What team without Grievous should I farm and gear to unlock 7 star Padme in 1-2 months (next return)

Replies

  • BrakirKY
    145 posts Member
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Whoever you use, try to avoid using b1, dooku, sun fac, geosol, dooku and droideka (if zetad).

    They all have out of turn attacks which will grant the enemy they hit 50% health as indispellable not removable protection up that may prevent all debuffs from landing.
    Dooku's out of turn attacks now ignore protection, so he's still very viable for the event. His shock and stun are also highly useful to keep GK from taunting and anakin and padme in check.
  • @TheUnchosenOne

    Read the thread: the point is to develop a squad that does NOT include Grievous and where all the toons are able to be rush-farmed.

    The optimal team isn't optimal if it doesn't yet exist when the event returns.
  • Similar situation, I was planning ahead for when I farm for Padme.

    Would Dooku, Droideka (No Zeta), B2 Superdroid, & Poggle be a workable 4 to start with?

    Would IG100 be a good 5th?

    Or how about Nute?
  • @TheUnchosenOne

    LOL

    @Schwartzring

    IG-100 is a no.

    Check out my guide on page2. It's not a guide to the optimal teams, it's a guide to the best team you can get in a short period of time.

    Nute is probably going to be the best leader for the Padme event (he wasn't last time, but he got reworked after the first Padme event).

    Dooku is usable, but not ideal. The ability to bypass protection helps. The ability to inflict shock to prevent a toon from gaining buffs helps. But you'll have to load him with speed and hope that his first use of force lightning lands Shock on the right characters ...

    ...because of this, Dooku is one of those characters that is only a real asset when he RNG comes together ... which means a lot of restarts. It doesn't mean you fail, it just means you take a long time to get it done.

    in any case, go check out my guide on p2.
  • Letareus
    103 posts Member
    @Woodroward

    You said:
    The fact that people have managed without gg doesn't mean he isn't really necessary.

    First - you're wrong. That's exactly what it means. If you can do it without him, he isn't necessary. He's just very helpful.

    Then you said:
    I never said necessary.

    That's exactly what you said. There's the word. Spelled the same. "doesn't mean he isn't" = "does mean he is".

    You're not only wrong that he's necessary. You're wrong that you never said "necessary". You did. Is there a reason people should be taking your advice when you don't even know what you said earlier in the same thread?

    Thank you! Not only that, but much earlier in the thread he actually said:
    Woodroward wrote: »
    The 3 characters that are basically required to win are GG, Asaji, and B2.

    Basically required = necessary. He even had me fooled/confused into forgetting about that. He was the one who started calling Grievous required/necessary.
    People are forgetting that we've had reworks since the first Padme event. This is what you should farm..

    My best guess for a #5 for you is Jango Fett, but I didn't check your inventory to see where you were on that farm.

    Great guide, thanks! I don't have that many Jango shards and I'm not sure he's a Separatist yet. Based on your advice, I'm definitely going to rush farm Geo Spy and not get Dooku. I'm about 50% done with Droideka shards - will be tight but I can accelerate it with 2 refreshes a day instead of 1. Or even 3. And thanks for confirming Nute will be a good leader.

    So my current planned team is Nute (Lead), B2, Droideka, Geo Spy, Ventress.
    Read the thread: the point is to develop a squad that does NOT include Grievous and where all the toons are able to be rush-farmed.

    The optimal team isn't optimal if it doesn't yet exist when the event returns.

    Exactly. Finally someone who gets it. I would love to get Grievous in time for the event but it's almost certain I won't get him in time, or if I go all out with shard store, I might get lucky and barely get Grievous but I'll be doing the event with G7/G8 Grievous and 2 other G7/G8's. Somehow, I don't think that's better than the full G11/G12 team I have planned above.
  • @Letareus
    I don't have that many Jango shards and I'm not sure he's a Separatist yet

    He's not a Separatist yet. Focussing on him to the exclusion of toons known to be separatists would be a bad move, but I do expect him to be a Sep before the event returns. (It's a guess, but it's my guess and I like it. They added Sep and Sith to Ventress, so it's the kind of thing that they do. Then there's the fact that he's in the Geo DS TB trailer that they released - as others have already pointed out.)

    However, I was just trying to say that you might already have another toon that would be good for the event by the time it returns. Since he doesn't have the Sep tag yet, you might not have looked at him as a possibility and - if you happened to have a well developed Jango - be pleasantly surprised to find later that you have another good Separatist toon you hadn't anticipated would be event eligible.

    As it turns out, you now tell me that you "don't have that many Jango shards". That kills Jango pretty effectively. He's definitely a slow farm, and not one that I would put on any "rush" list given he's got a single hard node.

    my current planned team is Nute (Lead), B2, Droideka, Geo Spy, Ventress.

    I hope that works for you. It's all good characters under a good lead. B2 is particularly important for buff immunity preventing endless protection increases (along with the Tenacity UP which comes with Padme's Protection UP), and Padme's squad is speed boosted all to heck, which makes Droideka fifty times more effective against them. Nute will get them skipping turns to dispel their own buffs, Ventress adds more damage the more their healer revives people. Geo Spy is great for attacking the toons that do manage to get a few buffs up (ironically, if B2 is doing its job, Geo Spy will get less bonus damage).

    There's not a lot of synergy other than that, of course, and like the Geo Spy/B2 thing your characters' conflicts are sometimes even in conflict, but that can't be helped with rush farms. I think you'll be successful and this is a good plan. [Based on what I said earlier about "optimal" teams not being optimal if they don't exist when the event runs.] This def sounds like a "good enough" group, given your gear targets and Nute's and Ventress's zetas.


    Good luck with everything.

  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    @Woodroward

    You said:
    The fact that people have managed without gg doesn't mean he isn't really necessary.

    First - you're wrong. That's exactly what it means. If you can do it without him, he isn't necessary. He's just very helpful.

    Then you said:
    I never said necessary.

    That's exactly what you said. There's the word. Spelled the same. "doesn't mean he isn't" = "does mean he is".

    You're not only wrong that he's necessary. You're wrong that you never said "necessary". You did. Is there a reason people should be taking your advice when you don't even know what you said earlier in the same thread?

