I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
How am I going first putting more pressure on me? I know exactly what squads I will attack with, how to maximize my offensive banners and dont have the pressure of taking unnecessary risks if i see I'm a few banners behind. Unnecessary risks ultimately lead to failure roughly half the time and if I can force my opponent into that position then that's a win for me. You can never lead from behind
Notice how I never spoke about pressure, that was brought up by others. Pressure is irrelevant and it only matters when one player is better than other and they have stronger squads.
I spoke about the advantage of planning and assigning your squads better due to having the extra knowledge. If your opponent did a phenomenal job and you got totally outclassed then you probably will feel pressured but that's a GA you would have e probably lost regardless. Still the info can help you turn it around even if you were outclassed
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
See the post right above yours. It happens.
And I'm not talking about you going in and clearing the board lackadaisically at 55 banners per squad (no fleets). That's really the only case where 'your opponent is unable to do basic math' comes into play.
If you have a solid game plan, and since we all set defenses I presume we all put a lot of thought into what our opponent might do and which teams we should save for offense, and you execute it well you should be averaging 57-58 banners per clear.
If you can't do that, if you consistently fail to execute, then you are absolutely right, you're better off going second. The pressure of your opponent averaging 58 might encourage you to take more risks or the lack of pressure from your opponent averaging 54 might relax you.
Whatever helps you get into the right mindset to hit that 58+ banner threshold is what is best for you. And it differs from person to person. Whether you strongly disagree or not (and since you do strongly disagree, you're kind of proving my point).
Perhaps in his case he was just purely outclassed and he had a rough matchup. It would not matter if he went first or second he'd probably lose anyways.
I still don't understand how having info and thus the ability to plan more efficiently, be in any case a disadvantage
Because the information is always going to be incomplete. If you could run 1000 simulations of each of your choices you have when you need 58 banners to tie and 59 to win you'd be right. You'd have a very strong indication of how likely your 5v5 team is to get 59 banners and how likely your 4v5 or 3v5 teams are to do the same.
What if I told you in that situation your 5v5 team had a 99% chance to get 59 banners, your 4v5 team 60% and your 3v5 30%? Or if all 3 had a 99% chance? Or if your 5v5 team had a 50% chance and your 4v5 and 3v4 had a 75% chance? You can guess at it based on the limited data set you can hold and analyze in your head but you really don't know a whole lot more by going second.
All I'm saying is that some people feel better making that decision and some people feel better forcing others to make it.
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
See the post right above yours. It happens.
And I'm not talking about you going in and clearing the board lackadaisically at 55 banners per squad (no fleets). That's really the only case where 'your opponent is unable to do basic math' comes into play.
If you have a solid game plan, and since we all set defenses I presume we all put a lot of thought into what our opponent might do and which teams we should save for offense, and you execute it well you should be averaging 57-58 banners per clear.
If you can't do that, if you consistently fail to execute, then you are absolutely right, you're better off going second. The pressure of your opponent averaging 58 might encourage you to take more risks or the lack of pressure from your opponent averaging 54 might relax you.
Whatever helps you get into the right mindset to hit that 58+ banner threshold is what is best for you. And it differs from person to person. Whether you strongly disagree or not (and since you do strongly disagree, you're kind of proving my point).
Perhaps in his case he was just purely outclassed and he had a rough matchup. It would not matter if he went first or second he'd probably lose anyways.
I still don't understand how having info and thus the ability to plan more efficiently, be in any case a disadvantage
Because the information is always going to be incomplete. If you could run 1000 simulations of each of your choices you have when you need 58 banners to tie and 59 to win you'd be right. You'd have a very strong indication of how likely your 5v5 team is to get 59 banners and how likely your 4v5 or 3v5 teams are to do the same.
What if I told you in that situation your 5v5 team had a 99% chance to get 59 banners, your 4v5 team 60% and your 3v5 30%? Or if all 3 had a 99% chance? Or if your 5v5 team had a 50% chance and your 4v5 and 3v4 had a 75% chance? You can guess at it based on the limited data set you can hold and analyze in your head but you really don't know a whole lot more by going second.
All I'm saying is that some people feel better making that decision and some people feel better forcing others to make it.
Yeah but that's the thing, regardless of how likely you are to win with an undersized squad, you still know whether you must use an undersized squad or not based on banner knowledge. Regardless of winning or losing the thing is that you know that you need to try.
If I have one match left and I'm 61 banners away from winning (conquer bonus calculated of course), I know for a fact that sending a team of 5 will lose me the GA regardless of a flawless performance, I know for a fact that I must try an undersized battle at this point , whether I win or lose it's a different story, I still have an advantage.
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
See the post right above yours. It happens.
And I'm not talking about you going in and clearing the board lackadaisically at 55 banners per squad (no fleets). That's really the only case where 'your opponent is unable to do basic math' comes into play.
