Grand Arena Hitting Last an Advantage?

Replies

  • TVF
    31094 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    CordycepsX wrote: »
    How about this.... a player sets an absolute FU defence. Both revans, GG, padme, etc, etc. Their best 8 teams straight onto defence. Then waits. If u full clear, they lose. If u don’t, they know exactly how many banners they need with whatever offence they have left. Their whole strategy revolves around hitting second. I’m not saying it’s an unfair strategy, it’s quite good, actually. The only thing I was asking originally is why not make the starting times fair for everyone?

    You need 62 points in a battle, can you please explain how knowing this makes getting those points easier in battle?

    The game is world wide, there is no time that works for everyone.

    The solution was posted and suggested many times - rotate GAC starting times by 6hrs each round.
    So now rounds last 30 hours? And a whole GA within GAC lasts 36 hours longer?

    Are you sure the forums want that?

    What?

    Everybody starts at 5pm Eastern. Ends at 5pm Eastern. Now you have to wait 6 hours to start the next one at 11pm Eastern. Repeat over and over. GAC will take forever.

    I'm all for rotating start times, but what's the practical implementation of it?
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CordycepsX wrote: »
    How about this.... a player sets an absolute FU defence. Both revans, GG, padme, etc, etc. Their best 8 teams straight onto defence. Then waits. If u full clear, they lose. If u don’t, they know exactly how many banners they need with whatever offence they have left. Their whole strategy revolves around hitting second. I’m not saying it’s an unfair strategy, it’s quite good, actually. The only thing I was asking originally is why not make the starting times fair for everyone?

    You need 62 points in a battle, can you please explain how knowing this makes getting those points easier in battle?

    The game is world wide, there is no time that works for everyone.

    The solution was posted and suggested many times - rotate GAC starting times by 6hrs each round.
    So now rounds last 30 hours? And a whole GA within GAC lasts 36 hours longer?

    Are you sure the forums want that?

    What?

    Everybody starts at 5pm Eastern. Ends at 5pm Eastern. Now you have to wait 6 hours to start the next one at 11pm Eastern. Repeat over and over. GAC will take forever.

    I'm all for rotating start times, but what's the practical implementation of it?

    @Indominable_J - what he said.

    Each of the 4 GAs that makes up a GAC consists of 7 24hr blocks. 1 for signup, 3 for setup, 3 for attack.

    If start times are to be rotated by 6 hrs each time, then at the very least 3 of those phases need extended by 6 hours.

    The forums are already full of posts from people saying “24 hrs is too long”. Rotating phases by 6 hrs would add a minimum of 18 hours to each GA.
  • Fanatic
    409 posts Member
    edited September 2019
    I go first and get max score using undersized teams to win when I can so it doesn't matter to me.

    The rest of u should consider the doing your best strategy...

    If you can kill it with 2 why use 5? Sure 5 is safer and if you only need 50 to win but it hurts you in the ranking vs peers if u going for top 200.

    It's never beneficial to score less points because your going second and only need 40 points for a win so u dont try to get your max. That's just a bad decision.

    If you know your 2 can kill 5 that is fine. What if your 2 vs 5 is a 50/50 chance? Do you up it to 3 vs 5 then? What if the 3vs5 is a 75/25 chance? Do you up it to 4 then? At what point do you decide a 10% chance of losing the round is worth the extra 4 points for undersizing? At what point does that extra 4 points become worth risking losing 1000 points for losing the round in those close matches?

    So long as you know you will win the round, use all the undersize squads you want for those bonus points. Or conversely if you know you are going to lose the round complete all the quests you can for the bonus quest points. A lot of matches are one or the other of these. For these matches there is nothing to be gained by any advantage in information.

    Then there are the matches that are close - these matches its more important to win the round than gain a few extra points or complete an extra quest - because that 1000 point gain for winning is far more significant in global rankings than anything else. These are the matches when that extra information can be helpful in determing whether that 3vs5 75/25 risk is worth taking or not. The number of close matches you have vs the number of lopsided matches you have is what determines whether the advantage of extra knowledge is neglible in value or high in value.
  • TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CordycepsX wrote: »
    How about this.... a player sets an absolute FU defence. Both revans, GG, padme, etc, etc. Their best 8 teams straight onto defence. Then waits. If u full clear, they lose. If u don’t, they know exactly how many banners they need with whatever offence they have left. Their whole strategy revolves around hitting second. I’m not saying it’s an unfair strategy, it’s quite good, actually. The only thing I was asking originally is why not make the starting times fair for everyone?

