Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
Great example. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a number of folks that would rather be the first mover with the "absurdly good score" in this situation. Part of their plan would be to force you into risky decisions. Whether you perform well in, and therefore see it as an advantage to be in, those situations is a bit irrelevant unless you choose to let them know ahead of time. Then they may try to use that against you.
it's more like that it isn't a disadvantage to go first if you put up an absurdly good score than that it is an advantage. If you're able to put up an absurdly good score you would have won regardless since your opponent a) didnt take risks and got lower banners or b) he took the risks regardless and lost because of that.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
Great example. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a number of folks that would rather be the first mover with the "absurdly good score" in this situation. Part of their plan would be to force you into risky decisions. Whether you perform well in, and therefore see it as an advantage to be in, those situations is a bit irrelevant unless you choose to let them know ahead of time. Then they may try to use that against you.
it's more like that it isn't a disadvantage to go first if you put up an absurdly good score than that it is an advantage. If you're able to put up an absurdly good score you would have won regardless since your opponent a) didnt take risks and got lower banners or b) he took the risks regardless and lost because of that.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
Great example. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a number of folks that would rather be the first mover with the "absurdly good score" in this situation. Part of their plan would be to force you into risky decisions. Whether you perform well in, and therefore see it as an advantage to be in, those situations is a bit irrelevant unless you choose to let them know ahead of time. Then they may try to use that against you.
it's more like that it isn't a disadvantage to go first if you put up an absurdly good score than that it is an advantage. If you're able to put up an absurdly good score you would have won regardless since your opponent a) didnt take risks and got lower banners or b) he took the risks regardless and lost because of that.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
I have won GAs because i went second, because going second meant i knew exactly what additional risks to take, whether i should go for the 4-man team with greater possibility of loss or go for a safe win.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
Great example. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a number of folks that would rather be the first mover with the "absurdly good score" in this situation. Part of their plan would be to force you into risky decisions. Whether you perform well in, and therefore see it as an advantage to be in, those situations is a bit irrelevant unless you choose to let them know ahead of time. Then they may try to use that against you.
it's more like that it isn't a disadvantage to go first if you put up an absurdly good score than that it is an advantage. If you're able to put up an absurdly good score you would have won regardless since your opponent a) didnt take risks and got lower banners or b) he took the risks regardless and lost because of that.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
I have won GAs because i went second, because going second meant i knew exactly what additional risks to take, whether i should go for the 4-man team with greater possibility of loss or go for a safe win.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make as I've recognized all along that there are people that do well in either situation. But some would not perform as well as you in those 4 GAs due to the psychological pressures of the situation.
Let's try a slightly different angle. Maybe I'm missing something.
Why is it such a huge advantage to go first in chess and such a huge disadvantage to go first in GA?
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Do go on. I'd love to hear how you can't win by 1 banner... Your opponent put up an absurdly good score without knowing your banners, why can't you win by 1 by ignoring their score and sticking to your plan?
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Do go on. I'd love to hear how you can't win by 1 banner... Your opponent put up an absurdly good score without knowing your banners, why can't you win by 1 by ignoring their score and sticking to your plan?
because you can't get an absurdly good score without taking risks ofcourse. If your "normal" play would get you 1 banner more than your opponent, than your opponent didn't have an absurdly good score.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Do go on. I'd love to hear how you can't win by 1 banner... Your opponent put up an absurdly good score without knowing your banners, why can't you win by 1 by ignoring their score and sticking to your plan?
because you can't get an absurdly good score without taking risks ofcourse. If your "normal" play would get you 1 banner more than your opponent, than your opponent didn't have an absurdly good score.
That's not been my experience. I suppose it depends on what you consider an absurdly good score to be. I'm thinking 58 banner average. Which I've been able to achieve several times with very little risk in GAs where we both clear the board in one go.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
If you can score max points when going second, you could also score max points if going first instead. Nothing prevents this. If you can improve your strategywhen going second nothing prevents you from applying the exact same improved strategy when going first. If you choose not to, it's all on you.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Do go on. I'd love to hear how you can't win by 1 banner... Your opponent put up an absurdly good score without knowing your banners, why can't you win by 1 by ignoring their score and sticking to your plan?
because you can't get an absurdly good score without taking risks ofcourse. If your "normal" play would get you 1 banner more than your opponent, than your opponent didn't have an absurdly good score.
That's not been my experience. I suppose it depends on what you consider an absurdly good score to be. I'm thinking 58 banner average. Which I've been able to achieve several times with very little risk in GAs where we both clear the board in one go.