If you have a solid game plan, and since we all set defenses I presume we all put a lot of thought into what our opponent might do and which teams we should save for offense, and you execute it well you should be averaging 57-58 banners per clear.
If you can't do that, if you consistently fail to execute, then you are absolutely right, you're better off going second. The pressure of your opponent averaging 58 might encourage you to take more risks or the lack of pressure from your opponent averaging 54 might relax you.
Whatever helps you get into the right mindset to hit that 58+ banner threshold is what is best for you. And it differs from person to person. Whether you strongly disagree or not (and since you do strongly disagree, you're kind of proving my point).
Perhaps in his case he was just purely outclassed and he had a rough matchup. It would not matter if he went first or second he'd probably lose anyways.
I still don't understand how having info and thus the ability to plan more efficiently, be in any case a disadvantage
Because the information is always going to be incomplete. If you could run 1000 simulations of each of your choices you have when you need 58 banners to tie and 59 to win you'd be right. You'd have a very strong indication of how likely your 5v5 team is to get 59 banners and how likely your 4v5 or 3v5 teams are to do the same.
What if I told you in that situation your 5v5 team had a 99% chance to get 59 banners, your 4v5 team 60% and your 3v5 30%? Or if all 3 had a 99% chance? Or if your 5v5 team had a 50% chance and your 4v5 and 3v4 had a 75% chance? You can guess at it based on the limited data set you can hold and analyze in your head but you really don't know a whole lot more by going second.
All I'm saying is that some people feel better making that decision and some people feel better forcing others to make it.
Yeah but that's the thing, regardless of how likely you are to win with an undersized squad, you still know whether you must use an undersized squad or not based on banner knowledge. Regardless of winning or losing the thing is that you know that you need to try.
If I have one match left and I'm 61 banners away from winning (conquer bonus calculated of course), I know for a fact that sending a team of 5 will lose me the GA regardless of a flawless performance, I know for a fact that I must try an undersized battle at this point , whether I win or lose it's a different story, I still have an advantage.
Sure, it's nice for that situation. However, if you're 61 banners behind on the last squad you did something wrong in one of your other matchups anyway. You failed to execute and your plan fell apart. If you just so happen to have a 3 or 4 man squad in your pocket for that last battle that has better than a 50% chance to get you a near flawless victory then you need to reexamine your whole game plan anyway.
There are so many reasons being 61 banners behind on your last battle is a very, very undesirable and disadvantageous position to be in that I don't know where to start.
I was approaching this whole conversation from the perspective that this situation is rare (you're down by 61 in your last battle and have an actual chance to pull out a win) and it's more likely that the whole match is decided well before your last battle (you need 55 or fewer banners) or win-able/tie-able while still adhering to your original game plan (and using a 5v5 squad).
But sure, if you often find yourself down by 60 or more in your last battle you're better off going second.
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
See the post right above yours. It happens.
And I'm not talking about you going in and clearing the board lackadaisically at 55 banners per squad (no fleets). That's really the only case where 'your opponent is unable to do basic math' comes into play.
If you have a solid game plan, and since we all set defenses I presume we all put a lot of thought into what our opponent might do and which teams we should save for offense, and you execute it well you should be averaging 57-58 banners per clear.
If you can't do that, if you consistently fail to execute, then you are absolutely right, you're better off going second. The pressure of your opponent averaging 58 might encourage you to take more risks or the lack of pressure from your opponent averaging 54 might relax you.
Whatever helps you get into the right mindset to hit that 58+ banner threshold is what is best for you. And it differs from person to person. Whether you strongly disagree or not (and since you do strongly disagree, you're kind of proving my point).
Perhaps in his case he was just purely outclassed and he had a rough matchup. It would not matter if he went first or second he'd probably lose anyways.
I still don't understand how having info and thus the ability to plan more efficiently, be in any case a disadvantage
Because the information is always going to be incomplete. If you could run 1000 simulations of each of your choices you have when you need 58 banners to tie and 59 to win you'd be right. You'd have a very strong indication of how likely your 5v5 team is to get 59 banners and how likely your 4v5 or 3v5 teams are to do the same.
What if I told you in that situation your 5v5 team had a 99% chance to get 59 banners, your 4v5 team 60% and your 3v5 30%? Or if all 3 had a 99% chance? Or if your 5v5 team had a 50% chance and your 4v5 and 3v4 had a 75% chance? You can guess at it based on the limited data set you can hold and analyze in your head but you really don't know a whole lot more by going second.
All I'm saying is that some people feel better making that decision and some people feel better forcing others to make it.
Yeah but that's the thing, regardless of how likely you are to win with an undersized squad, you still know whether you must use an undersized squad or not based on banner knowledge. Regardless of winning or losing the thing is that you know that you need to try.