    You need 62 points in a battle, can you please explain how knowing this makes getting those points easier in battle?

    The game is world wide, there is no time that works for everyone.

    The solution was posted and suggested many times - rotate GAC starting times by 6hrs each round.
    So now rounds last 30 hours? And a whole GA within GAC lasts 36 hours longer?

    Are you sure the forums want that?

    What?

    Everybody starts at 5pm Eastern. Ends at 5pm Eastern. Now you have to wait 6 hours to start the next one at 11pm Eastern. Repeat over and over. GAC will take forever.

    I'm all for rotating start times, but what's the practical implementation of it?

    @Indominable_J - what he said.

    Each of the 4 GAs that makes up a GAC consists of 7 24hr blocks. 1 for signup, 3 for setup, 3 for attack.

    If start times are to be rotated by 6 hrs each time, then at the very least 3 of those phases need extended by 6 hours.

    The forums are already full of posts from people saying “24 hrs is too long”. Rotating phases by 6 hrs would add a minimum of 18 hours to each GA.

    I took "rotate GAC starting times by 6hrs each round" to mean each of the 4 GAs within each GAC, not each individual phase within each GA, which would add 18 hours to a month-long process.
  • I can't help but attack first!! I've been studying their roster for hours. I've written down all the teams I think I'll see on D. Written down my counters. Prepared my defense for them. By the time GAC begins, I'm ready to go! I just can't not attack!!!

    I am just one person. And by no means do I think my situation is like everyone else nor do I speak for anyone else.

    I have attacked first and cleared all 6 rounds thus far. I haven't lost. No one has full cleared me. And I have full cleared everyone.

    If there is a disadvantage to attacking first, I seemed to have weathered it well. Though i don't believe there is.
  • Just don't show the number of banners the other player has until the offense period has closed. Nobody has an advantage or disadvantage. Problem solved.

    And if CG applied the same mechanic of hiding scores until attack period ended on Territory Wars?

    Would that make people content, or would there be a problem with that?
  • TVF
    31094 posts Member
    FolsomTony wrote: »
    Just don't show the number of banners the other player has until the offense period has closed. Nobody has an advantage or disadvantage. Problem solved.

    And if CG applied the same mechanic of hiding scores until attack period ended on Territory Wars?

    Would that make people content, or would there be a problem with that?

    source.gif
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Rotating start times seems reasonable. I think those who are arguing that going last has no advantage whatsoever are being disingenuous... If you know you can 100% win with 5, but know that you need to try with 4 or 3 it adds uncertainty that you might not otherwise risk... To prove my point, what would people think if banner count and wins/losses were not displayed at all until the end of the time or both players clear all territories? This would fully resolve the whole issue/discussion for everyone who has posted... "Hey, that takes away excitement because then you wouldn't know..."...Exactly.

    Those arguing against rotating start times are just being hypocrites because they are either
    A) whaling the heck out of div 3 and 4
    B) living in the timezone where it works for them
    Or, C), we realize it doesn’t matter one way or the other and just attack when we have time.

    My GAC rounds start at 2:00pm, I don’t get home from work until around 5:00pm and go to sleep at 10:00pm. That’s 5 hours. That’s plenty of time. Next time you’re in GAC, try playing around your schedule instead of setting your schedule around the game. See how you finish and realize that all your supposed advantages don’t mean squat.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Example of going last.
    Today I was late in checking gac as forgot to battle last night.
    12mins to go.
    Opponent has only battled 1 spot for 58.
    I spent 10 mins clearing 2 zones and half of last one, opponent must have thought I was no show.
    Today going last advantage win for me due to opponent not doing more than bare minimum.
  • ToxicFish wrote: »
    Today going last advantage win for me due to opponent not doing more than bare minimum.

    No, your advantage was your opponent didn’t care. They could (and should) have attacked more so they could get more banners and run up their own score. They didn’t. And they weren’t going to care if you attacked first or last.

    A counterexample—round 2 of the past GA, I attacked twice and lost, then attacked two more times and won for a total of one win in each territory. Their defenses were very good. This was at 6:00pm, with 20 hours to go. My opponent never bothered to attack.

    Me saying that attacking first was the advantage here has the same weight as you saying attacking last was your advantage. Our advantage was the opponent didn’t care at all, not when we attacked.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Austin9370 wrote: »
    Of course having more information is optimal to giving you the best opportunity to win, however, the advantage that it provides is neglible in the majority of cases and doesn't necessitate a change from CG.

