GaC time advantage....

Replies

  • 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.

    What is roster bullying?
    Anyway, in the revamped GAC the point is not to get max banners, but just to get more banners than your opponent.
    If you want to do a risky battle if you know that a no-risk battle will be plenty for you to get the win, then fine I guess. But that’s you ignoring an advantage in the match, not the absence of the advantage.
  • The core of this thread was the argument going second has an advantage. My argument is GAC victory/losses are purely determined by efficiency, not by going first or last. However, by going first I can set a really high goal the opponent has to match by using teams efficiently. Even going second I’m still going for the same efficiency as I would if I went first, regardless of opponent’s banners.

    I don’t nitpick by one or two banners. I simply do the best with what teams I have on offense against opponent’s teams on defense. If I lose trying to underdog, it’s not because I realize I need an underdog to win. It’s because I’m trying to learn which teams I can underdog with specific teams. My goal is rather a tree straightforward: use as few characters as possible to get the maximum banners
  • That’s fair. My goal is just to win as often as I can.

    And just to go around in circles one last time. If you can’t see the advantage of going in with full information on the needed efficiency I am baffled.
    If your argument was that the knowledge of needed efficiency is too small an advantage to warrant any changes Is agree in a heartbeat. But refuting that knowledge is power is just baffling.
  • I prefer knowing what someone else places on defense than knowing how many banners they scored. I couldn’t care less what they score if I know exactly what teams they’ve used on defense. That knowledge is very powerful. Thankfully swgoh.gg provides that info freely 🙂

    You play it your way, but if you play it a way that it would give an “advantage” to someone else that’s your problem.
  • Ironically, every IRL competition he brought up to try and disprove the advantage was yet another example of where it is an advantage: baseball, football (especially college OT rules)... I could go on: golf, bowling, timetrial races, gymnastics, trick skiing/snowboarding, being the dealer in most card games (hello Blackjack), etc.

    People have explicit examples in GAC where a victory was made significantly easier by going 2nd.

    At this point, it's clear, he's unwilling or unable to engage in a constructive discussion.
  • Legend91
    2202 posts Member
    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…

    Playing position (= acting after your opponent) is actually one of the most important things in poker.

    Dude, just stop it. You're an aurodium player that has probably never seen someone hiding GLs in the back zone while filling out the front zone with speedy or otherwise dangerous teams like DR, GAS, CLS, etc.

    Do you know about prime bot? Do you know that people can alrdy tell what's going on when teams like your DR and GAS are taken out with >65 banners?
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • His arguments have gotten so outrageous, he just has to be trolling, right?
  • Salatious_Scrum
    1485 posts Member
    edited January 4
    I was wondering when the whole argument on “oh you’re in aurodium so your opinions don’t matter” was going to show up. It only took 7 pages! 👍🏻

    I like how you immediately assume I’ve never seen anyone hide GLs in back zones too.

    The biggest question I have is…

    Do you have the overall player stats that show win/loss in GAC that’s based on if someone won by going second (broken down by carbonite, aurodium, kyber, etc)? Until you can show me that a significant majority of players who go second in GAC wins, I don’t see there’s an advantage. If there is, I’ll gladly concede.
  • Legend91
    2202 posts Member
    I was wondering when the whole argument on “oh you’re in aurodium so your opinions don’t matter” was going to show up. It only took 7 pages! 👍🏻

    I like how you immediately assume I’ve never seen anyone hide GLs in back zones too.

    I didn't assume you never saw people hiding GLs in the back. I assumed you probably never seen people hiding GLs behind a zone filled with speedy and dangerous teams and not some g10 DR without Malak and Talon. That's a difference. And that's where indeed it is going to be a difference between lower leagues where we might be talking about g10 DRs with 300 speed and the top leagues where most people are running around with >360 DRs (incl. Talon) or Maul lead DRs if your Piett/Aurra could outspeed them.
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • You could have started with, "I will not listen to reason or consider specific examples. Only a thorough analysis of data that nobody with access to cares to perform will sway me."
  • I think I summed it up best by saying that it’s a little bit of an advantage, but not enough to matter and frankly no one, in the grand scheme of things, really cares.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • My fault for wanting hard evidence of the existence of an advantage, I guess.