If I have one match left and I'm 61 banners away from winning (conquer bonus calculated of course), I know for a fact that sending a team of 5 will lose me the GA regardless of a flawless performance, I know for a fact that I must try an undersized battle at this point , whether I win or lose it's a different story, I still have an advantage.
I see where your coming from and that's definitely your choice as to what is comfortable for you.....now myself if I can win any battle 3v5 I will do it so for me the knowledge of banner count is irrelevant...I know the abilities and limitations of my squads so they are getting max effort period
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
I agree with this. But of course all those exploiting this will think it’s “fair” when they fail to realise half the world is sleeping when GA ends.
The alternative is to just rotate GA hours so that all timezones get an equal chance to exploit this tactic.
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
How am I going first putting more pressure on me? I know exactly what squads I will attack with, how to maximize my offensive banners and dont have the pressure of taking unnecessary risks if i see I'm a few banners behind. Unnecessary risks ultimately lead to failure roughly half the time and if I can force my opponent into that position then that's a win for me. You can never lead from behind
Typical of someone who does not understand statistics.
Lets say u have a stronger roster than ur opponent, because GA still counts fleet GP and ur opponent is a fleet kinda guy. If u go first, logically u will take the minimum risk path. Maybe u’ll go with an undersized squad here or there, but all with a strong confidence of winning, say 90%.
Fast forward, u complete the round with an average of 59 banners. Great score.
Your opponent, seeing this, arranges his attacks in a way that maximises his possible score, but in setting these undersized squads has only a 70% chance of winning each battle. As RNG favoured him, he beats u with an average of 59, with one squad getting 60. U lose.
Had this information not been available to him, he would have taken the safer path, with 90% chances of winning using full sized teams and would have averaged 57 points.
U see the difference here? He has the information on whether he should take the unnecessary risk. That’s the thing causing the difference in all these close fights. For that reason, banners should not be shown, or at least rotate GA periods so other time zones get their fair share of choosing to attack last.
To all those of you who said that it's a choice to attack first:
1. Don't assume everyone has no life and has the opportunity to attack whenever they want.
2. Some of us, including me, have our payouts during the last hour of GA so if they wait for the last hour to attack then we are forced to sacrifice our arena payouts for it.
3. Availability should never be a determining factor for the win, there's a reason attack phase lasts 24 hours and not 2.
To those who said that attacking first can be an advantage because you force your enemies to make unforced errors if you perform really well:
Your logic doesn't stand. A player will always do the bare minimum that's required to win. If I know I need to get two wins with undersized squads and all other need to be over 57 banners, then you will do exactly that and no more. There can never be a disadvantage to having this knowledge.
Regardless the benefit of attacking first doesn't outweigh the disadvantage
Speak for yourself friend lol... I never do bare minimum in any phase of this game.....if I can win with a hatchet but have a nuke, I will use the nuke everytime
Wow that is the type of opponent i like to meet, easy wins all the way.
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
How am I going first putting more pressure on me? I know exactly what squads I will attack with, how to maximize my offensive banners and dont have the pressure of taking unnecessary risks if i see I'm a few banners behind. Unnecessary risks ultimately lead to failure roughly half the time and if I can force my opponent into that position then that's a win for me. You can never lead from behind
Typical of someone who does not understand statistics.
Lets say u have a stronger roster than ur opponent, because GA still counts fleet GP and ur opponent is a fleet kinda guy. If u go first, logically u will take the minimum risk path. Maybe u’ll go with an undersized squad here or there, but all with a strong confidence of winning, say 90%.
Fast forward, u complete the round with an average of 59 banners. Great score.
Your opponent, seeing this, arranges his attacks in a way that maximises his possible score, but in setting these undersized squads has only a 70% chance of winning each battle. As RNG favoured him, he beats u with an average of 59, with one squad getting 60. U lose.
Had this information not been available to him, he would have taken the safer path, with 90% chances of winning using full sized teams and would have averaged 57 points.
U see the difference here? He has the information on whether he should take the unnecessary risk. That’s the thing causing the difference in all these close fights. For that reason, banners should not be shown, or at least rotate GA periods so other time zones get their fair share of choosing to attack last.
Well considering I'm a day trader you're right, I know absolutely nothing about statistics lol......also considering I haven't lost a GA yet I know absolutely nothing about how to win so there's that.....
Does knowing the banners you opponent scored make it easier to win?
If you can win a match with less toon vs the opponents 5, why wouldnt you attack with less?
Because ur odds of winning with 4 is lower. If u had a 95% chance of winning with a full squad that would net u 59 banners, vs a 60% chance of winning with 4 toons that MAY net u 60 banners, which would u choose?
But IF u knew that u need that one extra point to win ur opponent by one lame point, u would take the risk. Because not taking the risk means u definitely 100% lose.
