Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round - and it doesn't.
Who disagreed with "... increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning."? I know, I didn't. Stop imagining things.
What does "going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round" mean if not equating "increasing your score" and "winning" then? I'm not imagining things, you're just in denial
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
I'm pretty much 100% with you here on this thread btw. I have no idea how some people here don't seem to grasp the point. Almost seems pointless arguing...
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
I'm pretty much 100% with you here on this thread btw. I have no idea how some people here don't seem to grasp the point. Almost seems pointless arguing...
Going second gives people more information. Some people don’t like to use it for various reasons and therefore are willing to attack first. Some people believe that there is a physiological advantage to going first and therefore try to use it. Others do like to use the information provided by attacking second because they can make decisions based off of that information and those decisions can increase their efficiency. Some people like to ignore all factual information whatsoever and fail to prove their point.
Going last has information advantage for sure, especially for those who is not stressed. But it doesn’t really matter much for a lot of players including myself. I almost always go first, and I do really well in GAC, often going 11/12 or 12/12 each GAC. My opponent could be stressed after seeing board cleared with a high banner count to reach and makes more risky decisions than he should:)
I think I understand points from both sides and can try to reconcile.
Side A like @Waqui is claiming going second doesn’t increase the max point one can score, it only allow someone to slack and potentially score less points because they don’t have to score higher to win.
Side B is simply stating a fact that going second has information advantage to have a better chance to win.
Both statements are correct. One way to fix this is CG should keep the fog of war intact until the end of the round so both sides now have to try the best without any information. That would be fair, and kindly show both statements are correct.
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
If it doesn't help you increase your score it doesn't help you win. I'm sure you can see that. Wins are decided by your score and nothing else (unless breaking a tie). There's no changing lanes here.
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round - and it doesn't.
Who disagreed with "... increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning."? I know, I didn't. Stop imagining things.
What does "going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round" mean if not equating "increasing your score" and "winning" then? I'm not imagining things, you're just in denial
You can score low and still win. You can score high and still lose.
If going second makes you able to slack, score low and still win then going second didn't help you win. You would have won anyway if you didn't slack.
No, "increasing your score" and "winning" are not equal. You can score low and still wind and you can score high and still lose. Your logic is flawed.
If he won with no reinforcements when going second he could have won with no reinforcements when going first as well.
After having checked the video:
Skel needed 67 banners to win. That's one unused slot and full health+protection.
If you check Skel's GAC history you'll see that Skel usually goes in undersized when using his Home One fleet (who doesn't?) - also against resistance fleets and also finishing with full health+protection.
You can hear from Skel's comments that he miscalculated and believed he needed 4 unused slots to win. He actually only needed 1. Had he gone in with his usual few reinforcements, I'm sure he would have won the battle more easily without loosing ships - and hence also the round. It seems to me that knowing his target banners stressed Skel out and made him make a mistake he would normally not make.
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
If it doesn't help you increase your score it doesn't help you win. I'm sure you can see that. Wins are decided by your score and nothing else
[img][/img]
Post edited by Nikoms565 on
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Wins are decided by your score relative to your opponent's score. If you go second you know what you have to beat and can then balance risk/reward accordingly.
Post edited by Nikoms565 on
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Wins are decided by your score relative to your opponent's score. If you go second you know what you have to beat and can then balance risk/reward accordingly.
Yes, you can slack and still win. Exactly. That's what it does. It gives you the opportunity to slack. You would've won anyway.
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
If it doesn't help you increase your score it doesn't help you win. I'm sure you can see that. Wins are decided by your score and nothing else
[img][/img]
If it doesn't increase your score but you still win then you would've won anyway. Hence it doesn't help you win.
If you know the score you have to beat to win, you don't have to take unnecessary risk and can, instead, play it safe - therefore increasing your chances to win. Going for you maximum banner count when it is unnecessary can create situations where you took unnecessary risk.
By way of example, presume you trail by 50 banners and have one more battle left. You face CLS/Chewpio/3p0. You still smartly saved a solo SLKR, DR, DSB, Marauder, HK and SET. Based on the following information from swgoh.gg, you can decide that, while SLKR can yield you more banners, since you only need the average 51 to still win, you can use DR, DSB and HK, which provide a slightly better chance of success (albeit very small, in this particular case) in one battle.
If you had gone first, you would have used SLKR which gives you a possible higher banner count, but would have exposed you to greater risk of failure, unnecessarily. But the only way to know that the risk was unnecessary was to act second - after you know the banner count you'd have to beat.
By way of analogy, if you and I are being chased by a bear, to "win" I don't have to outrun the bear....I only have to outrun you.
Honestly, if you cannot grasp the simple facts of the above example, then I think we are at an impasse.
Ironically, I usually attack first. Mainly because of convenience and the fact that the advantage, while present, is not decisive nor significant enough to balance the inconvenience with my schedule of having to wait.
Post edited by Nikoms565 on
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
The main reason why this is true in 3's is because of people using undersize GLs, there are a lot of people who wait to go second to try and see how many points the other person gets per attack to guess how many GLs are on defense.
