GaC time advantage....

Replies

  • LukeDukem8
    601 posts Member
    edited January 3
    ... deleted
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    I went first ;)mrdmxcxrbv0o.png

    You are kidding right? You have a 2GL advantage (and my guess a mod advantage) over your opponent. You should win regardless of when you attack. At no point did I ever say going second means you will always win. This proves nothing.
    In fact, this is the exact reason why the conclusion CG pointed out is false. My guess (and I don't know) is they only looked at the results (taking the laziest approach possible) without considering all of the facts of the matchup. Put two players with equal rosters and mods and my guess is the second player wins the majority of the time.
  • zatho
    684 posts Member
    I edited my post, because instead of one image its name was shown as text. Now my post disapperared :-/
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    900 posts Member
    edited January 3
    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.

    Actually, it is considered and acknowledged as an advantage there. That's why for events with multiple rounds (there are several), those that did best in qualifiers or have the best current placement get to go last in subsequent rounds.

    So we know they do care because they went out of their way to account for it.
    Post edited by Ragnarok_COTF on
  • Starslayer wrote: »
    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.

    Because the reasoning behind their data is horrible. There were multiple posts pointing out obvious errors in their data the last time you posted this. Care to address those before parroting this again?
  • knowing exactly what banners you need to win ahead of time is a huge advantage. Knowing when you don't have to take a risk is a huge advantage.
  • If someone can only run GAC battles earlier in the attack phase, then they don't have much choice. For anyone else though, if you think there's some big disadvantage to going first...then don't go first.
  • emoore123 wrote: »
    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 😉

    Baseball isn’t made of teams that only play as the home team and teams that only play as the away team. They switch it up, to avoid giving one team the advantage for their entire career.

    SWGOH players can’t change time zones every month to switch the advantage around. I suppose CG could make every other GAC start 12 hours later, but I have a feeling that won’t go over well.
  • Baseball is the best analogy.

    The home team goes second SOLELY because it is advantageous to know how many runs you need to score to win.

    How is this even debatable? I think people are just trolling at this point. 😂
  • crzydroid
    6423 posts Moderator
    Starslayer wrote: »
    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.

    Most likely what the data show is that situations where going second would give an advantage are rare. It can only possibly matter in close matches. I don't think those happen often in general, and of the ones that do, they're not all between top caliber players. A lot of lower end players who end up in close matches probably don't know how to undersquad well in the first place, let alone count banners. So as a blanket rule, there's no statiscal difference to going second.
  • We’ve heard all the arguments of people that firmly believe that going second has the advantage.

    And none of the arguments are concrete enough to prove it. Since I always try to go first I guess I’ve always been giving them the advantage? Tell that to anyone that gets full cleared by someone who intentionally underdogs as many teams as possible.
  • They can’t control for Skill in the data that they are citing to prove there’s no advantage. All they are looking at is Wins vs who went 1st/2nd, correct? Or is their analysis much more complex?

    Although logic dictates an advantage exists, I don’t think they should waste dev time on changing the system. There’s many more important issues with the game that need to be fixed.
  • We’ve heard all the arguments of people that firmly believe that going second has the advantage.

    And none of the arguments are concrete enough to prove it. Since I always try to go first I guess I’ve always been giving them the advantage? Tell that to anyone that gets full cleared by someone who intentionally underdogs as many teams as possible.

    Your experience isn't really pertinent to the discussion. If you have been underdogging most of the board, it doesn't sound like you've been in matches where the slight edge to going 2nd overcomes the gap between you and your opponent.

    You may not be convinced, but plenty of folks have cited specific examples where they won solely because they went 2nd. I've yet to see you do the same for your argument.
  • Considering I’ve had a few closer matches where the opponent did the same to my defense, I’d say it’s a bit more pertinent than you care.

    And they didn’t win purely because they went second. They won because they were more efficient. If going second is forcing people to be more efficient with their teams, then it’s forcing them to do something they should be doing regardless. Why bring 5 when 4 is enough, or 3? If you don’t take the occasional loss by trying something that could help you win in the future, you shouldn’t deserve the win all the time.
  • Considering I’ve had a few closer matches where the opponent did the same to my defense, I’d say it’s a bit more pertinent than you care.

    And they didn’t win purely because they went second. They won because they were more efficient. If going second is forcing people to be more efficient with their teams, then it’s forcing them to do something they should be doing regardless. Why bring 5 when 4 is enough, or 3? If you don’t take the occasional loss by trying something that could help you win in the future, you shouldn’t deserve the win all the time.

    Efficiency players don't care about going first or second. They just play their efficiency game and don't care what their opponents are doing. That's a different player style. You should watch Kyn's recent GAC Science video on Youtube to understand the difference.

    The going 1st vs 2nd debate is purely for "roster bullying" type of people, who want to minimize they time spent on GAC as much as possible.
  • Ah then exactly! Then this whole “advantage” debate revolves just around a subset of GAC players, not everyone who participates.
  • Ah then exactly! Then this whole “advantage” debate revolves just around a subset of GAC players, not everyone who participates.