    @ Everyone:

    People are forgetting that we've had reworks since the first Padme event. This is what you should farm, if you're in a rush:
    Nute (+ zeta) should be very, very effective against Padme, both in her event and generally in the game. Nute is also an easy farm. Zeta Nute is also intended to be necessary in Geo TB, so long term, this is definitely not a wasted zeta. Whether or not it's a zeta you want to prioritize right now (if you have other things you want to use a zeta on), that's up to you. But it's a good move overall, and if you're rushing to get 7* Padme there's no reason not to prioritize this zeta.

    Ventress is very effective in the event, for dispel and for TM jumping as people die and get resurrected.

    Geo Spy does massive extra damage while dispelling buffs (similar to Boba's execute, though without preventing revive).

    B2 prevents the endless bonus protection from accruing in the first place with his Buff Immunity.

    Those 4 toons should be mandatory for someone who doesn't have separatists now and needs rush farms. Other toons might take too long to reach 7*.

    Candidates for 5th toon include (in alphabetical order):
    Dooku: If you pick Dooku, you have to put stack speed on him and put shock on Padme right away so she can't gain bonus protection. Because of his out-of-turn attacks, he's not a great choice, but with a lot of speed and potency and some good luck landing shock at the beginning of a battle, he can be a solid piece of a winning team. Just be prepared for multiple restarts to get shock on Padme before her protection/tenacity train gets going.

    Geo Soldier: Not a good kit for this event. He just doesn't hit hard enough on basic, and his special is an assist call. However, if you need a 5th toon, he's an easy farm and you probably have him already.

    Jango: Jango isn't necessarily an easy farm, but he's a very good toon and when you said you didn't have separatists, please pay attention to the fact that Jango isn't a separatist right now, but that tag is being added to his kit in the next couple of weeks - long before the Padme event comes back.

    Poggle: Not a difficult farm, and you might have him already anyway. He's not a great toon, but he makes the other separatists better without counter-attacking or calling assists.




    Difficult toons to panic farm that are useful for the event, but only if you've already farmed them most of the way:
    General Grievous

    Droideka


    Toons to avoid:
    IG-100

    Sun Fac


    Obviously some people have made it through he event with counterattackers like Dooku & Sun Fac, but they do make it more difficult. If you absolutely have to have one of these last two, Sun Fac is much better because of the dispel.

    As a last note, I'm not sure about B-1. I think that you should avoid him. he's been useful to some people, but as I understand it, he's only useful under a General Grievous lead, which you won't have.

    My best guess for a #5 for you is Jango Fett, but I didn't check your inventory to see where you were on that farm.

    Removing the qualifying adjective doesn't change the meaning to that of the base word. He is the one who said necessary. I responded to him saying really necessary. This isn't the same as necessary. Yeah being able to do it in a million attempts without him means he isn't necessary. But in a more practical sense, he may as well be. It's the same thing with saying basically required.

    Neither one of those statements says he can't be gotten without him, just that it's unlikely. I have corrected this misinterpretation of my words over and over. Saying that's not how it seems to you is just purposefully prolonging an argument by forcing your own understandings of words onto my words. That is a ridiculous way to approach anything. Just take my clarifications of mistaken definitions at face value and it will be fine. To argue against it further is to be the one pursuing a fallacy as I have clearly stated what was meant by my words.

    TLDR: Doesn't matter what my words mean to you, matters only what is meant by my words and everything I stated was true and correct in this thread as long as people don't egotistically force their own understandings onto what I have stated.
  • Check out my guide on page2. It's not a guide to the optimal teams, it's a guide to the best team you can get in a short period of time.

    Nute is probably going to be the best leader for the Padme event (he wasn't last time, but he got reworked after the first Padme event).

    Dooku is usable, but not ideal. The ability to bypass protection helps. The ability to inflict shock to prevent a toon from gaining buffs helps. But you'll have to load him with speed and hope that his first use of force lightning lands Shock on the right characters ...

    in any case, go check out my guide on p2.

    Thanks, I missed it when perusing the thread.

    Excellent stuff.

    And other than Geo Spy, all of them were on my list of possible farms in the future.

    I like the part about Jango getting a new tag added.

    I see his node as mandatory at some point so it would be great if I could use him.
  • Anyone who says Dooku won't be good for the event either hasn't tried him out after the rework, or even read his kit. Dooku is now the ultimate GR killer. Padme can take her bonus protection and stick it up her ****. It won't matter.
  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Anyone who says Dooku won't be good for the event either hasn't tried him out after the rework, or even read his kit. Dooku is now the ultimate GR killer. Padme can take her bonus protection and stick it up her ****. It won't matter.

    Anyone who thinks continuous indispellable bonus protection won't make the event harder isn't using common sense. Since its how his presence will limit the others on the team that will make it harder.

    Who cares how good Dooku himself is if he makes it harder on everyone else? ESPECIALLY if it turns out that ibp is supposed to prevent debuffs too. Wouldn't touch him with a 10 ft pole then.
  • Letareus
    103 posts Member
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Removing the qualifying adjective doesn't change the meaning to that of the base word. He is the one who said necessary. I responded to him saying really necessary. This isn't the same as necessary. Yeah being able to do it in a million attempts without him means he isn't necessary. But in a more practical sense, he may as well be. It's the same thing with saying basically required.

    So misleading here. I responded to his "basically required" with "unnecessary" with the intention of speaking in the same vein. Maybe I should have said "basically unnecessary," but...seriously?

    Necessary is the same as required, it's a difference without a distinction, and he was the one who first started referring to Grievous in that manner, whether hedging with a qualifier or not. While it's technically true that I was the first one to use the word "necessary," that was only in response to Woodroward using the synonymous term "required." His post 6/1/19 1:22PM:
    Woodroward wrote: »
    The 3 characters that are basically required to win are GG, Asaji, and B2.

    My first use of the word necessary was days later on 6/4/19 at 10:02PM, in the form of "unnecessary." It was intended to be in the same vein as he first mentioned, since I was replying to his argument even though I should probably have put a different quote above my response. My point was that Grievous is neither required nor basically required to 7 star Padme. He's wrong on both counts. Or he was trying to weasel his way out with semantics.