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
If you can score max points when going second, you could also score max points if going first instead. Nothing prevents this. If you can improve your strategywhen going second nothing prevents you from applying the exact same improved strategy when going first. If you choose not to, it's all on you.
The whole point of waiting is to see if you need to take risks to take the win. Why try to get max banners if there's a change you'll end up with less banners if you don't need max banners to win?
Also, if your opponent clears your rather strong backwall in 1 go and has a strong front wall of his own one could reasonably assume his backwall isn't super strong. It's still a guess ofcourse, but some additional info always helps.
A good debate to be having at any rate....always two sides to ever opinion and neither is necessarily wrong...I view it from the psychological impact it has on a player who is forced to overperfom and others see it as a tool to allow better strategizing for themselves....do what works for you but just know if you ever face me in GA it wont be rainbows and unicorns for you lol
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Do go on. I'd love to hear how you can't win by 1 banner... Your opponent put up an absurdly good score without knowing your banners, why can't you win by 1 by ignoring their score and sticking to your plan?
because you can't get an absurdly good score without taking risks ofcourse. If your "normal" play would get you 1 banner more than your opponent, than your opponent didn't have an absurdly good score.
That's not been my experience. I suppose it depends on what you consider an absurdly good score to be. I'm thinking 58 banner average. Which I've been able to achieve several times with very little risk in GAs where we both clear the board in one go.
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then is to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then is to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Do go on. I'd love to hear how you can't win by 1 banner... Your opponent put up an absurdly good score without knowing your banners, why can't you win by 1 by ignoring their score and sticking to your plan?
because you can't get an absurdly good score without taking risks ofcourse. If your "normal" play would get you 1 banner more than your opponent, than your opponent didn't have an absurdly good score.
That's not been my experience. I suppose it depends on what you consider an absurdly good score to be. I'm thinking 58 banner average. Which I've been able to achieve several times with very little risk in GAs where we both clear the board in one go.
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then I'd to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
it could very well be that i'm underestimating how often it could potentially be beneficial to go first due to putting the pressure on.
I personally don't really care whether i go first or last, but i've noticed many of my opponents prefer to go last. From my perspective going first hasn't really been an advantage since i was going to win most of them regardless.
Ok, so even if you believe going first is an advantage (I strong disagree), the same issue arises. Every GA starts at around the same time. If you can’t be on at 5 eastern, either to hit first or hit last, you are at a disadvantage. At the very least they need to rotate start times.
It's not really about what's better or worse. It's just that the display of the banners adds more strategy to the mode. If both of us want to hit early as a strategy and you hit first, you executed your strategy better than I did mine. If you know you won't be able to play until later, maybe a strategy of going early isn't the correct one. I think it adds a bunch of subtelty to a game that occasionally (often) lacks it.
I would argue that hiding banners adds more strategy to the mode because it forces both players to maximize their efficiency. If I know my opponent slipped up in one battle then when I'm attacking second I don't have to put any pressure on myself.
So, you're saying, that when you go first, you don't maximize your efficiency. Do you see any way to change this other than by hiding the scores? I do.
Oh so tell me how this should be done then. Let me ask you, if you realised your opponent sent in teams of 5 against all your squads and beat them all on first try, but with only 1 toon left with nearly no hp (46 pts i believe), would u still be sending undersized teams?
The issue here is not regarding lame unbalanced matchups below the 3.5m gp range. The issue here is above that range (especially above 4m) where everyone’s rosters and mods are pretty much evenly distributed.
If you could have performed better by going second, you simply didn't maximize your performance, when you went first. Learn, adapt and do your best in the next GA - no matter wether you go first or second and no matter which GP bracket, you are in.
Edit, added:
The only advantage in going second is, that you can go easy and not spebd time maximizing everything if you see your opponent scored low. You don't perform better by going second than you could have by going first. Whatever score you get by going second, you can score by going first as well.
No, the advantage of going second is u maximise your chances of scoring higher than your opponent, which ranges from taking increased risks to beat an absurdly good score, or taking reduced risks to ensure a definite clear. This is conditional probability, where the knowledge of one occurrence impacts the probability of the next outcome, which in turn impacts your decisions. First mover does not have that advantage, so banners should either be hidden, or players all around the world should be given the chance to use this to their advantage.
If you can score max points when going second, you could also score max points if going first instead. Nothing prevents this. If you can improve your strategywhen going second nothing prevents you from applying the exact same improved strategy when going first. If you choose not to, it's all on you.