    Literally what I just told you.

    "Your experience isn't really pertinent to the discussion."
  • Salatious_Scrum
    1485 posts Member
    edited January 4
    Your experience isn't really pertinent to the discussion. If you have been underdogging most of the board, it doesn't sound like you've been in matches where the slight edge to going 2nd overcomes the gap between you and your opponent.

    And exactly what is the slight edge that you’ve failed to explain? Seeing the points? Cuz that’s not an advantage… that’s just telling you what you gotta hit. It doesn’t help your teams get extra banners, nor doesn’t help your teams defeat a difficult team, nor should it influence what teams you use.

    Does seeing the opponents score help an NFL or Baseball team? Or seeing your peers’ test scores in a previous period help you perform better? Or acting second in Poker? No…

  • Why bring 5 when 4 is enough, or 3? If you don’t take the occasional loss by trying something that could help you win in the future, you shouldn’t deserve the win all the time.

    You do know that there are plenty of scenarios in which 5 are a certain win and 3-4 is still a likely win, but not certain, right?
    Meaning, if you go second, you will sometimes know if you can play it safe all the way through, or if you need to take some risks, based on your opponents banners.

    If I go in and see my opponent have already attacked and have dropped a battle, I know I just need to one-shot all teams, with less worry about efficiency. That knowledge is an advantage that I don't understand how you can't see.

    I still don't hold out until the last hour to attack. Most of the time these days I do a few battles here and there when I have the time and I'm doing just fine. But then again, when it's convenient, I do tend to hold off the last few battles for that slight edge.
  • I’ll intentionally do the 3-4 man squad that’s a likely win even if a 5 is a guaranteed. Why? Because down the road when I’m matched up with a different opponent that stands a good chance and full clearing me, I want to have the edge of knowing how to make certain a 3-4 man team can take down that team.

    If I lose, I learn and move forward. Full banners on a full 5 man team is great and all, but if I can get even more banners by dropping one or more members you bet I will take that road.

    The whole point of the banner system is to reward people that go into battles with less than full teams. The better your efficiency the higher the banners. So that’s what GAC should be about; your efficiency with your opponents defense.

    I get there’s a subset of players that think roster bullying is the way to play the game. That’s fine if you want to play that way but don’t complain when people that fight you in GAC aren’t doing the same.
  • Your experience isn't really pertinent to the discussion. If you have been underdogging most of the board, it doesn't sound like you've been in matches where the slight edge to going 2nd overcomes the gap between you and your opponent.

    And exactly what is the slight edge that you’ve failed to explain? Seeing the points? Cuz that’s not an advantage… that’s just telling you what you gotta hit. It doesn’t help your teams get extra banners, nor doesn’t help your teams defeat a difficult team, nor should it influence what teams you use.

    Does seeing the opponents score help an NFL or Baseball team? Or seeing your peers’ test scores in a previous period help you perform better? Or acting second in Poker? No…

    You aren’t very familiar with baseball, are you. It’s literally the SOLE reason why the home team goes 2nd in a baseball game. So baseball is the worst example you can use.
  • TheDude420 wrote: »
    Your experience isn't really pertinent to the discussion. If you have been underdogging most of the board, it doesn't sound like you've been in matches where the slight edge to going 2nd overcomes the gap between you and your opponent.

    And exactly what is the slight edge that you’ve failed to explain? Seeing the points? Cuz that’s not an advantage… that’s just telling you what you gotta hit. It doesn’t help your teams get extra banners, nor doesn’t help your teams defeat a difficult team, nor should it influence what teams you use.

    Does seeing the opponents score help an NFL or Baseball team? Or seeing your peers’ test scores in a previous period help you perform better? Or acting second in Poker? No…

    You aren’t very familiar with baseball, are you. It’s literally the SOLE reason why the home team goes 2nd in a baseball game. So baseball is the worst example you can use.

    Oh sorry, I think my sarcasm detector wasn’t working.
  • Salatious_Scrum
    1485 posts Member
    edited January 4
    You’re correct in saying I’m not all that familiar with baseball. But if I understand, what you’re saying is by going second they can somehow magnetically attract the ball to their bat to outscore the opponent? That by purely going second they have an advantage? It’s skill that dictates winners in sports, not by going first or second or last.

    Otherwise the Olympics would be quite boring to watch, wouldn’t it? All the athletes would be clamoring to go last. I’ve yet to see an Olympics where someone wins an event purely by going last. They’re all on relative footing and everything
  • WD_40
    106 posts Member
    edited January 4
    You’re correct in saying I’m not all that familiar with baseball. But if I understand, what you’re saying is by going second they can somehow magnetically attract the ball to their bat to outscore the opponent? That by purely going second they have an advantage? It’s skill that dictates winners in sports, not by going first or second or last.