    Let me make it clear now: Grievous is not required to 7 star Padme, nor does not having him make it unlikely you'll succeed in doing so.

    It may be true that I didn't address this directly enough; we may have been distracted with too many other things. It didn't take a million attempts to 7* Padme without Grievous even the last time around. That's a gross exaggeration. And an exaggeration is a form of lying. There's no such thing as truthful hyperbole. It might depend on how good your mods are, though. Next time around, it'll be even less true that Grievous is "basically required" with all the reworks. But Woodroward is busy fighting the last war.

    It may take many attempts to 7* Padme without Grievous; it may take several hours. But it doesn't take perfect RNG that takes a million attempts. It's not unlikely. In the following thread alone, seven unique players clearly succeeded in 7 starring Padme without Grievous (several more may have but did not make it clear so I didn't count them): https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/203264/7-padme-without-grievous-use-geonosians-asajj-and-b2

    Their usernames are: Arobot19900, usArmyJedi, Neo2551, Worst_Idea_Ever, IgorconQueso, nivbp7, and HermitProfOak. In addition to that, InRevanWeTrust on this thread (page 1) also did it without Grievous. That's at least 8 separate individuals who managed to 7* Padme last time around in just 2 threads, and we should all know that the overwhelming majority of players neither read nor post on forums. 8 separate people on only 2 threads did it without Grievous last time, and next time will be even easier with reworks. Yes, it's soooooo unlikely (sarcasm).
    Woodroward wrote: »
    TLDR: Doesn't matter what my words mean to you, matters only what is meant by my words and everything I stated was true and correct in this thread as long as people don't egotistically force their own understandings onto what I have stated.
    First, some of the things he has stated as facts on this thread can be neither true nor false because they are either opinions and/or depend on subjective value judgements (e.g., his argument that one should farm everything in the fleet store to 7* before getting a single zeta mat from there). Those aside, many of the things he has stated are objectively false and have been proven as such yet he continues to insist they are true by smoothly brushing aside details and specifics with broad generalizations (and ignoring refutations).

    The main one is his insistence that getting 7* Padme without Grievous is unlikely as stated above. Another one was his statement that there is no value disconnect between him and I, which could not be more obviously false - if he disputes this I can write several paragraphs of examples of obvious value disconnects but this post is long enough already.
  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Letareus wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Removing the qualifying adjective doesn't change the meaning to that of the base word. He is the one who said necessary. I responded to him saying really necessary. This isn't the same as necessary. Yeah being able to do it in a million attempts without him means he isn't necessary. But in a more practical sense, he may as well be. It's the same thing with saying basically required.

    So misleading here. I responded to his "basically required" with "unnecessary" with the intention of speaking in the same vein. Maybe I should have said "basically unnecessary," but...seriously?

    Necessary is the same as required, it's a difference without a distinction, and he was the one who first started referring to Grievous in that manner, whether hedging with a qualifier or not. While it's technically true that I was the first one to use the word "necessary," that was only in response to Woodroward using the synonymous term "required." His post 6/1/19 1:22PM:
    Woodroward wrote: »
    The 3 characters that are basically required to win are GG, Asaji, and B2.

    My first use of the word necessary was days later on 6/4/19 at 10:02PM, in the form of "unnecessary." It was intended to be in the same vein as he first mentioned, since I was replying to his argument even though I should probably have put a different quote above my response. My point was that Grievous is neither required nor basically required to 7 star Padme. He's wrong on both counts. Or he was trying to weasel his way out with semantics.

    Let me make it clear now: Grievous is not required to 7 star Padme, nor does not having him make it unlikely you'll succeed in doing so.

    It may be true that I didn't address this directly enough; we may have been distracted with too many other things. It didn't take a million attempts to 7* Padme without Grievous even the last time around. That's a gross exaggeration. And an exaggeration is a form of lying. There's no such thing as truthful hyperbole. It might depend on how good your mods are, though. Next time around, it'll be even less true that Grievous is "basically required" with all the reworks. But Woodroward is busy fighting the last war.

    It may take many attempts to 7* Padme without Grievous; it may take several hours. But it doesn't take perfect RNG that takes a million attempts. It's not unlikely. In the following thread alone, seven unique players clearly succeeded in 7 starring Padme without Grievous (several more may have but did not make it clear so I didn't count them): https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/203264/7-padme-without-grievous-use-geonosians-asajj-and-b2

    Their usernames are: Arobot19900, usArmyJedi, Neo2551, Worst_Idea_Ever, IgorconQueso, nivbp7, and HermitProfOak. In addition to that, InRevanWeTrust on this thread (page 1) also did it without Grievous. That's at least 8 separate individuals who managed to 7* Padme last time around in just 2 threads, and we should all know that the overwhelming majority of players neither read nor post on forums. 8 separate people on only 2 threads did it without Grievous last time, and next time will be even easier with reworks. Yes, it's soooooo unlikely (sarcasm).
    Woodroward wrote: »
    TLDR: Doesn't matter what my words mean to you, matters only what is meant by my words and everything I stated was true and correct in this thread as long as people don't egotistically force their own understandings onto what I have stated.
    First, some of the things he has stated as facts on this thread can be neither true nor false because they are either opinions and/or depend on subjective value judgements (e.g., his argument that one should farm everything in the fleet store to 7* before getting a single zeta mat from there). Those aside, many of the things he has stated are objectively false and have been proven as such yet he continues to insist they are true by smoothly brushing aside details and specifics with broad generalizations (and ignoring refutations).

    The main one is his insistence that getting 7* Padme without Grievous is unlikely as stated above. Another one was his statement that there is no value disconnect between him and I, which could not be more obviously false - if he disputes this I can write several paragraphs of examples of obvious value disconnects but this post is long enough already.
    You may be the one who originated this thread, but you are the troll here. I didn't respond to you. That post was not directed toward you and I'll thank you to erase this post I quoted and not look at what I post again because i have made it abundantly clear that whatever I am discussing has nothing to do with you.