Whoever starts first however, will not have this information. In a very close fight, this will matter alot. I dont really care if u are facing someone who took 3 attempts on all your squads because that guy deserves to lose if he does. We’re talking about pretty much equal rosters where the gap is knowledge.
But well i totally understand if you don’t understand what I mean by this. Conditional probability “is not something the human mind is really built to digest”
This isn't opinion, it's mathematics. Like @Eddiemundie said above about statistics, a person with information will make a more informed decision. They will know whether an undersized attempt is necessary or not which automatically increases their chances of winning.
Think about it this way. Let's say I go first and I end up collecting enough banners that my opponent will be required to do 2 undersized attempts. If he knows this information he will do exactly 2. If he doesn't know this then he may not feel comfortable with just 2 so he may attempt to do 3 or 4 which means he would have lower chance of winning, but because he knows this information he will do precisely the minimum amount of undersized attempts that is required to win to lower the risk of losing. If he knows for a fact that it takes 2 he will do, not 3 or 4 ect. Maybe by pure luck he does 2 and wins, maybe he does 1 and loses still. Mathematically he has the advantage and that's not my opinion or anyone's opinion.
@Kokie I hope this example clarifies it a bit more.
So many flawed assumptions but the biggest and most flawed of all is the assumption that the player base is full of skilled, rational actors.
And the assumption that matchmaker actually produces a significant volume of competitive matches is hilarious.
Hey man, we're just pointing out to a flaw in the design of a game mode that was branded and advertised as competitive, which gives a significant advantage to the players who have the ability to wait longer before they attack. If it can be fixed within a few lines of code then it should be fixed and I don't see a reason why it shouldn't. This is the purpose of forums, to give feedback and point out to things that can be improved
To all those of you who said that it's a choice to attack first:
1. Don't assume everyone has no life and has the opportunity to attack whenever they want.
2. Some of us, including me, have our payouts during the last hour of GA so if they wait for the last hour to attack then we are forced to sacrifice our arena payouts for it.
3. Availability should never be a determining factor for the win, there's a reason attack phase lasts 24 hours and not 2.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
By definition you cannot maximize your efficiency unless you do the maximum amount of undersized battles as possible without losing of course. At which point the person who goes after you would still have this knowledge by looking at your banners and attempt to do the same.
You're eliminating the element of surprise which is removing strategy not adding.
To all those of you who said that it's a choice to attack first:
1. Don't assume everyone has no life and has the opportunity to attack whenever they want.
2. Some of us, including me, have our payouts during the last hour of GA so if they wait for the last hour to attack then we are forced to sacrifice our arena payouts for it.
3. Availability should never be a determining factor for the win, there's a reason attack phase lasts 24 hours and not 2.
It's still a choice.
So explain to me why it should stay as it is? Is it because the Devs decided to go with this because they didn't put enough thought into it and you're afraid to support someone who is asking for that to be changed because you think it's going to be perceived as "complaining" and hurt your image in the forum? Because there is no legitimate way as to why it should stay the way that it is when it clearly gives a massive advantage to the person who attacks last
If most players had the ability to maximize their banners with perfect efficiency, which they don't, then this would not be matter. Surely you should always try to do your best regardless but the fact remains that most players if not anybody will ever achieve a perfect score in GA.
As long as this remains a reality, the person with the info will always have an advantage over the person without it.
If you remember when GA was firstly introduced, before the banner rework, ties were very common amongst the top players especially. This was the result of everyone being able to maximize their banners very easily, when the devs decided to add all the extra parameters and make it so that different achievements can earn a different amount of banners it became pretty obvious that they were interested in making this mode truly competitive and that it wasn't perfect. I'm showcasing how the mode still gives unfair advantages to those who have the time to battle late, I don't understand why people have to object it like there's an agenda behind it.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
By definition you cannot maximize your efficiency unless you do the maximum amount of undersized battles as possible without losing of course. At which point the person who goes after you would still have this knowledge by looking at your banners and attempt to do the same.
You're eliminating the element of surprise which is removing strategy not adding.
You claim, that players would perform better, if they go second. I claim, that they can perform exactly the same - it's a simple matter of choosing to do your best even if you go first. If you don't it's on you and you alone.
Yes, the one that goes second can relax a bit, not optimize everything and save some time if he sees that the one going first scored low.
If most players had the ability to maximize their banners with perfect efficiency, which they don't, then this would not be matter. Surely you should always try to do your best regardless but the fact remains that most players if not anybody will ever achieve a perfect score in GA.
As long as this remains a reality, the person with the info will always have an advantage over the person without it.
If you remember when GA was firstly introduced, before the banner rework, ties were very common amongst the top players especially. This was the result of everyone being able to maximize their banners very easily, when the devs decided to add all the extra parameters and make it so that different achievements can earn a different amount of banners it became pretty obvious that they were interested in making this mode truly competitive and that it wasn't perfect. I'm showcasing how the mode still gives unfair advantages to those who have the time to battle late, I don't understand why people have to object it like there's an agenda behind it.