The whole point of waiting is to see if you need to take risks to take the win. Why try to get max banners if there's a change you'll end up with less banners if you don't need max banners to win?
Also, if your opponent clears your rather strong backwall in 1 go and has a strong front wall of his own one could reasonably assume his backwall isn't super strong. It's still a guess ofcourse, but some additional info always helps.
I agree completely. You can adjust your game plan and strategy based on your opponents scire/performance. That's what I mean, when I state, that you can choose to relax and go easy, if your opponents doesn't perform well. However, I disagree when others have claimed, that you can perform better when going second. Going first does not in any way prevent, that you do your best, when going first as well.
Going last is easier.
The whole "put the pressure on" argument is flawed. If you're taking risks because you know you need alot of banners and lose because of that, you would have lost anyway. Seeying as you needed to take risks you wouldn't have taken otherwise, you would have gotten less banners than needed for the win if you went first. More banners than you got when going last because the risk didn't pan out, but still less banners than your opponent got when going first. So it's reasonable to assume your opponent would be able to more banners than you if he went last since he got more than you when going first.
That being said, i'm not a fan of hiding banners. I don't want to wait 24h to see if i won or not and i enjoy checking my opponents progress every now and then.
I'm totally fine with rotating start times to accomodate players all across the world.
Good response, that's what I've been trying to tell them, there is no such thing as putting pressure. If they can't collect as many banners as you then they had the worst roster and they would have lost no matter what anyways.
A good debate to be having at any rate....always two sides to ever opinion and neither is necessarily wrong...I view it from the psychological impact it has on a player who is forced to overperfom and others see it as a tool to allow better strategizing for themselves....do what works for you but just know if you ever face me in GA it wont be rainbows and unicorns for you lol
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then is to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
Let me explain why the argument from putting pressure doesn't work. If I go first and average 58 banners then what you're saying is that my opponent will be see that and they will potentially panic, knowing that they must also average 58 banners.
This means they will most likely use riskier squads that they normally would in order to earn more banners. By using riskier squads they I increase their chances of making a mistake which would end up losing them the GA.
Assume my opponent has a very strong mind and he doesn't panic from my very high score. They decide to take no risks and go with whatever strategy they would have picked regardless of my banners, this means that they would STILL LOSE, because they simply didn't take the necessary risks in order to earn the extra banners.
The truth is that just as he would have to risk to meet my banners, so will I in order to have that score in the first place. The thing about him knowing my score, is that his risks are calculated and minimized to the least amount needed, due to the knowledge he possesses.
A good debate to be having at any rate....always two sides to ever opinion and neither is necessarily wrong...I view it from the psychological impact it has on a player who is forced to overperfom and others see it as a tool to allow better strategizing for themselves....do what works for you but just know if you ever face me in GA it wont be rainbows and unicorns for you lol
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then is to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
Let me explain why the argument from putting pressure doesn't work. If I go first and average 58 banners then what you're saying is that my opponent will be see that and they will potentially panic, knowing that they must also average 58 banners.
This means they will most likely use riskier squads that they normally would in order to earn more banners. By using riskier squads they I increase their chances of making a mistake which would end up losing them the GA.
Assume my opponent has a very strong mind and he doesn't panic from my very high score. They decide to take no risks and go with whatever strategy they would have picked regardless of my banners, this means that they would STILL LOSE, because they simply didn't take the necessary risks in order to earn the extra banners.
The truth is that just as he would have to risk to meet my banners, so will I in order to have that score in the first place. The thing about him knowing my score, is that his risks are calculated and minimized to the least amount needed, due to the knowledge he possesses.
It's not that as person with "a strong mind" (which really has nothing to do with how you handle pressure) takes less risks. It's that they calculate the risks and execute better under pressure. Many people would take too big of a risk or take the right risk and make mistakes during the execution.
It's why world class athletes "choke". Actions they've performed thousands of times and could perform successfully in their sleep they suddenly fail at miserably. Think Roberto Baggio in the 1994 World Cup. Or the fact that Neymar is criticized because he can't perform under pressure. When they "go first" (there's no pressure) they were/are among the best ever to play their sport. Force them to "go second" and the story changes.
Pressure is also why the star player isn't always the one to take the penalty kIck.
Just because you want to be in this situation doesn't mean there is no advantage to be had by forcing someone to perform under pressure.
Going last is easier.
The whole "put the pressure on" argument is flawed. If you're taking risks because you know you need alot of banners and lose because of that, you would have lost anyway. Seeying as you needed to take risks you wouldn't have taken otherwise, you would have gotten less banners than needed for the win if you went first. More banners than you got when going last because the risk didn't pan out, but still less banners than your opponent got when going first. So it's reasonable to assume your opponent would be able to more banners than you if he went last since he got more than you when going first.