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
If it doesn't help you increase your score it doesn't help you win. I'm sure you can see that. Wins are decided by your score and nothing else
[img][/img]
If it doesn't increase your score but you still win then you would've won anyway. Hence it doesn't help you win.
Allow me a puzzle:
Let’s say you have 2 options for your last battle in gac:
a) you use a full squad and score 2000 pts total
b) you try a dangerous solo. You have about 50% chances of winning. If you win, you score 2004 pts. If you lose, you’ll finish the job with a second team and score 1980 pts.
What do you do ?
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round.
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round...
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
If it doesn't help you increase your score it doesn't help you win. I'm sure you can see that. Wins are decided by your score and nothing else
[img][/img]
If it doesn't increase your score but you still win then you would've won anyway. Hence it doesn't help you win.
Allow me a puzzle:
Let’s say you have 2 options for your last battle in gac:
a) you use a full squad and score 2000 pts total
b) you try a dangerous solo. You have about 50% chances of winning. If you win, you score 2004 pts. If you lose, you’ll finish the job with a second team and score 1980 pts.
What do you do ?
c) you save your breath and not bother explaining it any more
Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.
But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.
No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.
I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
Replies
My argument is that going second doesn't help you win the round - and it doesn't.
Who disagreed with "... increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning."? I know, I didn't. Stop imagining things.
What does "going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round" mean if not equating "increasing your score" and "winning" then? I'm not imagining things, you're just in denial
Your argument for the first 2 pages was that going second doesn't increase your max score. So now you've changed your argument. Pick a lane.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
He had to go in with no reinforcement to a fleet battle to possibly make it. He wouldn't have done that if going first.
Going second gave him the information to win.
I'm pretty much 100% with you here on this thread btw. I have no idea how some people here don't seem to grasp the point. Almost seems pointless arguing...
Almost???
People have different preferences.
THE END.
I had to try. (Sorry Yoda)
Side A like @Waqui is claiming going second doesn’t increase the max point one can score, it only allow someone to slack and potentially score less points because they don’t have to score higher to win.
Side B is simply stating a fact that going second has information advantage to have a better chance to win.
Both statements are correct. One way to fix this is CG should keep the fog of war intact until the end of the round so both sides now have to try the best without any information. That would be fair, and kindly show both statements are correct.
If it doesn't help you increase your score it doesn't help you win. I'm sure you can see that. Wins are decided by your score and nothing else (unless breaking a tie). There's no changing lanes here.
You can score low and still win. You can score high and still lose.
If going second makes you able to slack, score low and still win then going second didn't help you win. You would have won anyway if you didn't slack.
No, "increasing your score" and "winning" are not equal. You can score low and still wind and you can score high and still lose. Your logic is flawed.
Please stop this sillyness of yours
If he won with no reinforcements when going second he could have won with no reinforcements when going first as well.
After having checked the video:
Skel needed 67 banners to win. That's one unused slot and full health+protection.
If you check Skel's GAC history you'll see that Skel usually goes in undersized when using his Home One fleet (who doesn't?) - also against resistance fleets and also finishing with full health+protection.
You can hear from Skel's comments that he miscalculated and believed he needed 4 unused slots to win. He actually only needed 1. Had he gone in with his usual few reinforcements, I'm sure he would have won the battle more easily without loosing ships - and hence also the round. It seems to me that knowing his target banners stressed Skel out and made him make a mistake he would normally not make.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Yes, you can slack and still win. Exactly. That's what it does. It gives you the opportunity to slack. You would've won anyway.
If it doesn't increase your score but you still win then you would've won anyway. Hence it doesn't help you win.
If you know the score you have to beat to win, you don't have to take unnecessary risk and can, instead, play it safe - therefore increasing your chances to win. Going for you maximum banner count when it is unnecessary can create situations where you took unnecessary risk.
By way of example, presume you trail by 50 banners and have one more battle left. You face CLS/Chewpio/3p0. You still smartly saved a solo SLKR, DR, DSB, Marauder, HK and SET. Based on the following information from swgoh.gg, you can decide that, while SLKR can yield you more banners, since you only need the average 51 to still win, you can use DR, DSB and HK, which provide a slightly better chance of success (albeit very small, in this particular case) in one battle.
If you had gone first, you would have used SLKR which gives you a possible higher banner count, but would have exposed you to greater risk of failure, unnecessarily. But the only way to know that the risk was unnecessary was to act second - after you know the banner count you'd have to beat.
By way of analogy, if you and I are being chased by a bear, to "win" I don't have to outrun the bear....I only have to outrun you.
Honestly, if you cannot grasp the simple facts of the above example, then I think we are at an impasse.
Ironically, I usually attack first. Mainly because of convenience and the fact that the advantage, while present, is not decisive nor significant enough to balance the inconvenience with my schedule of having to wait.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Allow me a puzzle:
Let’s say you have 2 options for your last battle in gac:
a) you use a full squad and score 2000 pts total
b) you try a dangerous solo. You have about 50% chances of winning. If you win, you score 2004 pts. If you lose, you’ll finish the job with a second team and score 1980 pts.
What do you do ?
c) you save your breath and not bother explaining it any more
Yeah, based on the rest of the thread I don't think he does, or does not even want to (as he chose to ignore my questions to him as well).