GAC advantage

System · June 20, 2021 8:19PM

This discussion was created from comments split from: Grand Arena Hitting Last an Advantage?.

grassrox · June 20, 2021 2:45PM

If its 3v3, I 100% believe it's definitely advantageous to go first, unless your gp is over 7.5-8 million. There's going to be some variety with all the squads that have to be set & you'll end up going against some squads that you don't have a hard counter for. If your focus is mostly on a full clear, I.e., going first, There's a tendency to overcompensate, whereas if I'm going 2nd, my primary focus is on banners, & riskier matchups is a consequence of that. There's less pressure going first (for me @ least) and I full clear opponents much more frequently than when I wait.

th3evo · June 20, 2021 2:48PM

grassrox wrote: »

If its 3v3, I 100% believe it's definitely advantageous to go first, unless your gp is over 7.5-8 million. There's going to be some variety with all the squads that have to be set & you'll end up going against some squads that you don't have a hard counter for. If your focus is mostly on a full clear, I.e., going first, There's a tendency to overcompensate, whereas if I'm going 2nd, my primary focus is on banners, & riskier matchups is a consequence of that. There's less pressure going first (for me @ least) and I full clear opponents much more frequently than when I wait.

You are 2 years late to the discussion.

TVF · June 20, 2021 3:00PM

th3evo wrote: »

grassrox wrote: »

If its 3v3, I 100% believe it's definitely advantageous to go first, unless your gp is over 7.5-8 million. There's going to be some variety with all the squads that have to be set & you'll end up going against some squads that you don't have a hard counter for. If your focus is mostly on a full clear, I.e., going first, There's a tendency to overcompensate, whereas if I'm going 2nd, my primary focus is on banners, & riskier matchups is a consequence of that. There's less pressure going first (for me @ least) and I full clear opponents much more frequently than when I wait.

You are 2 years late to the discussion.

Going last to win

NicWester · June 20, 2021 4:04PM

I said it in 2019, I say it again in 2021: Whatever advantage it gives is purely psychological. Just attack whenever is convenient and you have time. Did mine this morning in bed, felt great.

Will I win? I don't know. Will I get mad if I lose? No.

Nikoms565 · June 20, 2021 4:18PM

NicWester wrote: »

I said it in 2019, I say it again in 2021: Whatever advantage it gives is purely psychological. Just attack whenever is convenient and you have time. Did mine this morning in bed, felt great.

Will I win? I don't know. Will I get mad if I lose? No.

I only disagree that the advantage is "purely psychological". I think there is an advantage to going after your opponent - but only is they make mistakes and have to double tap a team or two. Then you know you can play it conservative and still win (not try to undersize, etc.) because you know if you just play clean you win.

That said, I don't think the advantage is that significant and I usually attack early, go for a clean sweep and put the pressure on my opponent to do the same. Honestly, I'd be fine if they changed it and fine if they didn't.

grassrox · June 20, 2021 4:46PM

Took me 2 years to figure out I get full clears more frequently when I attack 1st! I totally get the advantage of knowing exactly how many banners you need to win, but going 2nd definitely requires a more nuanced approach, & I think a lot of people feel the pressure & make more mistakes when facing a full clear. Going first definitely works well for me anyway when I don't worry too much about banners and just focus on winning matches/clearing territories

grassrox · June 20, 2021 4:48PM

...& yes, its totally psychological!

Nikoms565 · June 20, 2021 6:08PM

grassrox wrote: »

...& yes, its totally psychological!

No it's not. If I attack first, then my opponent has information he didn't have before I attacked. It gives him 3 valuable pieces of information:

1) If I made any "mistakes" - which helps him make decisions as to how conservative he can be or how risky he needs to be.

2) It also gives him a total banner count to beat. Which clues him in as to whether he can "waste" banners attempting feats. This is especially true when he's down to the last, weaker teams in the back. Should he run a solo GL for an easy 55 banners, or toss in Baze AND Cherrut for the feat - but run the risk of losing a couple of banners?