    These are my words you're quoting. Having a different idea of what they mean doesn't mean "you have a differing opinion", it means you're wrong because they're my words and I told you what they mean. Accept the truth or get off my back because you're just plain wrong simply by responding to me at this point.

    I have never been proven wrong in this thread because the meaning of my words and my viewpoint have the same origin. To insist upon meanings from other points of views is pointless misdirection, or to put it another way, not just wrong, but INTENTIONALLY wrong.

    So go ahead and argue some more thereby cementing your status as an egotist or a troll, but leave me out of it.

    Get over yourself.
  • Letareus
    103 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Woodroward wrote: »
    You may be the one who originated this thread, but you are the troll here. I didn't respond to you. That post was not directed toward you and I'll thank you to erase this post I quoted and not look at what I post again because i have made it abundantly clear that whatever I am discussing has nothing to do with you.

    These are my words you're quoting. Having a different idea of what they mean doesn't mean "you have a differing opinion", it means you're wrong because they're my words and I told you what they mean. Accept the truth or get off my back because you're just plain wrong simply by responding to me at this point.

    I have never been proven wrong in this thread because the meaning of my words and my viewpoint have the same origin. To insist upon meanings from other points of views is pointless misdirection, or to put it another way, not just wrong, but INTENTIONALLY wrong.

    So go ahead and argue some more thereby cementing your status as an egotist or a troll, but leave me out of it.

    Get over yourself.

    Once again, I refute his arguments, and he deflects with generalities, possibly because he is unable to respond to the substance of my contentions.

    His main points were totally proven wrong, and it's not for lack of understanding his meaning. His main claim is that not having Grievous makes it unlikely that you can succesfully complete the Padme event (7 stars). He claimed that you need perfect (or near-perfect) RNG to do so successfully (million attempts, etc.). I showed that that was patently false in my previous post - a cursory search found at least 8 separate individuals who were able to 7* Padme the last time around without Grievous in relatively short order, which would be ludicrously improbable if the RNG situation were as dire as he claimed.

    It doesn't matter who he's addressing it to (though he addressed that point directly to me many times). It doesn't matter if he tries to cloud the issue with semantics about who said first or not understanding his meaning. That was his main point. It is wrong, it was shown to be wrong, yet he continues to insist that everything he said was completely correct.

    He made many other points that were shown to be false as well, but I won't make this post overly long by revisiting them; maybe I will if he continues to defend himself.

    It's unclear what he means by having a differing opinion about what he wrote. I agree that one cannot have an opinion on a poster's intended meaning and never disputed that. There were one or two things that I misinterpreted him on and I admitted fault. But I didn't misinterpret everything he said, and he acts like those couple of misunderstandings mean that I misterpreted everything he ever wrote. Also, he did the same thing he accused me of and misinterpreted many of the things I wrote - but unlike me, he never owned those errors. If he's referring to my comment about some of his arguments being opinions - he completely misunderstood that. What I was saying that many of the things he said, no matter the position and no matter the interpretation are opinions and not facts, not that I had an opinion on what he said.

    It doesn't matter if a post is directed toward someone or not. Posts don't exist in a vacuum. They reflect the poster's meaning, intent, values, etc. no matter who he directs it to and anyone is free to respond to those or use them to support an argument. One doesn't magically morph into a different person everytime one talks to someone else.

    This is a thread meant to help me with my specific case. Woodroward is the one who gave some fair advice at first, but after a certain point, gave bad advice and his comments gradually started morphing into trolling in defense of said bad advice. It has been made clear a while ago that some of his advice is bad and undesired yet he continues to post here. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. Projecting much? He needs to take his own advice.
    Post edited by Letareus on
  • @MasterSeedy
    I think Sun Fac should be a couple of tiers higher:
    He was a critical part of the “budget team” some people used 1st time round to unlock 7*
    Poggle(l), Spy, SunFac, Ventress and B2. All need to be G12 of course.

    I have just pushed Sun Fac to G12 and with trash mods he’s sitting at 71k Protection —> so 90k+ will be easy. He’s got a dispel on basic and can Taunt....
  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    Letareus wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    You may be the one who originated this thread, but you are the troll here. I didn't respond to you. That post was not directed toward you and I'll thank you to erase this post I quoted and not look at what I post again because i have made it abundantly clear that whatever I am discussing has nothing to do with you.

    These are my words you're quoting. Having a different idea of what they mean doesn't mean "you have a differing opinion", it means you're wrong because they're my words and I told you what they mean. Accept the truth or get off my back because you're just plain wrong simply by responding to me at this point.

    I have never been proven wrong in this thread because the meaning of my words and my viewpoint have the same origin. To insist upon meanings from other points of views is pointless misdirection, or to put it another way, not just wrong, but INTENTIONALLY wrong.

    So go ahead and argue some more thereby cementing your status as an egotist or a troll, but leave me out of it.

    Get over yourself.

    Once again, I refute his arguments, and he deflects with generalities, possibly because he is unable to respond to the substance of my contentions.

    His main points were totally proven wrong, and it's not for lack of understanding his meaning. His main claim is that not having Grievous makes it unlikely that you can succesfully complete the Padme event (7 stars). He claimed that you need perfect (or near-perfect) RNG to do so successfully (million attempts, etc.). I showed that that was patently false in my previous post - a cursory search found at least 8 separate individuals who were able to 7* Padme the last time around without Grievous in relatively short order, which would be ludicrously improbable if the RNG situation were as dire as he claimed.

    It doesn't matter who he's addressing it to (though he addressed that point directly to me many times). It doesn't matter if he tries to cloud the issue with semantics about who said first or not understanding his meaning. That was his main point. It is wrong, it was shown to be wrong, yet he continues to insist that everything he said was completely correct.

    He made many other points that were shown to be false as well, but I won't make this post overly long by revisiting them; maybe I will if he continues to defend himself.

    It's unclear what he means by having a differing opinion about what he wrote. I agree that one cannot have an opinion on a poster's intended meaning and never disputed that. There were one or two things that I misinterpreted him on and I admitted fault. But I didn't misinterpret everything he said, and he acts like those couple of misunderstandings mean that I misterpreted everything he ever wrote. Also, he did the same thing he accused me of and misinterpreted many of the things I wrote - but unlike me, he never owned those errors. If he's referring to my comment about some of his arguments being opinions - he completely misunderstood that. What I was saying that many of the things he said, no matter the position and no matter the interpretation are opinions and not facts, not that I had an opinion on what he said.