(Because they abuse it and are scared of taking this advantage away)
Truth be told, i havent yet lost because of this, but i have had many close fights where clearly my opponent was waiting on my move. It’s annoying to me, because GA resets at 5am so clearly i can’t ever play the waiting game.
To all those of you who said that it's a choice to attack first:
1. Don't assume everyone has no life and has the opportunity to attack whenever they want.
2. Some of us, including me, have our payouts during the last hour of GA so if they wait for the last hour to attack then we are forced to sacrifice our arena payouts for it.
3. Availability should never be a determining factor for the win, there's a reason attack phase lasts 24 hours and not 2.
It's still a choice.
Oh so it’s my choice i’m born and live in a timezone where GA resets at 5am so i can never realistically wait till the last hr?
To all those of you who said that it's a choice to attack first:
1. Don't assume everyone has no life and has the opportunity to attack whenever they want.
2. Some of us, including me, have our payouts during the last hour of GA so if they wait for the last hour to attack then we are forced to sacrifice our arena payouts for it.
3. Availability should never be a determining factor for the win, there's a reason attack phase lasts 24 hours and not 2.
It's still a choice.
So explain to me why it should stay as it is? Is it because the Devs decided to go with this because they didn't put enough thought into it and you're afraid to support someone who is asking for that to be changed because you think it's going to be perceived as "complaining" and hurt your image in the forum? Because there is no legitimate way as to why it should stay the way that it is when it clearly gives a massive advantage to the person who attacks last
I don't agree on the massive advantage part. If you perform worse by going first, it's your own fault. Perform better next time no matter wether you go first or second.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If most players had the ability to maximize their banners with perfect efficiency, which they don't, ....
Please explain this. During the attack phase one player's performance is in no way influenced by the other player's performance. Both defenses are locked. A player can't do anything more to influence the other player's attack phase.
I got my attacks in and cleaned my opponent 30 mins into the attack phase. Now I am waiting for his response but the thing is he knows how many banners I collected from my attacks. As a result he has a clear advantage because he can calculate exactly how many banners he needs and that means he can adjust his squads to earn a few extra banners from undersized wins. This takes alot of pressure off of him.
This is true for any players who clear they opponents first. Their opponents will have an unfair advantage in banner knowledge. This encourages players to hold their attempts and wait for the last minute to get their attacks in after they have that info. If I have things to do during that time, or maybe my payouts, I cannot wait until 3 o'clock to get my attacks in.
My recommendation is to change GA so that your opponent's banners aren't showing. You will still be able to see their progress and how many of your squads they defeated, you just won't be able to see the exact amount of banners and play your squads accordingly.
If you do well enough it puts your opponent at a disadvantage. If they think/know they need to be perfect they could make unforced mistakes. I think the pros and cons are about even and it comes down to personal preference.
I disagree. Those mistakes wouldn’t be unforced, since they come from the fact that they know how much they need to do and are trying to do so.
I agree with op that attacking second is actually a huge advantage since there is no downside to it but the information you get can help you greatly. Knowing precisely how risky you need to play to achieve victory is just so strong. I would even go further and say that if you wanted to make it really suspensful and fair you would need to not show anything your opponent did and only display it after the round has been played.
Of course you lose the « real-time war » kind of thing and it may not be as rewarding. So i guess not showing the opponent’s banner would be an easy way to make it at least a bit more fair.
If you're opponent doesn't know what you've scored they may go through and do their best and average 57.5 banners per squad. If they see you've cleared with an average of 57 before they go they may start to overthink it and save strong teams for the back sections thinking they need 58s across the board. Then they stumble and get a 52 or lose a battle in the front sections. That's definitely an unforced error.
You can absolutely change your opponent game plan if you go first and do well enough. Whether or not you think that's better than the advantage you gain from them not knowing what you scored is up to you.
I maintain that the pros and cons of both are equal and it comes down to personal preference.
Again i strongly disagree with that way of thinking which looks extremely illogical to me. Even if your opponent is unable to do basic math and count the number of banners needed, they will never, ever in any imaginable circumstance, have more pressure than you had yourself when attacking first. Attacking first will favor unforced mistakes, since you might play it riskier than needed due to lack of information. It will put pressure on you to spread yourself and play as if you needed to ace every fight because you don’t know if you actually do or not (meaning you are actually forced to try)
Attacking second will allow your opponent to know exactly how much they need to do and strategize accordingly. If they need to take risks, they would have taken them regardless attacking first, if they don’t they can avoid those risks and increase significantly their chances of winning. You can change your opponent gameplan. Just only for the better.
There is strictly zero downside to wait. But let’s say it’s a difference of « opinion » (i don’t think it is) and let’s agree to disagree.