    I suppose I should take everyone that posts something online for their word…

  • And now you're straw manning.

    No one with the desire to resolve this dispute has access to the hard data you want. Even if they did, there would be so much discussion about how best to control the dataset to isolate whether such an advantage can be analytically demonstrated--it could dwarf this thread (albeit maybe with constructive arguments).

    So, in the absence of hard evidence, if you are unwilling to engage in a discussion where inferences are drawn from reason and learned experience, then why are you engaging in the discussion?
  • Only because you’re espousing a theory that’s not based on factual evidence.

    I get that the factual evidence isn’t readily available. Just don’t claim things without proof readily available. That’s all.
  • TVF
    31676 posts Member
    Morgoth01 wrote: »
    And just to go around in circles one last time.

    giphy.gif
    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
  • Only because you’re espousing a theory that’s not based on factual evidence.

    I get that the factual evidence isn’t readily available. Just don’t claim things without proof readily available. That’s all.
    I can’t seem to quit…
    Have anyone claimed that going second is a silver bullet? Nope, it’s not an automatic win button.
    Plenty of matches are decided even before attack phase open up.

    So even with full data access, nobody would expect a clear cut pattern of much higher win-% going second. I will not vote you with even the most obvious things that can’t be controlled properly for in the raw data.

    The claim is that in close matches it confers ans advantage going second.
    This is based on logical arguments I’ve seen nobody properly contradict.

    This claim is also backed by the experience of a lot of players with a lot of GAC matches under their belt.
    I’ve had a string of 4 matches out of 7 decided by 1-2 banners quite a few seasons back.
    That was with heavy undermanning on both sides. In those scenarios knowledge is an advantage.

  • Only because you’re espousing a theory that’s not based on factual evidence.

    I get that the factual evidence isn’t readily available. Just don’t claim things without proof readily available. That’s all.

    You are also making a claim without "factual evidence". There are only 3 positions to be had here:

    1, going 2nd is an advantage.

    2, going 2nd is not an advantage.

    3, no opinion.

    Since you clearly are not in camp 3, you have also "espoused a theory."

    The reason many are frustrated with you is that you are not arguing in good faith.
  • StewartH
    101 posts Member
    edited January 4
    I was wondering when the whole argument on “oh you’re in aurodium so your opinions don’t matter” was going to show up. It only took 7 pages! 👍🏻

    I like how you immediately assume I’ve never seen anyone hide GLs in back zones too.

    The biggest question I have is…

    Do you have the overall player stats that show win/loss in GAC that’s based on if someone won by going second (broken down by carbonite, aurodium, kyber, etc)? Until you can show me that a significant majority of players who go second in GAC wins, I don’t see there’s an advantage. If there is, I’ll gladly concede.

    One question -

    If you fought yourself in GAC (the exact same roster, mods, skills, etc) do you think the account going second (Team b) would gain any benefit from the knowledge or banners acquired from when your first account (Team A) attacked?
  • Starslayer
    1633 posts Member
    edited January 4
    There are only 3 positions to be had here:

    1, going 2nd is an advantage.

    2, going 2nd is not an advantage.

    3, no opinion.

    4. sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

    We only know one sure thing: data show no clear advantage for going second (yes, I said it again). Now, that's not a reason to stop the debate there; data could be misleading, I agree. But as we don't have more precise data, we can only be humble and have an educated guess.

    Here is mine (which had evolved along the threadS): sometimes it's an advantage to go second, sometimes it's an advantage to go first.

    Scenario 1 (most people on the thread agree on this one): Last battle, I know I need 66 pts to win. I need to undersize if I want a chance to win. If I managed to win, then I had an advantage going second. If I lose, then this advantage didn't matter. Even if it mattered, who's to say I won't have undersize the exact same battle if I would have started, finishing with the exact same number of points ?