    The advantage is you are able to Play to Win, Not Attempt Score the Most Points Possible

    Yes, those are two different things. If I know I'll be able to win by clearing all my opponents territories in the 1st attempt, I won't need to risk sending in some undersized squads (that may lose) just to get a few more points that have the potential to cost me the match if things go south. The opposite would apply as well. I know my opponent did really well on offense, I need to get every last point to win and take a lot of chances with undersized squads.

    With that said, taking away seeing your opponents progress would make the game mode less entertaining to many. Also, who says you can't fool your opponent by attacking separately and giving them a false confidence. Also, putting pressure on your opponent could force mistakes too.

    Overall, there isn't a material advantage. Just an interesting discussion that doesn't hold a lot of weight.

    It does hold a lot of weight if you can't attack second (which is huge advantage) cuz of timezones.
    Hide banners - and everyone happy, no?
  • evoluza wrote: »
    Dmitry_M81 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Dmitry_M81 wrote: »
    GJO wrote: »
    Hide the banners! Simple, easy and effective.

    Perfect and the only way to stop this thread )

    If someone will complain "get back banners so we can see them!" - it means knowing opponent's banners IS advantage and they used it ))

    Not quite. I mean people where tin foil on their heads because they think it will keep them safe, that doesnt make it true.

    I haven't seen any vote against hiding banners yet, just "it's not advantage", "do your best anyway", blah-blah-blah.
    If some part of community wants to hide them as well as other part not against that - let's just hide them for good, it should be simple for devs to disable that counter.
    Simple, easy, everyone happy

    You didn't? Take anyone who wants battle logs... Now you wanna hide even the score and at the you see you got cleared with max banners.
    Next time think it trough before bringing it up.

    You'll get battle logs AFTER the match completed, see no problem here
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Dmitry_M81 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Dmitry_M81 wrote: »
    GJO wrote: »
    Hide the banners! Simple, easy and effective.

    Perfect and the only way to stop this thread )

    If someone will complain "get back banners so we can see them!" - it means knowing opponent's banners IS advantage and they used it ))

    Not quite. I mean people where tin foil on their heads because they think it will keep them safe, that doesnt make it true.

    I haven't seen any vote against hiding banners yet, just "it's not advantage", "do your best anyway", blah-blah-blah.
    If some part of community wants to hide them as well as other part not against that - let's just hide them for good, it should be simple for devs to disable that counter.
    Simple, easy, everyone happy

    In a previous thread on the same subject, I expressed my opposition to hiding the scores. My most intense round of GA was when both my opponent and I were active at the same time. After 3-4 battles each we were tied. After 7 battles each we were tied again. That really added to the fun and intensity.

    Now imagine you were at the very different timezones... And you should sleep when round ends, and opponent haven't agtacked yet...
    GAC should be equal to everyone
  • Waqui wrote: »
    It’s definitely an advantage to go second. My third round the guy was trying to save squads to beat my Best defence team and in doing so he used 4 attacks on one of my teams and 2 on the other. He also failed against my best defence.

    I now know I don’t need to full clear. Just kill the weaker side efficiently and kill 1 team in the other front row defence and I’ve won. I know I don’t need to save toons for his DR.

    So clear advantage imo.

    What you describe is not really an advantage. The information, you got in that situation, simply helps you to a less stressfull attack phase. You score less than your best and still win easily. It didn't help you perform better in this situation.

    But you don't vote against hiding banners, right?
  • NicWester wrote: »
    I now know I don’t need to full clear. Just kill the weaker side efficiently and kill 1 team in the other front row defence and I’ve won. I know I don’t need to save toons for his DR.

    So clear advantage imo.

    Except that there are material benefits to you if you full clear anyway. There are feats, for one, and the more banners you get the better your rank will be which gives you better rewards both when you promote and when the event ends. You should be going for a full clear every time. Saying that going second is a worthwhile advantage and then saying it's because you know you don't need to get the most banners possible is like saying taking three days off at work is an advantage because you know you only need two days pay to make rent.
    plindboe wrote: »
    I don't much care about the issue, but it bothers me way too much that there are people who deny the obvious fact that there's an advantage to attacking second. It's like people insisting that the Moon is made of cheese. Sure, it's a harmless belief, but I can't help getting irritated by it. :s

    People aren't saying it's not an advantage. They're saying it's a negligible advantage that doesn't really matter and that people are blowing it out of proportion. They're also saying that going first has its own set of advantages that are being overlooked by the OP and their supporters.