I do think that hiding the banner count would add strategy, not take it away, and i do think that rotating start times would be another nice solution.
See the post right above yours. It happens.
And I'm not talking about you going in and clearing the board lackadaisically at 55 banners per squad (no fleets). That's really the only case where 'your opponent is unable to do basic math' comes into play.
If you have a solid game plan, and since we all set defenses I presume we all put a lot of thought into what our opponent might do and which teams we should save for offense, and you execute it well you should be averaging 57-58 banners per clear.
If you can't do that, if you consistently fail to execute, then you are absolutely right, you're better off going second. The pressure of your opponent averaging 58 might encourage you to take more risks or the lack of pressure from your opponent averaging 54 might relax you.
Whatever helps you get into the right mindset to hit that 58+ banner threshold is what is best for you. And it differs from person to person. Whether you strongly disagree or not (and since you do strongly disagree, you're kind of proving my point).
Perhaps in his case he was just purely outclassed and he had a rough matchup. It would not matter if he went first or second he'd probably lose anyways.
I still don't understand how having info and thus the ability to plan more efficiently, be in any case a disadvantage
Because the information is always going to be incomplete. If you could run 1000 simulations of each of your choices you have when you need 58 banners to tie and 59 to win you'd be right. You'd have a very strong indication of how likely your 5v5 team is to get 59 banners and how likely your 4v5 or 3v5 teams are to do the same.
What if I told you in that situation your 5v5 team had a 99% chance to get 59 banners, your 4v5 team 60% and your 3v5 30%? Or if all 3 had a 99% chance? Or if your 5v5 team had a 50% chance and your 4v5 and 3v4 had a 75% chance? You can guess at it based on the limited data set you can hold and analyze in your head but you really don't know a whole lot more by going second.
All I'm saying is that some people feel better making that decision and some people feel better forcing others to make it.
Yeah but that's the thing, regardless of how likely you are to win with an undersized squad, you still know whether you must use an undersized squad or not based on banner knowledge. Regardless of winning or losing the thing is that you know that you need to try.
If I have one match left and I'm 61 banners away from winning (conquer bonus calculated of course), I know for a fact that sending a team of 5 will lose me the GA regardless of a flawless performance, I know for a fact that I must try an undersized battle at this point , whether I win or lose it's a different story, I still have an advantage.
Sure, it's nice for that situation. However, if you're 61 banners behind on the last squad you did something wrong in one of your other matchups anyway. You failed to execute and your plan fell apart. If you just so happen to have a 3 or 4 man squad in your pocket for that last battle that has better than a 50% chance to get you a near flawless victory then you need to reexamine your whole game plan anyway.
There are so many reasons being 61 banners behind on your last battle is a very, very undesirable and disadvantageous position to be in that I don't know where to start.
I was approaching this whole conversation from the perspective that this situation is rare (you're down by 61 in your last battle and have an actual chance to pull out a win) and it's more likely that the whole match is decided well before your last battle (you need 55 or fewer banners) or win-able/tie-able while still adhering to your original game plan (and using a 5v5 squad).
But sure, if you often find yourself down by 60 or more in your last battle you're better off going second.
Lets just put it this way - if your opponent can beat all your squads on first try and so can u, this would not be a rare situation. The whole “full prot” “full hp” thing is to a large extent rng based. AI decides to spread out attacks on all your toons? There goes your full prot bonus. Crit too much and opponent dies before thrawn can heal some prot? Rng says too bad. U could have planned for 58-59 banners in all ur battles but there goes one stray attack and u’re left with 57 - and it slowly adds up.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
Going last is easier.
The whole "put the pressure on" argument is flawed. If you're taking risks because you know you need alot of banners and lose because of that, you would have lost anyway. Seeying as you needed to take risks you wouldn't have taken otherwise, you would have gotten less banners than needed for the win if you went first. More banners than you got when going last because the risk didn't pan out, but still less banners than your opponent got when going first. So it's reasonable to assume your opponent would be able to more banners than you if he went last since he got more than you when going first.
That being said, i'm not a fan of hiding banners. I don't want to wait 24h to see if i won or not and i enjoy checking my opponents progress every now and then.
I'm totally fine with rotating start times to accomodate players all across the world.
Going last is easier.
The whole "put the pressure on" argument is flawed. If you're taking risks because you know you need alot of banners and lose because of that, you would have lost anyway. Seeying as you needed to take risks you wouldn't have taken otherwise, you would have gotten less banners than needed for the win if you went first. More banners than you got when going last because the risk didn't pan out, but still less banners than your opponent got when going first. So it's reasonable to assume your opponent would be able to more banners than you if he went last since he got more than you when going first.
That being said, i'm not a fan of hiding banners. I don't want to wait 24h to see if i won or not and i enjoy checking my opponents progress every now and then.