    It doesn't matter if a post is directed toward someone or not. Posts don't exist in a vacuum. They reflect the poster's meaning, intent, values, etc. no matter who he directs it to and anyone is free to respond to those or use them to support an argument. One doesn't magically morph into a different person everytime one talks to someone else.

    This is a thread meant to help me with my specific case. Woodroward is the one who gave some fair advice at first, but after a certain point, gave bad advice and his comments gradually started morphing into trolling in defense of said bad advice. It has been made clear a while ago that some of his advice is bad and undesired yet he continues to post here. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. Projecting much? He needs to take his own advice.

    No, you had no valid points because you were responding to comments not directed towards you with your values.

    Finding evidence that people have done it without gg doesn't equate to it not being unlikely.

    Nothing you have said to me is valid. It's pointless troll bait. That's why I never addressed what you said.

    Now please get my words out of your mouth.
  • Letareus
    103 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Woodroward wrote: »
    No, you had no valid points because you were responding to comments not directed towards you with your values.

    The validity of a point is independent of who it's directed at. Oversimplified hypothetical analogy:

    Woodroward to Person B: 1+1=3
    Me: That's not true.
    Woodroward: Sorry, I wasn't talking to you, so your objection is invalid. Everything I said is true.
    (crappy analogy I know, but it's for the sake of brevity; better, lengthier analogy will be furnished if this one proves inadequate)

    Not only that, but many or most of my points were actually responding directly to your comments directed at me. Once again, you take the few times I responded to a comment you made to someone else to characterize all my responses. And even those times I was quoting a comment you made towards someone else, the greater point I was making was in response to something you directed at me or directed generally.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Finding evidence that people have done it without gg doesn't equate to it not being unlikely.
    It is when so many people did it without Grievous in such short order. Arobot19900 posted his thread and in only a few days, one person after another after another managed to duplicate it. 5 people managed to follow in his footsteps, and he himself was following a Reddit user. If it's as unlikely as you claim, it would be unlikely for even one person to post that they duplicated the feat since the majority of players don't read or post on forums.

    To be clear, you characterized it as extremely unlikely with terms like "miillion attempts" and "perfect RNG." 5 people managed to replicate perfect RNG in a few days? If you had said that it was a bit difficult/slightly unlikely, requiring good mods and a few hours on average, that's arguably true. The extreme to which you characterized it as, however, does not reflect reality. Perhaps it is true for people with poor/mediocre mods, I'm not sure.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Now please get my words out of your mouth.
    What about all the times you misunderstood or misinterpreted things I've said? Again, I admitted fault for the couple of instances where I misinterpreted you and corrected myself. You have never done the same. And most of my other readings of your statements were correct, but you use the few errors I made to characterize all of them.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Nothing you have said to me is valid. It's pointless troll bait. That's why I never addressed what you said.
    If you misread or don't read the things I said carefully, it's easy to dismiss them as invalid. Admittedly, it's not an easy thing to do because my posts have been long-winded. Even so, you may not be able to read anything I write with a clear head ever since you took offense at something that was not intended to offend. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the best way to do what I was trying to do.
    Post edited by Letareus on
  • Just quit it already.
  • @Shadowscream
    I think Sun Fac should be a couple of tiers higher:
    He was a critical part of the “budget team” some people used 1st time round to unlock 7*


    Maybe I'm wrong about Sun Fac. I think I've made a good assessment, but obviously I am a fallible human and I can't try all the different combos out first. Thanks for your input. I genuinely hope that everyone here gets her next go 'round, whatever team they use.
  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Letareus wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    No, you had no valid points because you were responding to comments not directed towards you with your values.

    The validity of a point is independent of who it's directed at. Oversimplified hypothetical analogy:

    Woodroward to Person B: 1+1=3
    Me: That's not true.
    Woodroward: Sorry, I wasn't talking to you, so your objection is invalid. Everything I said is true.
    (crappy analogy I know, but it's for the sake of brevity; better, lengthier analogy will be furnished if this one proves inadequate)

    Not only that, but many or most of my points were actually responding directly to your comments directed at me. Once again, you take the few times I responded to a comment you made to someone else to characterize all my responses. And even those times I was quoting a comment you made towards someone else, the greater point I was making was in response to something you directed at me or directed generally.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Finding evidence that people have done it without gg doesn't equate to it not being unlikely.
    It is when so many people did it without Grievous in such short order. Arobot19900 posted his thread and in only a few days, one person after another after another managed to duplicate it. 5 people managed to follow in his footsteps, and he himself was following a Reddit user. If it's as unlikely as you claim, it would be unlikely for even one person to post that they duplicated the feat since the majority of players don't read or post on forums.

    To be clear, you characterized it as extremely unlikely with terms like "miillion attempts" and "perfect RNG." 5 people managed to replicate perfect RNG in a few days? If you had said that it was a bit difficult/slightly unlikely, requiring good mods and a few hours on average, that's arguably true. The extreme to which you characterized it as, however, does not reflect reality. Perhaps it is true for people with poor/mediocre mods, I'm not sure.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Now please get my words out of your mouth.
    What about all the times you misunderstood or misinterpreted things I've said? Again, I admitted fault for the couple of instances where I misinterpreted you and corrected myself. You have never done the same. And most of my other readings of your statements were correct, but you use the few errors I made to characterize all of them.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Nothing you have said to me is valid. It's pointless troll bait. That's why I never addressed what you said.
    If you misread or don't read the things I said carefully, it's easy to dismiss them as invalid. Admittedly, it's not an easy thing to do because my posts have been long-winded. Even so, you may not be able to read anything I write with a clear head ever since you took offense at something that was not intended to offend. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the best way to do what I was trying to do.

    Regardless of your meager protestations you are arguing about something that doesn't concern you and mistaken in 90% of your counterarguments anyway.