That being said, i'm not a fan of hiding banners. I don't want to wait 24h to see if i won or not and i enjoy checking my opponents progress every now and then.
I'm totally fine with rotating start times to accomodate players all across the world.
Good response, that's what I've been trying to tell them, there is no such thing as putting pressure. If they can't collect as many banners as you then they had the worst roster and they would have lost no matter what anyways.
If there is no pressure why did you say in your original post:
A good debate to be having at any rate....always two sides to ever opinion and neither is necessarily wrong...I view it from the psychological impact it has on a player who is forced to overperfom and others see it as a tool to allow better strategizing for themselves....do what works for you but just know if you ever face me in GA it wont be rainbows and unicorns for you lol
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then is to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
Let me explain why the argument from putting pressure doesn't work. If I go first and average 58 banners then what you're saying is that my opponent will be see that and they will potentially panic, knowing that they must also average 58 banners.
This means they will most likely use riskier squads that they normally would in order to earn more banners. By using riskier squads they I increase their chances of making a mistake which would end up losing them the GA.
Assume my opponent has a very strong mind and he doesn't panic from my very high score. They decide to take no risks and go with whatever strategy they would have picked regardless of my banners, this means that they would STILL LOSE, because they simply didn't take the necessary risks in order to earn the extra banners.
The truth is that just as he would have to risk to meet my banners, so will I in order to have that score in the first place. The thing about him knowing my score, is that his risks are calculated and minimized to the least amount needed, due to the knowledge he possesses.
It's not that as person with "a strong mind" (which really has nothing to do with how you handle pressure) takes less risks. It's that they calculate the risks and execute better under pressure. Many people would take too big of a risk or take the right risk and make mistakes during the execution.
It's why world class athletes "choke". Actions they've performed thousands of times and could perform successfully in their sleep they suddenly fail at miserably. Think Roberto Baggio in the 1994 World Cup. Or the fact that Neymar is criticized because he can't perform under pressure. When they "go first" (there's no pressure) they were/are among the best ever to play their sport. Force them to "go second" and the story changes.
Pressure is also why the star player isn't always the one to take the penalty kIck.
Just because you want to be in this situation doesn't mean there is no advantage to be had by forcing someone to perform under pressure.
You either get the amount of banners you need to win or you don't. If you aren't affected by pressure you can chill And do your battles and win everything with a single attack and still lose because your banners are not enough. You're comparing uneven things, performance anxiety isn't the same thing as what's happening here. Your ability to win battles under pressure is a different issue. A good performance from the person who attacks first certainly forces the second person to at least follow a similar path of attacks, whether he will pull through or not is a different story.
Let's reverse the roles, the person who attacked first and got a phenomenal score, in this scenario he is the one who goes second. What would end up happening is that his opponent would probably do his best within his comfort zone, then the other guy goes knowing his opponent got a lesser score and he would win regardless.
If you and I were facing each other and I had the ability to win undersized matches easier than you did, then I would most likely win the GA regardless of going first or second, but if our ability to win was exactly the same, then if I went first I would most likely have to attempt more of them in order to secure a good score. You, knowing how many undersized battles I did, would not have to do more than you should. You will do precisely as many as it requires for you to win.
Does knowing the banners you opponent scored make it easier to win?
If you can win a match with less toon vs the opponents 5, why wouldnt you attack with less?
Because ur odds of winning with 4 is lower. If u had a 95% chance of winning with a full squad that would net u 59 banners, vs a 60% chance of winning with 4 toons that MAY net u 60 banners, which would u choose?
But IF u knew that u need that one extra point to win ur opponent by one lame point, u would take the risk. Because not taking the risk means u definitely 100% lose.
Whoever starts first however, will not have this information. In a very close fight, this will matter alot. I dont really care if u are facing someone who took 3 attempts on all your squads because that guy deserves to lose if he does. We’re talking about pretty much equal rosters where the gap is knowledge.
But well i totally understand if you don’t understand what I mean by this. Conditional probability “is not something the human mind is really built to digest”
I go in with the squad I think can win, I base my startegy on what my opponents roster and placements look like. Yes I go in with 4 on occasion, because i think I can win. Knowing you need a point or dont, doesnt make the battle any easier. If a player is risk adverse, they may need that comfort of knowing that they need to drop a small team in, but that's on the player.