    Scenario 2 (less people agree on this one): I go second. My opponent cleaned everything on the first try and scored a high score. I need to be very efficient to win. In the first bottom row there is a weird team, a mix of relics and non-relics unusual suspects. As I know I need a high score to know, I may try a solo that won't go well. There, match lost. Then I see the back row and realized I could have solo'd teams there and didn't need to take that chance. If I win, then this disadvantage was actually an advantage. However, who's to say that going first, I wouldn't have made the exact same decision, finishing with the exact same number of points ?

    Both scenarios are possible and have merits imo. In a couple of months, we're supposed to have close matchs like every week. Maybe data will then evolve and will see if scenario 1 is more likely. But at the moment, hiding scores, even if it's a fair solution, will just make the mode less fun imo. As others said before, watching the board evolves is more fun than just checking results.
  • My fault for wanting hard evidence of the existence of an advantage, I guess.

    I suppose I should take everyone that posts something online for their word…

    since GAC is more like chess and not sports...read this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
  • TVF
    31676 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    My fault for wanting hard evidence of the existence of an advantage, I guess.

    I suppose I should take everyone that posts something online for their word…

    since GAC is more like chess and not sports...read this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

    What about chessboxing.
    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
  • Starslayer wrote: »
    There are only 3 positions to be had here:

    1, going 2nd is an advantage.

    2, going 2nd is not an advantage.

    3, no opinion.

    4. sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

    We only know one sure thing: data show no clear advantage for going second (yes, I said it again). Now, that's not a reason to stop the debate there; data could be misleading, I agree. But as we don't have more precise data, we can only be humble and have an educated guess.

    Here is mine (which had evolved along the threadS): sometimes it's an advantage to go second, sometimes it's an advantage to go first.

    Scenario 1 (most people on the thread agree on this one): Last battle, I know I need 66 pts to win. I need to undersize if I want a chance to win. If I managed to win, then I had an advantage going second. If I lose, then this advantage didn't matter. Even if it mattered, who's to say I won't have undersize the exact same battle if I would have started, finishing with the exact same number of points?

    Scenario 2 (less people agree on this one): I go second. My opponent cleaned everything on the first try and scored a high score. I need to be very efficient to win. In the first bottom row there is a weird team, a mix of relics and non-relics unusual suspects. As I know I need a high score to know, I may try a solo that won't go well. There, match lost. Then I see the back row and realized I could have solo'd teams there and didn't need to take that chance. If I win, then this disadvantage was actually an advantage. However, who's to say that going first, I wouldn't have made the exact same decision, finishing with the exact same number of points ?

    Scenario 1 is the reason I think it’s only an advantage in a very narrow set of conditions. The default state of a GAC player should be go for as many banners as possible, while maintaining a certain level of risk tolerance. Knowing the target score can change that, but doesn’t a lot.

    Let’s simplify things. Say you have one team left to beat, and two ways to do it: high risk (70 banners, 75% chance of victory) and low risk (60 banners, 90% chance of victory). Numbers are arbitrary.

    If you’re going first, you don’t know which one to pick to have the best chance at winning. So you’ll pick one. Which one that is depends on the player.

    If you’re going second, that choice is affected by scoring… maybe.

    If you need <60 points to win, it’s better to go for the low risk route. But knowing so only “causes” a victory when two things are true: 1) you would have gone for the high risk route without going-second knowledge, and 2) your victory falls in the 15% range where the low risk succeeds and the high risk fails. So there’s an advantage for high risk players, but it only causes a win 15% of the time.

    If you need between 60 and 70 points to win, it’s better (required, even) to go the high risk route. But knowing so only “causes” of victory when two things are true: 1) you would have gone for the low risk route without going-second knowledge, and 2) your victory falls in the 75% range where the high risk succeeds. So there’s an advantage for low risk players, but it only causes a win 75% of the time.

    If you need >70 points to win… well, nothing you can do about that.