    For the last and final time, please get my words out of your mouth (that means don't quote me, don't argue with me, and for the love of pete don't let your ego tell you to explain how you're "right" yet again)

    Your arguments had no merit to begin with. I told you exactly why I didn't bother putting more in it in my last short post. Accept that truth because it will set you free from your egotistical posturings. You really have only discord to sow by responding to me again.

    @Shadowscream
    I think Sun Fac should be a couple of tiers higher:
    He was a critical part of the “budget team” some people used 1st time round to unlock 7*


    Maybe I'm wrong about Sun Fac. I think I've made a good assessment, but obviously I am a fallible human and I can't try all the different combos out first. Thanks for your input. I genuinely hope that everyone here gets her next go 'round, whatever team they use.

    I personally disagree vehemently on Sun Fac. I switched my g9 Sun Fac out for g7 asaji early on because all of Sun Fac's counter attacks made his contributions more negative than positive.

    Anyone who got Padme with Sun Fac would have been better throwing in a g1 level 1 toon instead.
  • Letareus
    103 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Regardless of your meager protestations you are arguing about something that doesn't concern you and mistaken in 90% of your counterarguments anyway.

    For the last and final time, please get my words out of your mouth (that means don't quote me, don't argue with me, and for the love of pete don't let your ego tell you to explain how you're "right" yet again)

    Your arguments had no merit to begin with. I told you exactly why I didn't bother putting more in it in my last short post. Accept that truth because it will set you free from your egotistical posturings. You really have only discord to sow by responding to me again.

    Your own words are far more appropriately applied to yourself.

    My primary arguments all ultimately respond directly to or relate to things you said directly to me. For example, the viability of a team without Grievous is a topic that you addressed me on directly me many, many times and which is of primary importance to my ultimate goal here. Now, according to you, it is something that doesn't concern me.

    I support all my arguments with evidence, detail, and/or specifics. You do not. You mostly ignore evidence and respond with unsupported general claims to the effect of "you're wrong lulz." It is easy to say anything you want when you don't back it up. Your arguments are the ones without merit.

    And you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of when you responded to MasterSeedy in your last post. Exactly the same thing. MasterSeedy was clearly addressing @Shadowscream, not you. By your logic, "you are arguing about something that doesn't concern you." Pure hypocrisy.
  • ardie
    1 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    GG is not necessary. Id say go fo ass7aj, dooku, nute, b2 and magna guard

    like most other events, it is easy with the right mods and chars
  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    Letareus wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Regardless of your meager protestations you are arguing about something that doesn't concern you and mistaken in 90% of your counterarguments anyway.

    For the last and final time, please get my words out of your mouth (that means don't quote me, don't argue with me, and for the love of pete don't let your ego tell you to explain how you're "right" yet again)

    Your arguments had no merit to begin with. I told you exactly why I didn't bother putting more in it in my last short post. Accept that truth because it will set you free from your egotistical posturings. You really have only discord to sow by responding to me again.

    Your own words are far more appropriately applied to yourself.

    My primary arguments all ultimately respond directly to or relate to things you said directly to me. For example, the viability of a team without Grievous is a topic that you addressed me on directly me many, many times and which is of primary importance to my ultimate goal here. Now, according to you, it is something that doesn't concern me.

    I support all my arguments with evidence, detail, and/or specifics. You do not. You mostly ignore evidence and respond with unsupported general claims to the effect of "you're wrong lulz." It is easy to say anything you want when you don't back it up. Your arguments are the ones without merit.

    And you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of when you responded to MasterSeedy in your last post. Exactly the same thing. MasterSeedy was clearly addressing @Shadowscream, not you. By your logic, "you are arguing about something that doesn't concern you." Pure hypocrisy.

    More examples of your ego leading you to spew troll bait. I respond to an opinion saying "I disagree", you responded saying "you're wrong". Subtle nuances of words that just go right over your head. Over and over and over and over again...

    No hypocrisy on my part. Nothing incorrect in my statements. Just your glaring inability to take my corrections of your misinterpretation and insisting opinions are wrong while trying to use insufficient evidence to "prove me wrong" on the few factual things you address.

    I didn't get offended at anything you said. I got frustrated at your pigheaded ineptitude despite repeated corrections.

    So what did you accomplish here? Sowing discord and feeding your ego all because you can't recognize the conversation you are having. Please, for the love of pete realize you are not even addressing what I'm saying let alone understanding it.

  • Woodroward wrote: »
    I respond to an opinion saying "I disagree", you responded saying "you're wrong". Subtle nuances of words that just go right over your head. Over and over and over and over again...

    Not that it matters, but I never actually said "you're wrong," in response to you or anyone else in this thread Actually, MasterSeedy was the only one who used that specific phrase in response to you, and MightyWizard said something to you to the same effect as well. But even if I had said that there'd be nothing wrong with it. Whether one says "I disagree" or "you're wrong" is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with responding to posts that were directed toward someone else. And you do it yourself. There's nothing wrong with that either except that you pick on me for doing the same.

    Hypothetical example:
    Person A to Person B: Treatment X is an effective remedy for your illness.
    Me: [INSERT EITHER "I disagree" or "You're wrong]. That treatment has been completely discredited by empirical, scientific testing.
    Person A to me: I wasn't talking to you, so your objection is invalid. Everything I said is true.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    No hypocrisy on my part. Nothing incorrect in my statements. Just your glaring inability to take my corrections of your misinterpretation and insisting opinions are wrong while trying to use insufficient evidence to "prove me wrong" on the few factual things you address.

    I guess you missed the couple of instances where I admitted fault and accepted your corrections. But you've misinterpreted many of my statements as well and have never admitted fault. That, as well as your own responses to posts not directed at you, is hypocrisy.

    The evidence in favor of the viability of a Padme 7* unlock team without Grievous that I assume is what you claim is insufficient is solid and far stronger than your evidence against it. The feat was replicated by far too many people in far too short a period of time for it to be as unlikely to the extreme that you describe. In addition, the viability of such a team will be greatly increased the next time around with the addition of reworks.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    I didn't get offended at anything you said.
    You didn't get offended when I referenced your arena record? You did say it was "below the belt" which was not the intention but which highly suggests offense. Anyway, if you didn't, that's good and I stand corrected. I do regret that specific action but not the intent, and you did completely misinterpret the intent of that (I have still never clearly stated what that intent is).
    Woodroward wrote: »
    So what did you accomplish here? Sowing discord and feeding your ego all because you can't recognize the conversation you are having. Please, for the love of pete realize you are not even addressing what I'm saying let alone understanding it.