It's all a game of strategy, and you either have it or you dont. Make the plan execute the plan, if that plan is landing a player 1 point down, maybe the plan is flawed.
So 2 equal players face off, player 1 wins by 1 point. Player 1 went in with 4 toons in one battle. Who went first?
Or
2 equal players face off, player 2 wins, both players didnt win 1 match on the first battle. One player went on with 4 toons. Who went first?
In many cases, we could have all the details that explain everything, except who went first, and we would not be able to "know" who went first. That is because there is no advantage in winning what matters, which is the battle.
Yes you can say there is a perceived advantage of "feeling forced" to go in with 4 toons, but if that player and roster is good enough to win that match, they could have won it anyway. If you feel you are at a disadvantage going into a match because you have to go first, go big or go home.
In any case we never have all the information, the back row is hidden. Knowing the point or not doesnt change that.
Knowing you need to go in with 4 and doing so in the front row with a team that is a counter to a team in the back row, doesnt help you. Or, clearing the front row, but then finding the hardcore teams you cant beat with 4 in the back. Knowing doesnt help you, taking calculated risks to ensure victory, planning every move for maximum points to ensure victory. This is what helps and that is how you win.
I always attack asap. Once I clear at least 3 at the maximum of 60 per squad, I can afford to wait a bit and see how it goes. Do I bother to strategize the last fight for a minimum of 57, or do I clear it up with 2 squads on *auto* while watching a match on TV. As for them clearing my squads with a 3 or 4 toon squad, well I do not put on defense total junk - if you use well geared and fast Phoenix, Bounty Hunters, First Order and either ewoks of night sisters as your 4 defending squads, and they have squad GP in high 80k, you can be pretty sure they require a 5-toon squad to clear.
As for offence, I use Resistance with the as yet unspoiled Finn, Rebels with CLS lead, Revan led jedi and a Palpatine full-sith team (I do not yet have Traya, would be using her as lead otherwise).
To be honest, those 40 toons would be the only ones I bother to develop eventually to high gear and good mods anyway, especially since they are needed for several events, for raids, for solo Arena, etc.
Lol there’s a lot of back and forth on this issue. What I can say from reading some of the comments is that if you’ve never used the strategy of going second for an advantage then you probably don’t know that there’s an advantage there. Personally, I don’t see it as enough of an advantage to merit any changes in GA. There are plenty of other areas to focus on and it’s almost just as beneficial to see how many times one of your defensive teams survived a battle.
Here’s how it works: you see you’re opponent put up a near perfect score while only failing to clear a defensive team once on the first try. You estimate that you’ll need an average of 58 points per battle for first try clears and a perfect second try clear to win. Using your normal attack strategy, you know you could easily beat 5 of his 6 defense (making up random numbers here), but the sixth team would require you wearing them down over time (maybe a FO defense). Alternatively, you could rearrange teams to potentially allow a first try clear of all defense at the risk of not beating one team at all.
For instance, I tried this strategy once when I needed a first try clear for all opponents defensive teams while not being able to just stomp his defense. So I pulled bb8 out of my JTR team and r2 out of my rebel team to make a stronger droid team. Rebels still easily cleared without r2, resistance used Finn lead with JTR on the team since I didn’t need 2 resistance teams, and droids picked up the rest. I got the crit train rolling with droids (since they started first with bb8) and was able to get a first try clear of everything. If the crit train didn’t start, however, I would have lost that battle and been unable to beat the team at all (meaning my opponent would easily win).
I’ve also failed with this strategy, but who counts that lol?
This exact thing happened to me today. My opponent had a very clean run through my defense and I took more chances to try and make up the banners. I ended up loosing a battle and pretty much gave up with no chance to catch him now.
Yes, I regularly lose because I'm trying too hard to be clever. "I know I can win with team X, but if I use team Y and save team X for the next territory..."
It is frustrating when it's close. If I win by a few banners... I'm a god!! And if I lose... How could I be so stupid?!? But either way, it is a game -- a safe place to experience the highs and lows of winning and losing without any real world consequences.
As someone else noted, the current timing works great for me, but I'd be on board with rotating times.
Lol there’s a lot of back and forth on this issue. What I can say from reading some of the comments is that if you’ve never used the strategy of going second for an advantage then you probably don’t know that there’s an advantage there.
I have gone both first and second. I have sometimes deliberately postponed my attacks until I saw my opponents moves and results. However, I'm also aware, that the difference is all in our minds. There is absoloutely nothing that prevents us doing our optimal run, when going first. The only advantage by going second is, that if you're in an even matched round, you may be able to relax if going second after your opponent performed less than optimally. In that case, you can save some time, not plan too much in details and just do your attacks. There's no way to score better than your best possible score by going second instead of first. It doesn't work that way.
