GaC time advantage....

Replies

  • ImaSmakya wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    Its 3pm when gac starts, I have a window after putting kids down and dinner and before I sleep. 11ish, so 8 hours.

    It starts, world-wide, at 2:00pm California time. That's 10:00pm GMT.

    Not sure what you’re pointing out here. He obviously lives in the mountain time zone where GAC starts at 3pm, what does GMT have to do with it?

    Because if you live in the UK it starts at 10:00pm, so solutions like you need to attack within a certain amount of time aren’t workable on a world scale.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • LukeDukem8
    601 posts Member
    edited January 1
    NicWester wrote: »
    ImaSmakya wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    Its 3pm when gac starts, I have a window after putting kids down and dinner and before I sleep. 11ish, so 8 hours.

    It starts, world-wide, at 2:00pm California time. That's 10:00pm GMT.

    Not sure what you’re pointing out here. He obviously lives in the mountain time zone where GAC starts at 3pm, what does GMT have to do with it?

    Because if you live in the UK it starts at 10:00pm, so solutions like you need to attack within a certain amount of time aren’t workable on a world scale.

    Where did you read that i suggested a solution for everyone in the world should have to attack within a certain amount of time???
  • I misread OP's post. My bad.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Monel
    2720 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    ImaSmakya wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    Its 3pm when gac starts, I have a window after putting kids down and dinner and before I sleep. 11ish, so 8 hours.

    It starts, world-wide, at 2:00pm California time. That's 10:00pm GMT.

    Not sure what you’re pointing out here. He obviously lives in the mountain time zone where GAC starts at 3pm, what does GMT have to do with it?

    Because if you live in the UK it starts at 10:00pm, so solutions like you need to attack within a certain amount of time aren’t workable on a world scale.

    I'd much rather have that last hour be at 9om than 1pm. Attacking at night is much easier for me than middle of the day.

    But it will never be perfect for everyone.
  • Going second has advantage only because the second one can plan better, and might not need take risky approach. With that said, I almost always go first not because I couldn’t go second. I just like to max my own banners regardless how my opponents do. It is just my way of playing. Sometime it might even give my opponents wrong impression in my defense and they make mistake.

    I disagree GAC win/loss is very important for a Kyber 1 player like me. Almost everyone will stabilize at some skill range with a 50% win rate. So other than the one time benefit of stabilizing at a higher skill range because winning a couple of more matches get 900 crystals instead of 200, there is no long lasting benefit. I am seriously thinking about once I won 6 matches, I will intentionally lose the remains matches so I can stabilize at a lower range for peace of mind, as I can win 6 matches easily against opponents with lower skills points without spending time researching opponents or planning teams like what I did in the past.

    For this reason, I think spending GAC omicron is a mistake. I would rather spending TW omicron to help the guild and earn R9 materials faster.
  • I went first ;)mrdmxcxrbv0o.png
    Forget the gear crunch, why can't we sim the Sith raid yet?
  • sloweagle wrote: »
    I disagree GAC win/loss is very important for a Kyber 1 player like me. Almost everyone will stabilize at some skill range with a 50% win rate. So other than the one time benefit of stabilizing at a higher skill range because winning a couple of more matches get 900 crystals instead of 200, there is no long lasting benefit. I am seriously thinking about once I won 6 matches, I will intentionally lose the remains matches so I can stabilize at a lower range for peace of mind, as I can win 6 matches easily against opponents with lower skills points without spending time researching opponents or planning teams like what I did in the past.

    It’s not a bad plan in theory, in execution it may not work as well as you think. Just make sure your Skill stays above the lower threshold of K1. I’m at 50/50 as is and bounce between K1 and K2 as a result on alternating events.

    In my case getting more GAC omicrons will help me stabilize above the K1 threshold. (Or maybe all I need is to just not be matched up against folks with 4 GLs again 🤣)

    But so long as your Skill has a buffer for a couple losses you’ll be safe for now.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Ya know, it's unfair that the home team in a baseball game bats second. It gives them an unfair advantage of knowing how many runs they need to score to take the lead 😉
  • NicWester wrote: »

    It’s not a bad plan in theory, in execution it may not work as well as you think. Just make sure your Skill stays above the lower threshold of K1. I’m at 50/50 as is and bounce between K1 and K2 as a result on alternating events.