    I won't allow you to spew nonsense about me uncontested. What I'm trying to accomplish, and it's an ongoing process, is defending myself, correcting the record, and trying in vain to get you to stop posting here. I will concede that you have a few good points. However, you've also made many bad points and are dogged in your defense of them (which was a factor in how this all started). Moreover, you don't believe in the viability of a team without Grievous and thus only detract from and cannot contribute to the primary purpose of this thread.

    Of course, nobody can stop you except yourself. What are you trying to accomplish here? If you feel the way you feel, why are you even posting in this thread anymore except to harass me and sow the very discord you supposedly decry?
  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Letareus wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    I respond to an opinion saying "I disagree", you responded saying "you're wrong". Subtle nuances of words that just go right over your head. Over and over and over and over again...

    Not that it matters, but I never actually said "you're wrong," in response to you or anyone else in this thread Actually, MasterSeedy was the only one who used that specific phrase in response to you, and MightyWizard said something to you to the same effect as well. But even if I had said that there'd be nothing wrong with it. Whether one says "I disagree" or "you're wrong" is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with responding to posts that were directed toward someone else. And you do it yourself. There's nothing wrong with that either except that you pick on me for doing the same.

    Hypothetical example:
    Person A to Person B: Treatment X is an effective remedy for your illness.
    Me: [INSERT EITHER "I disagree" or "You're wrong]. That treatment has been completely discredited by empirical, scientific testing.
    Person A to me: I wasn't talking to you, so your objection is invalid. Everything I said is true.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    No hypocrisy on my part. Nothing incorrect in my statements. Just your glaring inability to take my corrections of your misinterpretation and insisting opinions are wrong while trying to use insufficient evidence to "prove me wrong" on the few factual things you address.

    I guess you missed the couple of instances where I admitted fault and accepted your corrections. But you've misinterpreted many of my statements as well and have never admitted fault. That, as well as your own responses to posts not directed at you, is hypocrisy.

    The evidence in favor of the viability of a Padme 7* unlock team without Grievous that I assume is what you claim is insufficient is solid and far stronger than your evidence against it. The feat was replicated by far too many people in far too short a period of time for it to be as unlikely to the extreme that you describe. In addition, the viability of such a team will be greatly increased the next time around with the addition of reworks.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    I didn't get offended at anything you said.
    You didn't get offended when I referenced your arena record? You did say it was "below the belt" which was not the intention but which highly suggests offense. Anyway, if you didn't, that's good and I stand corrected. I do regret that specific action but not the intent, and you did completely misinterpret the intent of that (I have still never clearly stated what that intent is).
    Woodroward wrote: »
    So what did you accomplish here? Sowing discord and feeding your ego all because you can't recognize the conversation you are having. Please, for the love of pete realize you are not even addressing what I'm saying let alone understanding it.

    I won't allow you to spew nonsense about me uncontested. What I'm trying to accomplish, and it's an ongoing process, is defending myself, correcting the record, and trying in vain to get you to stop posting here. I will concede that you have a few good points. However, you've also made many bad points and are dogged in your defense of them (which was a factor in how this all started). Moreover, you don't believe in the viability of a team without Grievous and thus only detract from and cannot contribute to the primary purpose of this thread.

    Of course, nobody can stop you except yourself. What are you trying to accomplish here? If you feel the way you feel, why are you even posting in this thread anymore except to harass me and sow the very discord you supposedly decry?
    Very insufficient. The forums are where the elite people go. Finding ONLY 5 people that won without GG is not evidence that it is easy, not even close.

    It's not hypocrisy. AGAIN, my complaint was that you responded to an opinion saying I was wrong. To which I responded I wasn't even talking to you, mind your own business. If you had said "I disagree" I wouldn't have. Go reread. You are way off base in every one of your posts directed towards me.

    I didn't get offended. I told you you were diverting from an intellectual argument to enter a show-off contest. It's like trying to prove you're a better person than someone else because you have more money. It is below the belt.

    Nothing I have said about you is nonsense. I correct your misinterpretations of my words (I said really necessary you say I said necessary. I correct you, you double down and say it doesn't mean anything). You did that again. Right here, in this post. "oh there's no difference between I disagree and you're wrong.... There's a huge difference. One terms is used for opinions (disagree), one is used for facts (wrong, incorrect). It's like I said, subtle nuances of words that go right over your head.

    If you don't accept my corrections of your misinterpretations of my words, you are arguing against yourself, not me. You keep quoting me to not actually argue against me. I am no longer polite about it because you CONTINUE to do it despite being corrected over and over and over and over.

    So yes you are the one sowing discord because your trample over posts like a bull in a china shop. No respect for their meanings, you just have to be right.
  • EA_Joz
    2820 posts EA Moderator
    Hello everyone! Let's stop the personal arguments and keep things on topic. Let's talk solely about the game without being rude to each other. Please take a look at the forum guidelines and rules:

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/127295/forum-guidelines

    ~EA_Joz
  • Letareus
    103 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    I will endeavor to respect EA_Joz's wishes.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Very insufficient. The forums are where the elite people go. Finding ONLY 5 people that won without GG is not evidence that it is easy, not even close.

    This part is completely on topic so I will address it fully. I never claimed that 7 starring Padme without Grievous would be easy. I do in fact believe it would be hard. Something can be hard but still be far from unlikely. My contention is that it's a viable option - difficult but far from unlikely to the extreme to which it was characterized.

    And it was characterized as not merely unlikely, but unlikely to a very high degree with terms like "perfect RNG" and a "million attempts." First, it's at least 8 total people found in a brief search who were able to pull it off. 6 people replicated the attempt in the initial Reddit post in just a few days. That's more than enough to demonstrate that it's far from unlikely to an extreme - it doesn't take perfect RNG or a million attempts. If it was unlikely to the extent described, one would expect nobody would have been able to replicate the feat in the given timespan, or at most one. In addition, the reworks should significantly improve the likelihood of pulling it off without Grievous.