3) It can also clue him in as to if there are any nasty surprises waiting for him in the back row. If I put my Rey on defense, and my opponent, who has SLKR and JML/JKL, attacked first and can't clear her, there's a good bet that at least one of those teams is lying in wait in the back row. Me seeing his struggle give me valuable information - that I need to save at least one GL counter and not maximize banners in the front.

Are these advantages "significant"? Not enough to deter from attacking first most times. But they are not "purely psychological". Arguing differently simply assumes your opponent doesn't care or doesn't think.

Ragnarok_COTF · June 20, 2021 7:40PM

All these folks who see no advantage to going second, please DM me if we match up and volunteer to go first.

There's no argument to be had that the guy going 2nd has more information. He clearly does. He knows the score be needs to win; first guy did not.

The argument is whether that information is valuable. People have provided concrete examples where that information would be useful. So, those who still say it isn't are either being obtuse, don't know how to garner information from their opponent going first, or don't know how to use it.

StealthGOBLIN32 · June 20, 2021 8:32PM

It seems that people are trying to prove two different things.

A. It is useful to go second. This is true simply due to having more information to work with (as explained above).

B. People can still do well when going first. This is also true. With a combination of good scouting, knowledge of counters, and a careful strategy; a player can essentially calculate what will get the highest score.

There is no reason to continue to debate this. Everyone is (partially) right.

Ragnarok_COTF · June 20, 2021 8:37PM

I haven't heard anyone saying B isn't true. Some folks, however, are claiming that A is untrue.

StealthGOBLIN32 · June 20, 2021 8:47PM

Ragnarok_COTF wrote: »

I haven't heard anyone saying B isn't true. Some folks, however, are claiming that A is untrue.

Their reasoning for A being false is just reasoning for B being true. That’s why the word partially is there.

Ragnarok_COTF · June 20, 2021 9:20PM

Sounds like I misunderstood you. I took your post to mean that everyone is partially right and therefore also everyone is partially wrong. As I now understand it, you mean everyone is at least partially right. Is that correct?

Waqui · June 20, 2021 10:21PM

StealthGOBLIN32 wrote: »

It seems that people are trying to prove two different things.

A. It is useful to go second. This is true simply due to having more information to work with (as explained above).

B. People can still do well when going first. This is also true. With a combination of good scouting, knowledge of counters, and a careful strategy; a player can essentially calculate what will get the highest score.

There is no reason to continue to debate this. Everyone is (partially) right.

C. Going last doesn't increase your max. potential score. All it does is give you room for slacking and playing a less stressful offense if your opponent registered a low score.

Ragnarok_COTF · June 20, 2021 11:14PM

Waqui wrote: »

StealthGOBLIN32 wrote: »

It seems that people are trying to prove two different things.

A. It is useful to go second. This is true simply due to having more information to work with (as explained above).

B. People can still do well when going first. This is also true. With a combination of good scouting, knowledge of counters, and a careful strategy; a player can essentially calculate what will get the highest score.

There is no reason to continue to debate this. Everyone is (partially) right.

C. Going last doesn't increase your max. potential score. All it does is give you room for slacking and playing a less stressful offense if your opponent registered a low score.

So you agree that the information gained by going second can be advantageous. Seems like you agree with A but want to phrase it differently. Cool

Waqui · June 20, 2021 11:35PM

Ragnarok_COTF wrote: »

Waqui wrote: »

StealthGOBLIN32 wrote: »

It seems that people are trying to prove two different things.

A. It is useful to go second. This is true simply due to having more information to work with (as explained above).

B. People can still do well when going first. This is also true. With a combination of good scouting, knowledge of counters, and a careful strategy; a player can essentially calculate what will get the highest score.

There is no reason to continue to debate this. Everyone is (partially) right.

C. Going last doesn't increase your max. potential score. All it does is give you room for slacking and playing a less stressful offense if your opponent registered a low score.

So you agree that the information gained by going second can be advantageous. Seems like you agree with A but want to phrase it differently. Cool

If you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round then I guess we may agree. Having a less stressful offense could be regarded as "useful", yes.

TVF · June 21, 2021 12:41AM

I like to ask my opponent what they would prefer. It's called being a good friend.

