GA Opponent's Progress Should be Hidden Until End of Round

Most of my rounds are just a battle of patience. Going first is hugely disadvantaged because the opponent can calculate what they need to beat you. The aim of GA is to gain as many points as possible, not just get enough points to win. The battle of patience is strongly affected by what timezone you are in. Those who are asleep during the end of the round are disadvantaged as they cannot play the patience game.

Just to give an example; I see my opponent has failed multiple times against my Darth Revan, meaning they are not going to clear that zone. I can calculate and choose to use the Tier 1 teams I have prepared against Darth Revan (such as Jedi Knight Revan or Commander Luke Skywalker), on other teams to ensure maximum banners. If I couldn't see their progress, or their failures against my Darth Revan, I would use those teams to try beat the opposing Darth Revan. This has two outcomes; one is that I beat the darth revan and get more points, or two, I lose to Darth Revan, and get less points. There is a risk vs reward decision making that is taken away if you know your opponents progress.

Replies

  • I do like this idea. Hopefully they incorporate it into the Tiered GA's that I think are releasing soon.
  • Kisakee
    1648 posts Member
    You're not the first one who came up with this idea and i can't remember anyone else than the OP liked that idea, especially not me.
    Why shouldn't you be able to see if your troops got attacked and destroyed, that absolutely makes no sense at all. And it's part of the tactic to change your attack plans when you see your opponent struggling, there is no reason in playing risky if you don't have to.
    If you can't play the waiting game you need another plan, simple as that. War isn't fair and it doesn't care if you're sleeping.
    "Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
    - Grand Admiral Thrawn
  • Because it's not balanced due to time zones. Balance is a key point to this game and most games. I'm not sure why you are comparing war to a game?

    You pretty much stated it yourself why it's bad. You can change your tactic if you see your opponent struggling, and do not need to take risks BECAUSE they acted first.
  • uno
    150 posts Member
    will nvr b balanced....is it fair that asian time zones get to see the change in stores first? or that events are based off of us pst?....could go on and on but bottom line it will always b more fair to one vs the other....as to who goes first, does it really matter? how disheartening when u get on and ur opponent has already wiped u out...now u have the pressure to perform if u even try....only way is how it is...there's a window of time to act in, do or don't but the clock is ticking for u and ur opponent
  • Hortus
    615 posts Member
    Going first is hugely disadvantaged because the opponent can calculate what they need to beat you.

    I think such claims are pointless without knowledge of real stats. It can work both ways - if you successfully use risky but high reward tactic you can put some additional pressure on opponent and force him to take greater risks.

    But maybe it's worth a question in upcoming devs Q&A session - if both GA opponents attacked, is there any statistical difference in win % between those who attack first and those who attack second? "Both attacked" is important part because often people just don't care to attack in obvious mismatches.
  • Spoken like a true Jedi. All should be balanced. Battles should be for glory and honor! We should have equal shares and measures! Take away strategy and advantages, do away with them so we can have peace!

    Peace is a lie, there is only Passion.
  • No_Try
    4051 posts Member
    The open play is an important part of the psychological chess we are playing. I wouldn't ever want to see that aspect go.
  • Kisakee wrote: »
    Why shouldn't you be able to see if your troops got attacked and destroyed, that absolutely makes no sense at all. And it's part of the tactic to change your attack plans when you see your opponent struggling, there is no reason in playing risky if you don't have to.
    Actually, as far as I understand, the op only asks for not seeing the points anymore. I can imagine you would still see if squads are still there or already defeated. Just the total points of the enemy would be hidden. I like the idea because a good strategy means trying to "read" your enemy, figure out what he can and most logically will do... not just sitting it out until the opponent attacked and relying on the simple knowledge of his total points.

  • I better don't edit my post as that tends to make posts vanish, so adding it here: There is not only the disadvantage stated by the op that comes to my mind, but also the other side of it. It often happens to me that my opponent does not attack at all, and some of the times I assume it's simply because he calculates he can't win anymore. Which prevents me from seeing and learning more about if my squads actually hold on defense or not, against the characters/assumed teams he would have left for offence.
  • Kisakee
    1648 posts Member
    Because it's not balanced due to time zones. Balance is a key point to this game and most games. I'm not sure why you are comparing war to a game?

    You pretty much stated it yourself why it's bad. You can change your tactic if you see your opponent struggling, and do not need to take risks BECAUSE they acted first.

    Because time was a key factor in every war too and still is. This may be a game but it's inspired by mass fights with countless dead bodies in the end which is called 'war'.

    And yes, i said you need to change your strategy if you can't wait. So just go first and wipe the board, that's taking the pressure to your opponent. So is attacking first and discouraging your opponent unfair? Like the same unfair of waiting and changing your plan when he struggles? Nothing is fair unless both decide to not join GA, that's the single fair thing you can get. Everything else is just battling, fighting, winning - called war.
    CadoaBane wrote: »
    Kisakee wrote: »
    Why shouldn't you be able to see if your troops got attacked and destroyed, that absolutely makes no sense at all. And it's part of the tactic to change your attack plans when you see your opponent struggling, there is no reason in playing risky if you don't have to.
    Actually, as far as I understand, the op only asks for not seeing the points anymore. I can imagine you would still see if squads are still there or already defeated. Just the total points of the enemy would be hidden. I like the idea because a good strategy means trying to "read" your enemy, figure out what he can and most logically will do... not just sitting it out until the opponent attacked and relying on the simple knowledge of his total points.
    CadoaBane wrote: »
    There is not only the disadvantage stated by the op that comes to my mind, but also the other side of it. It often happens to me that my opponent does not attack at all, and some of the times I assume it's simply because he calculates he can't win anymore. Which prevents me from seeing and learning more about if my squads actually hold on defense or not, against the characters/assumed teams he would have left for offence.

    If you know how points are calculated you can count them by yourself if they are hidden, that would make no difference at all when you still can see the troops progress. So the only effective way is to hide points and progress. Imagine you have to fight a TW this way, not seeing if the enemy guild attacks at all. This would be madness and discouraging for your guild and it's the same to you in GA.
    "Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
    - Grand Admiral Thrawn
Sign In or Register to comment.