    In my opinion, this would be an accurate description of the Grievous situation: To 7 star Padme, using Grievous is highly recommended. Grievous is the most ideal character for the task and makes the event significantly easier. However, if one is unable to obtain and gear Grievous and the rest of the team in time for the event, it is still possible to construct a viable team for the task.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    It's not hypocrisy. AGAIN, my complaint was that you responded to an opinion saying I was wrong. To which I responded I wasn't even talking to you, mind your own business. If you had said "I disagree" I wouldn't have. Go reread.
    I did reread it, and I may have missed it but I believe that was someone else who said you were wrong in that instance. I did respond saying I agreed with that person.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    I didn't get offended. I told you you were diverting from an intellectual argument to enter a show-off contest. It's like trying to prove you're a better person than someone else because you have more money. It is below the belt.
    That's totally not what I meant or was trying to do. My own record is nothing special. I won't elaborate as it may be off topic. If you agree, I'm wiling to take this and other parts to PM's.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    "oh there's no difference between I disagree and you're wrong.... There's a huge difference. One terms is used for opinions (disagree), one is used for facts (wrong, incorrect). It's like I said, subtle nuances of words that go right over your head.
    That's not what I was saying.
  • Woodroward
    3740 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Letareus wrote: »
    I will endeavor to respect EA_Joz's wishes.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    Very insufficient. The forums are where the elite people go. Finding ONLY 5 people that won without GG is not evidence that it is easy, not even close.

    This part is completely on topic so I will address it fully. I never claimed that 7 starring Padme without Grievous would be easy. I do in fact believe it would be hard. Something can be hard but still be far from unlikely. My contention is that it's a viable option - difficult but far from unlikely to the extreme to which it was characterized.

    And it was characterized as not merely unlikely, but unlikely to a very high degree with terms like "perfect RNG" and a "million attempts." First, it's at least 8 total people found in a brief search who were able to pull it off. 6 people replicated the attempt in the initial Reddit post in just a few days. That's more than enough to demonstrate that it's far from unlikely to an extreme - it doesn't take perfect RNG or a million attempts. If it was unlikely to the extent described, one would expect nobody would have been able to replicate the feat in the given timespan, or at most one. In addition, the reworks should significantly improve the likelihood of pulling it off without Grievous.

    There are millions of people who play this game. It is installed several thousand times a day according a site I looked at. There are thousands of people on the forums. of those thousands you found 5. So less than 1% of the population is on the forums. Of those elite less than 1% players, less than 1% of them did it without GG.

    A million to a thousand is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001. A thousand to single digits is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001.

    .001 * .001 = .000001 or .0001% Your finding those 5 people who got it without GG is equivalent to showing that .0001% of the game population did it without GG (1 out of 1,000,000). It is evidence that it is extremely unlikely to get it without GG. Now if you had a whole thread where every response in it was people doing it without GG, that'd be another thing. Your evidence literally supports it being 1 in a million at this point.

    Point is, your evidence is flimsy at best. Now please stop arguing with me, for the last time.

    EDITED to clarify math.
    Post edited by Woodroward on
  • Letareus
    103 posts Member
    edited June 2019
    Woodroward wrote: »
    There are millions of people who play this game. It is installed several thousand times a day according a site I looked at. There are thousands of people on the forums. of those thousands you found 5. So less than 1% of the population is on the forums. Of those elite less than 1% players, less than 1% of them did it without GG.

    A million to a thousand is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001. A thousand to single digits is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001.

    .001 * .001 = .000001 or .0001% Your finding those 5 people who got it without GG is equivalent to showing that .0001% of the game population did it without GG (1 out of 1,000,000). It is evidence that it is extremely unlikely to get it without GG. Now if you had a whole thread where every response in it was people doing it without GG, that'd be another thing. Your evidence literally supports it being 1 in a million at this point.

    Point is, your evidence is flimsy at best. Now please stop arguing with me, for the last time.

    First, to be clear, I found 8 total, but it's true that in this context there's not much difference between 5 and 8. There were also many people in that thread who posted in support who did not explicitly say they pulled it off, so I didn't count them. And if I looked for more than a few minutes, I could probably find more. But that's a minor point.

    The total sample which you used as a dividend is inappropriate. It should not be the entire game population (like any mobile game, most download the game to try it or mess around for a short period of time, then lose interest), nor even the entire forum population. It should only be those among forum posters who actually attempted to 7 star Padme without Grievous. A case can be made to include those who tried it with Grievous as well, though I don't think they should.

    Regardless, it should be successful attempts among forum posters out of total attempts among forum posters. I don't know what that number is, but I'd guess it's a lot less than a million or even a thousand. Here's an analogy: to calculate a particular US college's acceptance rate, it should be number of acceptances to that college out of total applicants to that specific college - total forum users would be like everyone who applied to any college that year, and total game base would be like the entire US population.

    Think about it, if you use your total sample, it would seem extremely unlikely for even people with Grievous to succeed in the event. Even if you grant 100 forum posters (a made up number) reporting success with Grievous (the actual number is probably much lower, I'd guess 2-3 dozen at most), 100 out of 1 million (1/10k) is still an extremely low success rate which does not reflect the true effectiveness of a proper Grievous team in the event which I would guess to be above 70-90% or higher.

    Is it more likely that at least 8 people managed to defy million to 1 odds in a few days, or that the odds aren't quite that bad? That's all I was saying my evidence showed. I wasn't saying it was evidence that a team without Grievous was a good idea; indeed, I don't believe that to be the case. It's evidence that one has a real shot without Grievous and should at least try; if the odds were as dire as portrayed, one shouldn't even bother to try. And those odds were for the last time around - the reworks should greatly improve them.

    Also, on reflection, I believe it's possible that some of our disagreements are misunderstandings on both sides, and I extend an offer to clear them up, not to argue, via PM's if you are willing and can keep an open mind. It is perfectly understandable if you decline.
    Post edited by Letareus on
Sign In or Register to comment.