    In my case getting more GAC omicrons will help me stabilize above the K1 threshold. (Or maybe all I need is to just not be matched up against folks with 4 GLs again 🤣)

    But so long as your Skill has a buffer for a couple losses you’ll be safe for now.

    If you are borderline at Kyber 1/2, definitely invest heavily to make sure you can stay in Kyber 1 safely. It does provide long term benefit. For me, I think I will be really safe around 50% of Kyber 1, so why bother trying hard and make my life difficult? Haha
  • Starslayer
    1633 posts Member
    edited January 3
    sloweagle wrote: »
    Going second has advantage only because the second one can plan better, and might not need take risky approach. With that said, I almost always go first not because I couldn’t go second. I just like to max my own banners regardless how my opponents do. It is just my way of playing. Sometime it might even give my opponents wrong impression in my defense and they make mistake.

    I disagree GAC win/loss is very important for a Kyber 1 player like me. Almost everyone will stabilize at some skill range with a 50% win rate. So other than the one time benefit of stabilizing at a higher skill range because winning a couple of more matches get 900 crystals instead of 200, there is no long lasting benefit. I am seriously thinking about once I won 6 matches, I will intentionally lose the remains matches so I can stabilize at a lower range for peace of mind, as I can win 6 matches easily against opponents with lower skills points without spending time researching opponents or planning teams like what I did in the past.

    For this reason, I think spending GAC omicron is a mistake. I would rather spending TW omicron to help the guild and earn R9 materials faster.

    When you sit comfortably in K1 without omicrons, i agree that you don’t need it if you’re not aiming top of k1 and tw could be the way to go.
    But i don’t get the ‘losing on purpose’ theory. If you don’t want to research opponents, just don’t do it. You’ll find your 50-50 spot in the ladder with your ‘good roster but low effort’ approach. If this spot suits you, like sitting pretty in K1, then no need to plan for anything. Just play as you like and enjoy.
  • Starslayer wrote: »
    sloweagle wrote: »
    Going second has advantage only because the second one can plan better, and might not need take risky approach. With that said, I almost always go first not because I couldn’t go second. I just like to max my own banners regardless how my opponents do. It is just my way of playing. Sometime it might even give my opponents wrong impression in my defense and they make mistake.

    I disagree GAC win/loss is very important for a Kyber 1 player like me. Almost everyone will stabilize at some skill range with a 50% win rate. So other than the one time benefit of stabilizing at a higher skill range because winning a couple of more matches get 900 crystals instead of 200, there is no long lasting benefit. I am seriously thinking about once I won 6 matches, I will intentionally lose the remains matches so I can stabilize at a lower range for peace of mind, as I can win 6 matches easily against opponents with lower skills points without spending time researching opponents or planning teams like what I did in the past.

    For this reason, I think spending GAC omicron is a mistake. I would rather spending TW omicron to help the guild and earn R9 materials faster.

    When you sit comfortably in K1 without omicrons, i agree that you don’t need it if you’re not aiming top of k1 and tw could be the way to go.
    But i don’t get the ‘losing on purpose’ theory. If you don’t want to research opponents, just don’t do it. You’ll find your 50-50 spot in the ladder with your ‘good roster but low effort’ approach. If this spot suits you, like sitting pretty in K1, then no need to plan for anything. Just play as you like and enjoy.

    Problem is people below you will be strengthening their roster and will pass you up after awhile.
    Forget the gear crunch, why can't we sim the Sith raid yet?
  • Starslayer wrote: »
    sloweagle wrote: »
    Going second has advantage only because the second one can plan better, and might not need take risky approach. With that said, I almost always go first not because I couldn’t go second. I just like to max my own banners regardless how my opponents do. It is just my way of playing. Sometime it might even give my opponents wrong impression in my defense and they make mistake.

    I disagree GAC win/loss is very important for a Kyber 1 player like me. Almost everyone will stabilize at some skill range with a 50% win rate. So other than the one time benefit of stabilizing at a higher skill range because winning a couple of more matches get 900 crystals instead of 200, there is no long lasting benefit. I am seriously thinking about once I won 6 matches, I will intentionally lose the remains matches so I can stabilize at a lower range for peace of mind, as I can win 6 matches easily against opponents with lower skills points without spending time researching opponents or planning teams like what I did in the past.