Here’s how it works: you see you’re opponent put up a near perfect score while only failing to clear a defensive team once on the first try. You estimate that you’ll need an average of 58 points per battle for first try clears and a perfect second try clear to win. Using your normal attack strategy, you know you could easily beat 5 of his 6 defense (making up random numbers here), but the sixth team would require you wearing them down over time (maybe a FO defense). Alternatively, you could rearrange teams to potentially allow a first try clear of all defense at the risk of not beating one team at all.
If you manage to score those 58 on average when going second, you could also have scored them when going first.
I go either first or second depending on real life. However, I do think going second is an advantage.
You have to take into consideration there are territories you dont see, otherwise it wouldnt matter that much.
But, since there are territories you dont see, knowing wether your opponent lost sone battles or not does make a huge difference.
For example. If there is a team in front you are not sure you could beat with one of your "weaker" squads, then knowing what your opponent did helps. If he didnt miss on his battles, then you dont risk it and you play a squad you know will win and then hope what is in the back can be taken down.
If your opponent missed some fights, then you may risk throwing a squad you think can win, or know can win but might lose more points for losing protection and health and maybe a few toons, and keep your stronger squad to face whatever is in the back territories.
So, at least for me, going second always helps.
Two more examples (tips) from personal experience. If you go second and your opponent lost a fight, you might consider blowing IPD in a fight if you feel other 4 toons can win after that, and save a stronger squad for other battles. You probably wouldnt do this if your opponent scored an average of 58 points per battle or if you go first and have other options.
Example 2. Zfinn can win with 4 members. If I go second and see it is close, I risk it. If I go first or second but dont feel the need for that extra point, I just play it safe and put a 5 member squad.
Replies
it's more like that it isn't a disadvantage to go first if you put up an absurdly good score than that it is an advantage. If you're able to put up an absurdly good score you would have won regardless since your opponent a) didnt take risks and got lower banners or b) he took the risks regardless and lost because of that.
Psychology would beg to differ. If the absurdly good score is one you around have beaten by 1 banner by sticking to your plan you don't know that. All you know is the bar has been set high and many, many people (none of the folks in this thread of course) would see their decision quality decline in this type of situation. So instead of winning by 1 banner (by sticking to your plan and taking no risk) you take a risk that results in 1 or 2 fewer banners than the alternative. Then you take another risk, and another...
I do both (go first and wait until the end) depending on what's going on life outside of the game. My strategy du changes in each situation. But I haven't yet had a GA where I've said, "man, I would have won if I had just gone second (or first) instead of first (or second)."
I have won GAs because i went second, because going second meant i knew exactly what additional risks to take, whether i should go for the 4-man team with greater possibility of loss or go for a safe win.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make as I've recognized all along that there are people that do well in either situation. But some would not perform as well as you in those 4 GAs due to the psychological pressures of the situation.
Let's try a slightly different angle. Maybe I'm missing something.
Why is it such a huge advantage to go first in chess and such a huge disadvantage to go first in GA?
You're painting a scenario that doesn't really exist though. You can't beat an absurdly good score by one banner if you stick to your plan and take no risks.
Do go on. I'd love to hear how you can't win by 1 banner... Your opponent put up an absurdly good score without knowing your banners, why can't you win by 1 by ignoring their score and sticking to your plan?
because you can't get an absurdly good score without taking risks ofcourse. If your "normal" play would get you 1 banner more than your opponent, than your opponent didn't have an absurdly good score.
That's not been my experience. I suppose it depends on what you consider an absurdly good score to be. I'm thinking 58 banner average. Which I've been able to achieve several times with very little risk in GAs where we both clear the board in one go.
If you can score max points when going second, you could also score max points if going first instead. Nothing prevents this. If you can improve your strategywhen going second nothing prevents you from applying the exact same improved strategy when going first. If you choose not to, it's all on you.
Right, okay.
So your argument boils down to that it's harder to achieve a 58 banner average if you know you need a 58 banner average for the win than it is to achieve a 58 banner average when you don't know how many banners you'll need for the win. Which in term means that going first leads to an advantage.
This is ofcourse only a situational advantage and based on the assumption that you wouldn't have gotten a 58 banner average if you went last due to the pressure eventhough you could get said 58 banner average while taking very little risk and/or the assumption that your opponent would have gotten a higher banner average if there was no pressure on him.