I'm totally fine with rotating start times to accomodate players all across the world.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
Great example. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a number of folks that would rather be the first mover with the "absurdly good score" in this situation. Part of their plan would be to force you into risky decisions. Whether you perform well in, and therefore see it as an advantage to be in, those situations is a bit irrelevant unless you choose to let them know ahead of time. Then they may try to use that against you.
Replies
Notice how I never spoke about pressure, that was brought up by others. Pressure is irrelevant and it only matters when one player is better than other and they have stronger squads.
I spoke about the advantage of planning and assigning your squads better due to having the extra knowledge. If your opponent did a phenomenal job and you got totally outclassed then you probably will feel pressured but that's a GA you would have e probably lost regardless. Still the info can help you turn it around even if you were outclassed
Because the information is always going to be incomplete. If you could run 1000 simulations of each of your choices you have when you need 58 banners to tie and 59 to win you'd be right. You'd have a very strong indication of how likely your 5v5 team is to get 59 banners and how likely your 4v5 or 3v5 teams are to do the same.
What if I told you in that situation your 5v5 team had a 99% chance to get 59 banners, your 4v5 team 60% and your 3v5 30%? Or if all 3 had a 99% chance? Or if your 5v5 team had a 50% chance and your 4v5 and 3v4 had a 75% chance? You can guess at it based on the limited data set you can hold and analyze in your head but you really don't know a whole lot more by going second.
All I'm saying is that some people feel better making that decision and some people feel better forcing others to make it.
If you can win a match with less toon vs the opponents 5, why wouldnt you attack with less?
Yeah but that's the thing, regardless of how likely you are to win with an undersized squad, you still know whether you must use an undersized squad or not based on banner knowledge. Regardless of winning or losing the thing is that you know that you need to try.
If I have one match left and I'm 61 banners away from winning (conquer bonus calculated of course), I know for a fact that sending a team of 5 will lose me the GA regardless of a flawless performance, I know for a fact that I must try an undersized battle at this point , whether I win or lose it's a different story, I still have an advantage.
Sure, it's nice for that situation. However, if you're 61 banners behind on the last squad you did something wrong in one of your other matchups anyway. You failed to execute and your plan fell apart. If you just so happen to have a 3 or 4 man squad in your pocket for that last battle that has better than a 50% chance to get you a near flawless victory then you need to reexamine your whole game plan anyway.
There are so many reasons being 61 banners behind on your last battle is a very, very undesirable and disadvantageous position to be in that I don't know where to start.
I was approaching this whole conversation from the perspective that this situation is rare (you're down by 61 in your last battle and have an actual chance to pull out a win) and it's more likely that the whole match is decided well before your last battle (you need 55 or fewer banners) or win-able/tie-able while still adhering to your original game plan (and using a 5v5 squad).
But sure, if you often find yourself down by 60 or more in your last battle you're better off going second.
I see where your coming from and that's definitely your choice as to what is comfortable for you.....now myself if I can win any battle 3v5 I will do it so for me the knowledge of banner count is irrelevant...I know the abilities and limitations of my squads so they are getting max effort period
I agree with this. But of course all those exploiting this will think it’s “fair” when they fail to realise half the world is sleeping when GA ends.
The alternative is to just rotate GA hours so that all timezones get an equal chance to exploit this tactic.
Typical of someone who does not understand statistics.
Lets say u have a stronger roster than ur opponent, because GA still counts fleet GP and ur opponent is a fleet kinda guy. If u go first, logically u will take the minimum risk path. Maybe u’ll go with an undersized squad here or there, but all with a strong confidence of winning, say 90%.
Fast forward, u complete the round with an average of 59 banners. Great score.
Your opponent, seeing this, arranges his attacks in a way that maximises his possible score, but in setting these undersized squads has only a 70% chance of winning each battle. As RNG favoured him, he beats u with an average of 59, with one squad getting 60. U lose.
Had this information not been available to him, he would have taken the safer path, with 90% chances of winning using full sized teams and would have averaged 57 points.
U see the difference here? He has the information on whether he should take the unnecessary risk. That’s the thing causing the difference in all these close fights. For that reason, banners should not be shown, or at least rotate GA periods so other time zones get their fair share of choosing to attack last.
Wow that is the type of opponent i like to meet, easy wins all the way.
Well considering I'm a day trader you're right, I know absolutely nothing about statistics lol......also considering I haven't lost a GA yet I know absolutely nothing about how to win so there's that.....
Because ur odds of winning with 4 is lower. If u had a 95% chance of winning with a full squad that would net u 59 banners, vs a 60% chance of winning with 4 toons that MAY net u 60 banners, which would u choose?
But IF u knew that u need that one extra point to win ur opponent by one lame point, u would take the risk. Because not taking the risk means u definitely 100% lose.