    For this reason, I think spending GAC omicron is a mistake. I would rather spending TW omicron to help the guild and earn R9 materials faster.

    When you sit comfortably in K1 without omicrons, i agree that you don’t need it if you’re not aiming top of k1 and tw could be the way to go.
    But i don’t get the ‘losing on purpose’ theory. If you don’t want to research opponents, just don’t do it. You’ll find your 50-50 spot in the ladder with your ‘good roster but low effort’ approach. If this spot suits you, like sitting pretty in K1, then no need to plan for anything. Just play as you like and enjoy.

    I should be clearer. Didn’t mean losing on purpose. More about having the freedom to try some risky soft counter for fun and not worried about losing. Will play more like what you just said, just play freely without worried about losing.
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    sloweagle wrote: »
    Going second has advantage only because the second one can plan better, and might not need take risky approach. With that said, I almost always go first not because I couldn’t go second. I just like to max my own banners regardless how my opponents do. It is just my way of playing. Sometime it might even give my opponents wrong impression in my defense and they make mistake.

    I disagree GAC win/loss is very important for a Kyber 1 player like me. Almost everyone will stabilize at some skill range with a 50% win rate. So other than the one time benefit of stabilizing at a higher skill range because winning a couple of more matches get 900 crystals instead of 200, there is no long lasting benefit. I am seriously thinking about once I won 6 matches, I will intentionally lose the remains matches so I can stabilize at a lower range for peace of mind, as I can win 6 matches easily against opponents with lower skills points without spending time researching opponents or planning teams like what I did in the past.

    For this reason, I think spending GAC omicron is a mistake. I would rather spending TW omicron to help the guild and earn R9 materials faster.

    When you sit comfortably in K1 without omicrons, i agree that you don’t need it if you’re not aiming top of k1 and tw could be the way to go.
    But i don’t get the ‘losing on purpose’ theory. If you don’t want to research opponents, just don’t do it. You’ll find your 50-50 spot in the ladder with your ‘good roster but low effort’ approach. If this spot suits you, like sitting pretty in K1, then no need to plan for anything. Just play as you like and enjoy.

    Problem is people below you will be strengthening their roster and will pass you up after awhile.

    Oh yeah, if I am borderline like the bottom 20%, I should worry about it a little, and it is easy to strength the roster with some GAC omicron. But it not like I don’t grow my account either. I actually think I am gonna grow in rank as people above me retiring or get sick of the game. Haha.
  • Wait, are we actually debating whether or not attacking second gives you an advantage in GAC?

    Anyone who insists that going second gives no advantage has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. There is no debate here; it is an objective fact that going second gives you a distinct advantage. Having additional information in terms of how to approach your attack and know exactly what your win conditions are is a massive advantage and can absolutely change the outcome of a close GAC matchup. I can't believe this even needs to be argued.

    What CG can do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.
  • Going second does have obvious advantages but if your opponent has a 1 shot, high banner match then it puts a ton of pressure on the opponent. I rarely get to finish my entire match in one sitting.

    A simple solution (that I read elsewhere) would be to show the board and number of attempts needed but not the opponent’s score until the timer runs out. I don’t think that’s necessarily needed but if there was enough support for a solution I can’t think of anything better.
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    I went first ;)mrdmxcxrbv0o.png

    🤡
  • Wait, are we actually debating whether or not attacking second gives you an advantage in GAC?

    Anyone who insists that going second gives no advantage has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. There is no debate here; it is an objective fact that going second gives you a distinct advantage. Having additional information in terms of how to approach your attack and know exactly what your win conditions are is a massive advantage and can absolutely change the outcome of a close GAC matchup. I can't believe this even needs to be argued.

    What CG can do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.

    going second clearly has advantage. It certainly doesn’t have disadvantages. Lol

  • TVF
    31676 posts Member
    Wait, are we actually debating whether or not attacking second gives you an advantage in GAC?