The whole point of waiting is to see if you need to take risks to take the win. Why try to get max banners if there's a change you'll end up with less banners if you don't need max banners to win?
Also, if your opponent clears your rather strong backwall in 1 go and has a strong front wall of his own one could reasonably assume his backwall isn't super strong. It's still a guess ofcourse, but some additional info always helps.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then is to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
More or less. Whether or not you think it's situational or rare will dictate how you feel about going first or last. The assumption that some (potentially many) people will not perform well under the pressure of needing a 58 banner average, even if they should be able to achieve it with little risk, is supported by numerous sports studies about performance under pressure.
And the strategy then is to go first and put pressure on your opponent and see if they can perform.
it could very well be that i'm underestimating how often it could potentially be beneficial to go first due to putting the pressure on.
I personally don't really care whether i go first or last, but i've noticed many of my opponents prefer to go last. From my perspective going first hasn't really been an advantage since i was going to win most of them regardless.
I agree completely. You can adjust your game plan and strategy based on your opponents scire/performance. That's what I mean, when I state, that you can choose to relax and go easy, if your opponents doesn't perform well. However, I disagree when others have claimed, that you can perform better when going second. Going first does not in any way prevent, that you do your best, when going first as well.
Good response, that's what I've been trying to tell them, there is no such thing as putting pressure. If they can't collect as many banners as you then they had the worst roster and they would have lost no matter what anyways.
Let me explain why the argument from putting pressure doesn't work. If I go first and average 58 banners then what you're saying is that my opponent will be see that and they will potentially panic, knowing that they must also average 58 banners.
This means they will most likely use riskier squads that they normally would in order to earn more banners. By using riskier squads they I increase their chances of making a mistake which would end up losing them the GA.
Assume my opponent has a very strong mind and he doesn't panic from my very high score. They decide to take no risks and go with whatever strategy they would have picked regardless of my banners, this means that they would STILL LOSE, because they simply didn't take the necessary risks in order to earn the extra banners.
The truth is that just as he would have to risk to meet my banners, so will I in order to have that score in the first place. The thing about him knowing my score, is that his risks are calculated and minimized to the least amount needed, due to the knowledge he possesses.
It's not that as person with "a strong mind" (which really has nothing to do with how you handle pressure) takes less risks. It's that they calculate the risks and execute better under pressure. Many people would take too big of a risk or take the right risk and make mistakes during the execution.
It's why world class athletes "choke". Actions they've performed thousands of times and could perform successfully in their sleep they suddenly fail at miserably. Think Roberto Baggio in the 1994 World Cup. Or the fact that Neymar is criticized because he can't perform under pressure. When they "go first" (there's no pressure) they were/are among the best ever to play their sport. Force them to "go second" and the story changes.
Pressure is also why the star player isn't always the one to take the penalty kIck.
Just because you want to be in this situation doesn't mean there is no advantage to be had by forcing someone to perform under pressure.
If there is no pressure why did you say in your original post:
You either get the amount of banners you need to win or you don't. If you aren't affected by pressure you can chill And do your battles and win everything with a single attack and still lose because your banners are not enough. You're comparing uneven things, performance anxiety isn't the same thing as what's happening here. Your ability to win battles under pressure is a different issue. A good performance from the person who attacks first certainly forces the second person to at least follow a similar path of attacks, whether he will pull through or not is a different story.
Let's reverse the roles, the person who attacked first and got a phenomenal score, in this scenario he is the one who goes second. What would end up happening is that his opponent would probably do his best within his comfort zone, then the other guy goes knowing his opponent got a lesser score and he would win regardless.
If you and I were facing each other and I had the ability to win undersized matches easier than you did, then I would most likely win the GA regardless of going first or second, but if our ability to win was exactly the same, then if I went first I would most likely have to attempt more of them in order to secure a good score. You, knowing how many undersized battles I did, would not have to do more than you should. You will do precisely as many as it requires for you to win.
I go in with the squad I think can win, I base my startegy on what my opponents roster and placements look like. Yes I go in with 4 on occasion, because i think I can win. Knowing you need a point or dont, doesnt make the battle any easier. If a player is risk adverse, they may need that comfort of knowing that they need to drop a small team in, but that's on the player.
It's all a game of strategy, and you either have it or you dont. Make the plan execute the plan, if that plan is landing a player 1 point down, maybe the plan is flawed.
So 2 equal players face off, player 1 wins by 1 point. Player 1 went in with 4 toons in one battle. Who went first?
Or
2 equal players face off, player 2 wins, both players didnt win 1 match on the first battle. One player went on with 4 toons. Who went first?
