

cannonfodder_iv

Waiting is a tactic that works for some and not for others. If you have a strong offense, then it can make sense to go first and execute flawlessly to put pressure on the opponent to do the same. They have to make the tough choice of balancing teams that can win with holding reserves for the whatever might be hidden in your back row. I've won a number of tight matches against good opponents by going first.

On the other hand, if you go first and fail, your opponent can take a few more risks and still be successful. It really just depends on how the deployments shake out.

Agreed that the waiting game in GA is hard, but with a globally distributed player base, there's no way around it while maintaining fairness.

Kisakee

Right, it's a strategy. Strategies can fail for whatever reason.
I have a very broad roster so i can't steamroll my enemy, i may have more toons geared up but they are weaker in 1:1 comparison. If i won't use the "Waiting Strategy" i can bring myself in some serious trouble with attacking first.
Going back to topic it could be a total desaster for me when one defense always have to work against every enemy i will face. As much as i don't like GA i have to say 'no' to shorter GAs as asked for from OP.

Darthvanity

Kisakee wrote: »

Right, it's a strategy. Strategies can fail for whatever reason.
I have a very broad roster so i can't steamroll my enemy, i may have more toons geared up but they are weaker in 1:1 comparison. If i won't use the "Waiting Strategy" i can bring myself in some serious trouble with attacking first.
Going back to topic it could be a total desaster for me when one defense always have to work against every enemy i will face. As much as i don't like GA i have to say 'no' to shorter GAs as asked for from OP.

Then why are you arguing over this?

Kisakee

Darthvanity wrote: »

Then why are you arguing over this?

Because i think that people don't need lots of time, they are waiting on purpose. Even if they have days to attack they always will wait until the last hour so time is meaningless. That's what i'm saying, no more, no less.

Gannon

Kisakee wrote: »

Darthvanity wrote: »

Then why are you arguing over this?

Because i think that people don't need lots of time, they are waiting on purpose. Even if they have days to attack they always will wait until the last hour so time is meaningless. That's what i'm saying, no more, no less.

I do this every time. But I can deff get on board with the total event time being shorter. Two days shorter 😉

Kisakee

Gannon wrote: »

Kisakee wrote: »

Darthvanity wrote: »

Then why are you arguing over this?

Because i think that people don't need lots of time, they are waiting on purpose. Even if they have days to attack they always will wait until the last hour so time is meaningless. That's what i'm saying, no more, no less.

I do this every time. But I can deff get on board with the total event time being shorter. Two days shorter 😉

You mean two days and four people shorter with same rewards. 😏

Gannon

Kisakee wrote: »

Gannon wrote: »

Kisakee wrote: »

Darthvanity wrote: »

Then why are you arguing over this?

Because i think that people don't need lots of time, they are waiting on purpose. Even if they have days to attack they always will wait until the last hour so time is meaningless. That's what i'm saying, no more, no less.

I do this every time. But I can deff get on board with the total event time being shorter. Two days shorter 😉

You mean two days and four people shorter with same rewards. 😏

Yup.. and like every week, cuz it's super fun and should always be running