    So if "that advantage doesn't mean much" - can we ask to hide banners, right?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Dmitry_M81 wrote: »
    And it's huge advantage when you know opponent's banners, so you can either use undersized squads for extra banners or full squads for guaranteed win.
    If banners (and maybe even squads defeated) are hidden - noone has advantage or disadvantage, fair deal for me.

    Please explain how knowing you need to use an undersized team, makes winning the match easier??


    It's not about making it easy to win. It's not about guaranteeing a win. It's about the advantage which comes with knowledge.

    Like when CG announce a new event with 48 hours notice. Sure giving people more notice wouldn't make it easier for them to get ready for the event. But if people know it's coming more people are going to be ready for it when it arrives.

    If you'd announced it months in advance it wouldn't be easier that's true. But when armed with knowledge a player can plan and strategist effectively. Sure, without the knowledge plenty of players were ready for Malek. But at the same time, you threw in a surprise minimum GP, which led to many people who had prepared still being unable to get Malek, because at the end of the day it's just guess work.

    Your argument is that guesswork and knowledge are as accurate and effective as each other. I disagree. Suspect the dictionary disagrees too.

    Guess work and knowledge have nothing to do with actually winning the points.

    If you need 62 points and you have a team that can make that score and you go into the battle and come out with 61 points, guess what that knowledge did nothing for you and you could have done that attacking first or second.

    A proper plan and strategy works no matter the time you choose to attack. The feeling that people get when the choice is made for them doesnt change the fact that they could have won or lost the battle regardless.

    It's really cute talking about needing 62 points to win. The problem is obviously the fact I can't know I need that unless I've gone last.

    Question: You're in the last battle of the round. You are facing a g11/g12 padme lead team. You have no idea how many points you need. How many points do you need?

    The answer is - you don't know. So how many units do you take into the fight? If you 4 man it do you win? What about 3 manning it? Do you win?

    Is the answer - "I don't know"

    It should be. But from your response it seems the answer is to take in the units which are going to get the points needed.

    Obi Wan: "I have the high ground Anakin"

    Anakin: "It's not an advantage. It's possible to win either way."

    If I think I can win with 4, I go in with 4. That's how you play the game. I have my teams I know I can score better with, i strategize around using them to their max ability and work the plan. Waiting to attack second doesnt mean you will be able to earn the point you need to win, even if you know that number.

    Last time I watched the movies, Anakin won that war. But maybe that's just how I view it when he killed Obi Wan. Thinking you have an advantage doesnt mean you do, and it certainly doesnt mean you will win.

    "If I think I can win with 4" - cool, but it's not so many people who win matches like that
  • Kyno wrote: »
    CordycepsX wrote: »
    How about this.... a player sets an absolute FU defence. Both revans, GG, padme, etc, etc. Their best 8 teams straight onto defence. Then waits. If u full clear, they lose. If u don’t, they know exactly how many banners they need with whatever offence they have left. Their whole strategy revolves around hitting second. I’m not saying it’s an unfair strategy, it’s quite good, actually. The only thing I was asking originally is why not make the starting times fair for everyone?

    You need 62 points in a battle, can you please explain how knowing this makes getting those points easier in battle?

    The game is world wide, there is no time that works for everyone.

    The solution was posted and suggested many times - rotate GAC starting times by 6hrs each round.
    So now rounds last 30 hours? And a whole GA within GAC lasts 36 hours longer?

    Are you sure the forums want that?

    NO, we just want to hide banners)
  • Just. Hide. Banners. It's easy and will suit everyone
    Still didn't see ANY vote against hiding banners, but MANY votes for it
    Let's do it then !
  • My last opponent and I both set DR on defence. He attacked first and couldn’t kill mine. I realised that I didn’t need to clear his to win, so used all my best teams for other battles and won by 10 points.

    I won a close match purely because of going second. Clearly going second doesn’t work for every scenario (going first and doing well puts your opponent under pressure to take risks), but in this example it did
  • There are so many cheaters at the GAC, so it doesn't matter when you play your battles, till they fix that mode and add the battle reports it is pointless to discuss it at all.
  • DarkSouls wrote: »
    There are so many cheaters at the GAC, so it doesn't matter when you play your battles, till they fix that mode and add the battle reports it is pointless to discuss it at all.