    Thus in this example, going second is an advantage - but only when the current situation matches the level of risk that the player has. And even then, low risk players get a much stronger advantage, because an unnecessary high risk team can still win the round and thus the match, while a too low risk team will cause a loss every time. And even then, that advantage won’t always result in a win.


    As for Scenario 2… I feel like that can make it a disadvantage, but there’s things that can be done to mitigate that. GAC defense history is a big one. Calculating how many teams you need to do a risky play on is another. Narrowing it down to high risk vs low risk is harder in that scenario… so maybe.
  • I prefer knowing what someone else places on defense than knowing how many banners they scored. I couldn’t care less what they score if I know exactly what teams they’ve used on defense. That knowledge is very powerful. Thankfully swgoh.gg provides that info freely 🙂

    You play it your way, but if you play it a way that it would give an “advantage” to someone else that’s your problem.

    By going second, you are giving your opponent an opportunity to know what you used on offense and therefore what you set on defense. (with a high degree of accuracy). For example, if I see you score a perfect score on a cls team, it's obvious you beat it with a solo SEE.

    In the days of off-meta non gl counters this information was not as valuable, but in todays game with only a certain amount of counters per GL. it's incredibly valuable.

    because you can't see it, only means its useless information to you. And if I had a 2GL lead in my matches, I probably wouldn't care either. The reality is there are a LOT of people out there that can and do use that information to their advantage.
  • SemiGod
    2996 posts Member
    edited January 4
    Don’t have to worry about the competitive advantage if u forget to join GAC and lose thousands of crystals for the entire week like me 😎

    8mjcr36l6f3i.jpeg
    Post edited by SemiGod on
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    I prefer knowing what someone else places on defense than knowing how many banners they scored. I couldn’t care less what they score if I know exactly what teams they’ve used on defense. That knowledge is very powerful. Thankfully swgoh.gg provides that info freely 🙂

    You play it your way, but if you play it a way that it would give an “advantage” to someone else that’s your problem.
    For example, if I see you score a perfect score on a cls team, it's obvious you beat it with a solo SEE.
    How would you get this information ? I missed something because i can’t see that.

  • Starslayer wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    I prefer knowing what someone else places on defense than knowing how many banners they scored. I couldn’t care less what they score if I know exactly what teams they’ve used on defense. That knowledge is very powerful. Thankfully swgoh.gg provides that info freely 🙂

    You play it your way, but if you play it a way that it would give an “advantage” to someone else that’s your problem.
    For example, if I see you score a perfect score on a cls team, it's obvious you beat it with a solo SEE.
    How would you get this information ? I missed something because i can’t see that.

    I think the idea is that SEE is probably the only character who can get a perfect score (1 character, full health, full prot) against a CLS team. But I feel like determining that’s a rare occurence.
  • What I want to know is how many matches are decided by fleets? With executor and the bogus level of RNG that can happen, I'd bet a high percentage of matches comes down to who did better against the other fleets.

    The problem with that is it's stupid and narrow because only two fleets and one zone are determining who wins. You can have 22 awesome squads, but if you get bad luck with ships and can't clear or your opponent clears more efficiently, it is all worthless. Executor coin flipping to decide who wins is dumb and even if you two shot a fleet you still get too many points compared to 2 attacks on a squad.

    Ships has way more to do with who wins or loses than who goes first or second. I am pretty positive of that. (My last two opponents waited for me to go first and I still won.)
  • Monel
    2720 posts Member
    So basically the easy answer is for CG to stop showing the scores until the battle is over and how many attacks it took until the battle is over.

    That way both sides are blind! Make it so CG!
  • Monel
    2720 posts Member
    5ic2f1m0rhrt.gif
  • TargetEadu wrote: »
    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.

    And besides other real world responsibilities, there's nothing causing players to always battle first or second. You can choose when to do your battles every GAC, and you have 24 hours to attack. Not every opponent is going to attack right away or wait until the final seconds. You can even split up your attacks into multiple times to try and throw off your opponent. It's all in how you choose to play. You can take the lead early like the away team, or know what to score like the home team. It's your choice 😉
Sign In or Register to comment.