    I guess you missed the previous 24 threads.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of the change to the shipment tab. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF
    31676 posts Member
    Sorry, 23. Obviously this has to be the 24th and final thread.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of the change to the shipment tab. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    sloweagle wrote: »
    Going second has advantage only because the second one can plan better, and might not need take risky approach. With that said, I almost always go first not because I couldn’t go second. I just like to max my own banners regardless how my opponents do. It is just my way of playing. Sometime it might even give my opponents wrong impression in my defense and they make mistake.

    I disagree GAC win/loss is very important for a Kyber 1 player like me. Almost everyone will stabilize at some skill range with a 50% win rate. So other than the one time benefit of stabilizing at a higher skill range because winning a couple of more matches get 900 crystals instead of 200, there is no long lasting benefit. I am seriously thinking about once I won 6 matches, I will intentionally lose the remains matches so I can stabilize at a lower range for peace of mind, as I can win 6 matches easily against opponents with lower skills points without spending time researching opponents or planning teams like what I did in the past.

    For this reason, I think spending GAC omicron is a mistake. I would rather spending TW omicron to help the guild and earn R9 materials faster.

    When you sit comfortably in K1 without omicrons, i agree that you don’t need it if you’re not aiming top of k1 and tw could be the way to go.
    But i don’t get the ‘losing on purpose’ theory. If you don’t want to research opponents, just don’t do it. You’ll find your 50-50 spot in the ladder with your ‘good roster but low effort’ approach. If this spot suits you, like sitting pretty in K1, then no need to plan for anything. Just play as you like and enjoy.

    Problem is people below you will be strengthening their roster and will pass you up after awhile.

    Thing is, there are only a couple TW omicron characters at the moment and you can skip some of them. So unless they introduce quite a few more, they likely won't have passed you up before you complete the ones you want and you can move onto the GAC omicrons while reaping the benefits from more droid brains.

    But if you move onto the TB omicrons you'll for sure fall behind. Still, depending on where you are in GAC and where your guild is in TB, maybe it's a good tradeoff?
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Wait, are we actually debating whether or not attacking second gives you an advantage in GAC?

    Anyone who insists that going second gives no advantage has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. There is no debate here; it is an objective fact that going second gives you a distinct advantage. Having additional information in terms of how to approach your attack and know exactly what your win conditions are is a massive advantage and can absolutely change the outcome of a close GAC matchup. I can't believe this even needs to be argued.

    What CG can do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.

    We should have everyone do their events at the same time in the Olympic games too, so there's no competitive advantage of knowing scores to beat. But what the people who organize the games do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.
  • emoore123 wrote: »
    Wait, are we actually debating whether or not attacking second gives you an advantage in GAC?

    Anyone who insists that going second gives no advantage has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. There is no debate here; it is an objective fact that going second gives you a distinct advantage. Having additional information in terms of how to approach your attack and know exactly what your win conditions are is a massive advantage and can absolutely change the outcome of a close GAC matchup. I can't believe this even needs to be argued.

    What CG can do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.

    We should have everyone do their events at the same time in the Olympic games too, so there's no competitive advantage of knowing scores to beat. But what the people who organize the games do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.

    So are you just saying that there's no solution and that the advantage is just an inherent problem of the competition itself? I don't understand what your point is with this awful analogy.

  • emoore123 wrote: »
    Wait, are we actually debating whether or not attacking second gives you an advantage in GAC?

    Anyone who insists that going second gives no advantage has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. There is no debate here; it is an objective fact that going second gives you a distinct advantage. Having additional information in terms of how to approach your attack and know exactly what your win conditions are is a massive advantage and can absolutely change the outcome of a close GAC matchup. I can't believe this even needs to be argued.

    What CG can do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.

    We should have everyone do their events at the same time in the Olympic games too, so there's no competitive advantage of knowing scores to beat. But what the people who organize the games do about it is another matter. I doubt they care.

    So are you just saying that there's no solution and that the advantage is just an inherent problem of the competition itself? I don't understand what your point is with this awful analogy.