    Never faced any cheaters (maybe they don't have 5kk and 90+ zetas accounts), but many times faced situation when I lost (twice) cuz attacked first and won a dozen matches attacking last )
  • Having more information is an advantage I'm not sure how anyone can argue against that, therefore if you know how many banners you need and the possible squads hiding at the back you have an advantage. In the same way that being able to see an opponents mods is an advantage, cancelled out by the fact both of you get the same information, or being able to see an opponents roster is an advantage. While it is true a lot of battles would play out the same even if you couldn't see the opponents roster, there are close battles where it counts. This is the same when attacking second, for a lot of battles it probably doesn't matter but the close ones it can.

    Also we're not always talking about G12/13 squads vs G12/13 squads here, where squad A will beat squad B, lower down the teirs squads can get a little more random and rng/risk is a much bigger factor.

    Another point to bear in mind is feats, for example the current seperatist feat. I may have pretty poor separatists but if I know I don't need to ace a battle I could throw in a seperatist or two to work towards the extra championship points as dropping a point or two in this battle vs the bonus of completing the feat is worth it.
  • Kyno wrote: »

    If I think I can win with 4, I go in with 4. That's how you play the game. I have my teams I know I can score better with, i strategize around using them to their max ability and work the plan. Waiting to attack second doesnt mean you will be able to earn the point you need to win, even if you know that number.

    Last time I watched the movies, Anakin won that war. But maybe that's just how I view it when he killed Obi Wan. Thinking you have an advantage doesnt mean you do, and it certainly doesnt mean you will win.

    Pretty sure he got shish kabobed. Although it's true that 30 years later Obi Wan let Vader cut him down, making him even more powerful and allowing him to mentor the next generation, leading to the eventual destruction of the Empire.

    That's probably the victory you speak of yes? :)

    On a serious note - we're not going to see eye to eye. I'm sticking with those who believe knowing more than your enemy is an advantage; A great many SWGOH players, Sun Tzu, Napoleon, Nelson, Palpatine, Rommel and Churchill. I'm obviously wrong - but at least I'm in good company.

  • DarkSouls wrote: »
    There are so many cheaters at the GAC, so it doesn't matter when you play your battles, till they fix that mode and add the battle reports it is pointless to discuss it at all.

    I have yet to encounter a cheating opponent
  • Really? Going last is the hugest advantage. In general the more information you have, the easier the GAC becomes. Once your opponent goes, you will understand how many banners you absolutely need to win, AND you can make a pretty good estimate based on how he cleared you on what he used for his offensive teams and guesstimate what he may have put in the back walls. In what world is it ever more advantageous to go first?
  • These forum posts just need to be closed as soon as they open lol. Either side will never convince the other that they are right.
  • when someone put his best units in defence and then go with 1 attempt trough your def it is huge red lamp
  • on the topic - going last is the key to Victory, you can spread your teams according to the banners you need
  • FolsomTony wrote: »
    Just don't show the number of banners the other player has until the offense period has closed. Nobody has an advantage or disadvantage. Problem solved.

    And if CG applied the same mechanic of hiding scores until attack period ended on Territory Wars?

    Would that make people content, or would there be a problem with that?

    @FolsomTony Personally I wouldn't care either way. You've somehow managed to conjoin a false equivalency with classic what-about-ism in just two quick sentences!

    I'll concede that GAC and TW are both PvP content, but past that, the perceived advantage being discussed in this thread pales in comparison in TW to just getting your guild coordinated and engaged. If you have a guild that can actually take advantage of second mover advantage effectively, you're probably not all that concerned about it.

    And personally, I'm fine with showing banners, but to the OPs point, it's not fair to certain geographic regions that they almost always have to go first. Advantage or not, it's perceived as one, and these players shouldn't always be at a perceived disadvantage. Hiding banners is a way to keep the schedule as is.

    If you'd rather rotate start times, that's fine too. I would follow @Indominable_J 's advice and push each GA back six hours, providing for a 30 hour join period and adding 18 hours onto the total event timeline. Easy peasy, no stress.
  • TVF
    31094 posts Member
    If you'd rather rotate start times, that's fine too. I would follow @Indominable_J 's advice and push each GA back six hours, providing for a 30 hour join period and adding 18 hours onto the total event timeline. Easy peasy, no stress.

    I'm sure no one will complain about that.

    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
This discussion has been closed.