Whoever starts first however, will not have this information. In a very close fight, this will matter alot. I dont really care if u are facing someone who took 3 attempts on all your squads because that guy deserves to lose if he does. We’re talking about pretty much equal rosters where the gap is knowledge.
But well i totally understand if you don’t understand what I mean by this. Conditional probability “is not something the human mind is really built to digest”
Think about it this way. Let's say I go first and I end up collecting enough banners that my opponent will be required to do 2 undersized attempts. If he knows this information he will do exactly 2. If he doesn't know this then he may not feel comfortable with just 2 so he may attempt to do 3 or 4 which means he would have lower chance of winning, but because he knows this information he will do precisely the minimum amount of undersized attempts that is required to win to lower the risk of losing. If he knows for a fact that it takes 2 he will do, not 3 or 4 ect. Maybe by pure luck he does 2 and wins, maybe he does 1 and loses still. Mathematically he has the advantage and that's not my opinion or anyone's opinion.
@Kokie I hope this example clarifies it a bit more.
And the assumption that matchmaker actually produces a significant volume of competitive matches is hilarious.
Hey man, we're just pointing out to a flaw in the design of a game mode that was branded and advertised as competitive, which gives a significant advantage to the players who have the ability to wait longer before they attack. If it can be fixed within a few lines of code then it should be fixed and I don't see a reason why it shouldn't. This is the purpose of forums, to give feedback and point out to things that can be improved
It's still a choice.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
By definition you cannot maximize your efficiency unless you do the maximum amount of undersized battles as possible without losing of course. At which point the person who goes after you would still have this knowledge by looking at your banners and attempt to do the same.
You're eliminating the element of surprise which is removing strategy not adding.
So explain to me why it should stay as it is? Is it because the Devs decided to go with this because they didn't put enough thought into it and you're afraid to support someone who is asking for that to be changed because you think it's going to be perceived as "complaining" and hurt your image in the forum? Because there is no legitimate way as to why it should stay the way that it is when it clearly gives a massive advantage to the person who attacks last
As long as this remains a reality, the person with the info will always have an advantage over the person without it.
If you remember when GA was firstly introduced, before the banner rework, ties were very common amongst the top players especially. This was the result of everyone being able to maximize their banners very easily, when the devs decided to add all the extra parameters and make it so that different achievements can earn a different amount of banners it became pretty obvious that they were interested in making this mode truly competitive and that it wasn't perfect. I'm showcasing how the mode still gives unfair advantages to those who have the time to battle late, I don't understand why people have to object it like there's an agenda behind it.
You claim, that players would perform better, if they go second. I claim, that they can perform exactly the same - it's a simple matter of choosing to do your best even if you go first. If you don't it's on you and you alone.
Yes, the one that goes second can relax a bit, not optimize everything and save some time if he sees that the one going first scored low.
(Because they abuse it and are scared of taking this advantage away)
Truth be told, i havent yet lost because of this, but i have had many close fights where clearly my opponent was waiting on my move. It’s annoying to me, because GA resets at 5am so clearly i can’t ever play the waiting game.
Oh so it’s my choice i’m born and live in a timezone where GA resets at 5am so i can never realistically wait till the last hr?
I don't agree on the massive advantage part. If you perform worse by going first, it's your own fault. Perform better next time no matter wether you go first or second.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
Please explain this. During the attack phase one player's performance is in no way influenced by the other player's performance. Both defenses are locked. A player can't do anything more to influence the other player's attack phase.
Lets just put it this way - if your opponent can beat all your squads on first try and so can u, this would not be a rare situation. The whole “full prot” “full hp” thing is to a large extent rng based. AI decides to spread out attacks on all your toons? There goes your full prot bonus. Crit too much and opponent dies before thrawn can heal some prot? Rng says too bad. U could have planned for 58-59 banners in all ur battles but there goes one stray attack and u’re left with 57 - and it slowly adds up.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
The whole "put the pressure on" argument is flawed. If you're taking risks because you know you need alot of banners and lose because of that, you would have lost anyway. Seeying as you needed to take risks you wouldn't have taken otherwise, you would have gotten less banners than needed for the win if you went first. More banners than you got when going last because the risk didn't pan out, but still less banners than your opponent got when going first. So it's reasonable to assume your opponent would be able to more banners than you if he went last since he got more than you when going first.
That being said, i'm not a fan of hiding banners. I don't want to wait 24h to see if i won or not and i enjoy checking my opponents progress every now and then.
I'm totally fine with rotating start times to accomodate players all across the world.
This guy gets it and has a fair argument.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
Great example. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a number of folks that would rather be the first mover with the "absurdly good score" in this situation. Part of their plan would be to force you into risky decisions. Whether you perform well in, and therefore see it as an advantage to be in, those situations is a bit irrelevant unless you choose to let them know ahead of time. Then they may try to use that against you.