    My point is that's life. Some people are going to have a leg up. Does it mean they ways win? Of course not. Loads of people fold under the pressure. It's all part of the game. You can play it to your advantage, or not. In my experience in this game, battling second (with the advantage) hasn't really netted me many more wins, and obviously from whatever data CG sees on their end they feel the same way. Good players will likely win either battling first or second. Having that foresight of how much you need is just a small added bonus 🤷. Having a good defensive and offensive strategy will likely trump whether or not you go first.
  • Miketo28
    157 posts Member
    edited January 3
    It is an advantage to go second, it is a bit annoying having to read anecdotal evidence arguing this fact. Scores should be revealed at the end of the 24 hour attack phase. Then it truly would allow each opponent to go in at their leisure.
  • Oh good golly it’s gotten to page 5.

    I’m going to pose a situation for those who think going second is an advantage. Say your opponent managed to underdog every team you set on defense on the first try. What on earth advantage does that give you? If anything it would force you to do the same and hope you don’t flub a battle.

    Going first sets the pace, following only ensures that you have to play catch up
  • I always go first and win a majority of my matches. I like to put my opponent under pressure and make them possibly drop a battle.
  • Miketo28 wrote: »
    It is an advantage to go second, it is a bit annoying having to read anecdotal evidence arguing this fact. Scores should be revealed at the end of the 24 hour attack phase. Then it truly would allow each opponent to go in at their leisure.

    Debating is fine and i sometimes used going second at my advantage, but data can’t really be dismissed as anecdotal evidence. And data shows no advantage. Why ? I have no idea. But repairing something that isn’t broke is always a risk of making things worse.
  • TVF
    31676 posts Member
    Advantage to going second? Potentially.

    /thread
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of the change to the shipment tab. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    In regards to undermanning, if you take the risk you can get rewarded with extra banners. If you don’t you won’t get extra banners. Take Geonosians as an example. It’s an easy team to under-man by using Darth Vader and possible a second character like Thrawn. Can you run a full team to positively nuke them? Sure, same as you being able to just take those 2 and doing the same. Then there are teams where under-manning is a ridiculous proposition, like if someone places JMK w CAT on defense.

    As for the argument of running a full team to get a guaranteed win or running -1 person, like the CLS v JKR fight mentioned earlier, I don’t get why you’d want to underman a team you only have a chance at beating down one character. If you lose congrats you just lost CLS’ team, which realistically should be used elsewhere.

    “Let’s stay on subject to this post” can be applied to any post made on the forums. Tagging the devs in a lot of your posts doesn’t mean you can magically summon them. So yes this is on topic since it’s being posted here…

    The first player assumes all the risk by trying to maximize banners since they don't know their opponents outcome. The second player has that information and can use it in their gameplan, which is the advantage.

    If I know I just need to win against geos ,I will 5 man that battle every time and take the win. Why take the unnecessary risk?
    If you are forced to take unnecessary risks in order to win then you are losing at the roster &/or match strategy level.

    I almost always attack first and I have almost 1.1m lifetime banners and never failed to make Kyber.

    I continue to attack first and am 5-1 so far, with my 1 loss being vs an opponent with comparable lifetime stats, +1 GL and faster mods. The fact that he attacked second was less significant than those advantages and the fact that he was able to 1-shot both my fleets. Just one fleet hold would have flipped the outcome but even if he had gone first, I would have had a very hard time picking up more banners from under-squadding due to his mod speed advantage.

    You guys are missing the point. YOU are one of the best players and YOU have the skills to do whatever it is you want (evidenced by your win/loss record) but does that mean EVERYBODY is at your level? No, clearly not, based on your lifetime win/loss record because youre the best. So...try to view this as a player that's not the best and simply equal to their opponent. Regardless of how good you personally are thats irrelevant and moving the goal posts of the OP argument. Simply put - if both players are 100% equal in all metrics (skill, roster, etc) is there an advantage to going second?

  • The executor fleet is one of the only clear cut cases where there is an advantage to going second, especially in the circumstances @zatho has described. Beating a 7* Executor is the most obvious element in this game right now that just can’t be a 100% certainty.

    I can beat Executor without using my own, but it sometimes needs a follow up battle. This can leave me short handed for the other fleet, especially if it’s something as powerful as Negotiator.

    If I know - for certain - that clearing enemy’s second Negotiator fleet will give me the win and I can ignore Exec, there really is no counter argument to this knowledge being an advantage.

    That said, I still wouldn’t want GAC to be changed to try and mitigate against this very rare advantage.
Sign In or Register to comment.