    Otherwise the Olympics would be quite boring to watch, wouldn’t it? All the athletes would be clamoring to go last. I’ve yet to see an Olympics where someone wins an event purely by going last. They’re all on relative footing and everything

    I am an avid fan of baseball, and I believe you are missing the point here. In Baseball, the home team could be trailing by one point (called a run) in their last chance to score (generally bottom of the 9th inning). If they get a runner on base, the manager could choose to substitute a much faster runner (a pinch runner) who has a better chance of scoring if the ball is put in play, thus playing a more aggressive style. Similarly, if a team goes into the 9th inning with the lead, they can substitute poor fielders who are good batters with better fielders who are worse batters, to try and prevent the other team from scoring any more runs, thus playing a more conservative last inning. There is definitely advantages to knowing what you have to score.

    Same with GAC, if your opponent can only clear 1 or 2 zones, you can focus on clearing one more than them, potentially ignoring a quarter or half of the board, to ensure a win.

    That said, I usually attack first because my schedule dictates it.

    Edit: Also, in the example of the NFL, teams will almost always make crucial decisions based on what their opponent's score is. If you are down by 8 and score a touchdown, you'll almost always go for a 2 point conversion. If you're down by 6 and score a touchdown though, you'll almost always kick the PAT. Your logic would have them go for 2 in both situations, thus potentially failing and being left with a tie in the 6 point scenario
  • Is it not an advantage in sports to go first and set a score that forces the opponent to take some more risks to outscore them? Take football, if a team is 7 points ahead and the game is almost over, would it not force the opponent to risk attempting a touchdown to tie the game?

    Take diving, seeing your competitors score higher than you wouldn’t you have to risk doing a more complicated dive to outscore them?

    Trying to outscore an opponent that has already set a really high goal is not easy. I go first if at all possible to try to set a really high goal to force the opponent to take some more risks to match it. I’m intentionally putting them at a disadvantage on my side. If I’m putting them at a disadvantage, how’re they getting an advantage from that situation? Seeing your opponents’ score just allows you to see the minimum you must overcome to win. That’s not an advantage.
  • This whole thread is about someone who plays a certain way who is unhappy the scenario they put themselves in created an “advantage” for the opponent that goes second.

    Play your own way if you so wish, but realize there are others that play GAC a very different way that removes your hypothesized “advantage”. Complain if you wish but if you’re stubbornly butting your head against a wall and nothing is working, perhaps you shouldn’t be doing that and try something else.

    Changing the entire system of a game mode just to fit your own desires while knowing others play it differently is a bit self centered, no?
  • Is it not an advantage in sports to go first and set a score that forces the opponent to take some more risks to outscore them? Take football, if a team is 7 points ahead and the game is almost over, would it not force the opponent to risk attempting a touchdown to tie the game?

    Take diving, seeing your competitors score higher than you wouldn’t you have to risk doing a more complicated dive to outscore them?

    Trying to outscore an opponent that has already set a really high goal is not easy. I go first if at all possible to try to set a really high goal to force the opponent to take some more risks to match it. I’m intentionally putting them at a disadvantage on my side. If I’m putting them at a disadvantage, how’re they getting an advantage from that situation? Seeing your opponents’ score just allows you to see the minimum you must overcome to win. That’s not an advantage.

    Isn’t the core of this thread about having an advantage in GAC based on who moves first? And about how that’s not fair since people from different time zones /lifestyles get matched, putting some players in a position where they are never allowed to capitalize on that advantage?

    Most people are arguing that going last gives and advantage but you are arguing that you have an advantage by going first.

    At the end of the day, it’s the same issue. And the same proposed solution (hiding banners until the match is over) addresses both scenarios.

    So your argument that going first gives the advantage seems to actually reinforce the idea that there is an issue here.
  • WD_40
    106 posts Member
    Is it not an advantage in sports to go first and set a score that forces the opponent to take some more risks to outscore them? Take football, if a team is 7 points ahead and the game is almost over, would it not force the opponent to risk attempting a touchdown to tie the game?

    Take diving, seeing your competitors score higher than you wouldn’t you have to risk doing a more complicated dive to outscore them?

    Trying to outscore an opponent that has already set a really high goal is not easy. I go first if at all possible to try to set a really high goal to force the opponent to take some more risks to match it. I’m intentionally putting them at a disadvantage on my side. If I’m putting them at a disadvantage, how’re they getting an advantage from that situation? Seeing your opponents’ score just allows you to see the minimum you must overcome to win. That’s not an advantage.

    But what if you only lead by a field goal? Your opponent then knows that they can play slightly more conservatively to tie the game. The analogy kinda breaks down here bc there isn't a way to score 4 points on one play in american football, but you can go into your last battle knowing exactly how many banners you need to win in GAC
  • WD_40
    106 posts Member
    I'll agree to that if you post a high score, it is challenging to beat, but your opponent knows exactly what they need to score, whether possible or not. And if you don't post a high score - bad rng can happen to anybody - your opponent now knows they can play more conservatively and safely. There are probably advantages to both, but one is psychological the other is informational
Sign In or Register to comment.