In many cases, we could have all the details that explain everything, except who went first, and we would not be able to "know" who went first. That is because there is no advantage in winning what matters, which is the battle.
Yes you can say there is a perceived advantage of "feeling forced" to go in with 4 toons, but if that player and roster is good enough to win that match, they could have won it anyway. If you feel you are at a disadvantage going into a match because you have to go first, go big or go home.
In any case we never have all the information, the back row is hidden. Knowing the point or not doesnt change that.
Knowing you need to go in with 4 and doing so in the front row with a team that is a counter to a team in the back row, doesnt help you. Or, clearing the front row, but then finding the hardcore teams you cant beat with 4 in the back. Knowing doesnt help you, taking calculated risks to ensure victory, planning every move for maximum points to ensure victory. This is what helps and that is how you win.
I always attack asap. Once I clear at least 3 at the maximum of 60 per squad, I can afford to wait a bit and see how it goes. Do I bother to strategize the last fight for a minimum of 57, or do I clear it up with 2 squads on *auto* while watching a match on TV. As for them clearing my squads with a 3 or 4 toon squad, well I do not put on defense total junk - if you use well geared and fast Phoenix, Bounty Hunters, First Order and either ewoks of night sisters as your 4 defending squads, and they have squad GP in high 80k, you can be pretty sure they require a 5-toon squad to clear.
As for offence, I use Resistance with the as yet unspoiled Finn, Rebels with CLS lead, Revan led jedi and a Palpatine full-sith team (I do not yet have Traya, would be using her as lead otherwise).
To be honest, those 40 toons would be the only ones I bother to develop eventually to high gear and good mods anyway, especially since they are needed for several events, for raids, for solo Arena, etc.
Here’s how it works: you see you’re opponent put up a near perfect score while only failing to clear a defensive team once on the first try. You estimate that you’ll need an average of 58 points per battle for first try clears and a perfect second try clear to win. Using your normal attack strategy, you know you could easily beat 5 of his 6 defense (making up random numbers here), but the sixth team would require you wearing them down over time (maybe a FO defense). Alternatively, you could rearrange teams to potentially allow a first try clear of all defense at the risk of not beating one team at all.
For instance, I tried this strategy once when I needed a first try clear for all opponents defensive teams while not being able to just stomp his defense. So I pulled bb8 out of my JTR team and r2 out of my rebel team to make a stronger droid team. Rebels still easily cleared without r2, resistance used Finn lead with JTR on the team since I didn’t need 2 resistance teams, and droids picked up the rest. I got the crit train rolling with droids (since they started first with bb8) and was able to get a first try clear of everything. If the crit train didn’t start, however, I would have lost that battle and been unable to beat the team at all (meaning my opponent would easily win).
I’ve also failed with this strategy, but who counts that lol?
Yes, I regularly lose because I'm trying too hard to be clever. "I know I can win with team X, but if I use team Y and save team X for the next territory..."
It is frustrating when it's close. If I win by a few banners... I'm a god!! And if I lose... How could I be so stupid?!? But either way, it is a game -- a safe place to experience the highs and lows of winning and losing without any real world consequences.
As someone else noted, the current timing works great for me, but I'd be on board with rotating times.
I have gone both first and second. I have sometimes deliberately postponed my attacks until I saw my opponents moves and results. However, I'm also aware, that the difference is all in our minds. There is absoloutely nothing that prevents us doing our optimal run, when going first. The only advantage by going second is, that if you're in an even matched round, you may be able to relax if going second after your opponent performed less than optimally. In that case, you can save some time, not plan too much in details and just do your attacks. There's no way to score better than your best possible score by going second instead of first. It doesn't work that way.
If you manage to score those 58 on average when going second, you could also have scored them when going first.
You have to take into consideration there are territories you dont see, otherwise it wouldnt matter that much.
But, since there are territories you dont see, knowing wether your opponent lost sone battles or not does make a huge difference.
For example. If there is a team in front you are not sure you could beat with one of your "weaker" squads, then knowing what your opponent did helps. If he didnt miss on his battles, then you dont risk it and you play a squad you know will win and then hope what is in the back can be taken down.
If your opponent missed some fights, then you may risk throwing a squad you think can win, or know can win but might lose more points for losing protection and health and maybe a few toons, and keep your stronger squad to face whatever is in the back territories.
So, at least for me, going second always helps.
Example 2. Zfinn can win with 4 members. If I go second and see it is close, I risk it. If I go first or second but dont feel the need for that extra point, I just play it safe and put a 5 member squad.