Ragnarok_COTF · June 21, 2021 12:53AM

Waqui wrote: »

Ragnarok_COTF wrote: »

Waqui wrote: »

StealthGOBLIN32 wrote: »

It seems that people are trying to prove two different things.

A. It is useful to go second. This is true simply due to having more information to work with (as explained above).

B. People can still do well when going first. This is also true. With a combination of good scouting, knowledge of counters, and a careful strategy; a player can essentially calculate what will get the highest score.

There is no reason to continue to debate this. Everyone is (partially) right.

C. Going last doesn't increase your max. potential score. All it does is give you room for slacking and playing a less stressful offense if your opponent registered a low score.

So you agree that the information gained by going second can be advantageous. Seems like you agree with A but want to phrase it differently. Cool

If you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round then I guess we may agree. Having a less stressful offense could be regarded as "useful", yes.

Do you really not understand this? Or are you trolling for the lulz?

ImaSmakya · June 21, 2021 1:11AM

If you believe it is an advantage to go last, do so. If you don't, go whenever you want.

On this particular matter why should anyone give a wet fart what anyone else thinks?

Ragnarok_COTF · June 21, 2021 1:20AM

ImaSmakya wrote: »

If you believe it is an advantage to go last, do so. If you don't, go whenever you want.

On this particular matter why should anyone give a wet fart what anyone else thinks?

I find ignorance frustrating. And for some reason, I think people are rational creatures who will change their viewpoint when presented with clear evidence to the contrary. However, my viewpoint that others are rational actors is clearly one I need to change based on the evidence in this thread alone.

Legend91 · June 21, 2021 4:28AM

Q: Hitting last an advantage?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Information advantage.

Gifafi · June 21, 2021 5:18AM

Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.

Waqui · June 21, 2021 6:38AM

Ragnarok_COTF wrote: »

Waqui wrote: »

Ragnarok_COTF wrote: »

Waqui wrote: »

StealthGOBLIN32 wrote: »

It seems that people are trying to prove two different things.

A. It is useful to go second. This is true simply due to having more information to work with (as explained above).

B. People can still do well when going first. This is also true. With a combination of good scouting, knowledge of counters, and a careful strategy; a player can essentially calculate what will get the highest score.

There is no reason to continue to debate this. Everyone is (partially) right.

C. Going last doesn't increase your max. potential score. All it does is give you room for slacking and playing a less stressful offense if your opponent registered a low score.

So you agree that the information gained by going second can be advantageous. Seems like you agree with A but want to phrase it differently. Cool

If you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round then I guess we may agree. Having a less stressful offense could be regarded as "useful", yes.

Do you really not understand this? Or are you trolling for the lulz?

If you have anything useful to add I'll gladly discuss. Your trolling doesn't help anyone.

Winterwolves · June 21, 2021 11:07AM

Gifafi wrote: »

Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.

The fix would be that there is no information about how your opponent has done until the fight is over.

Kyno · June 21, 2021 11:31AM

Gifafi wrote: »

Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.

But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.

RandomSithLord · June 21, 2021 11:48AM

Winterwolves wrote: »

Gifafi wrote: »

Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.

The fix would be that there is no information about how your opponent has done until the fight is over.

That's not a good solution. Sometimes you might need to intentionally drop a battle to complete a feat.

I do want to see how my opponent is doing mid battle and I'm sure many others would agree.

Waqui · June 21, 2021 2:52PM

Winterwolves wrote: »

Gifafi wrote: »

Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.

The fix would be that there is no information about how your opponent has done until the fight is over.

Fix? Fix for what? Whatever you score when going second you could also score when going first.

Hiding your opponent's score would remove the thrill when you both attack at the same time and have an even battle. The most exciting rounds I had were when that happened.

Gifafi · June 21, 2021 3:26PM

Kyno wrote: »

Gifafi wrote: »

Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.

But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.

Anecdotal lol. I mean, I don’t see how it isn’t obvious that more info>>less info, but the fix mentioned above (no info) sounds awful. The fact that people win going first seems irrelevant to the question imo.
Regardless, I just go when I have time.

Rath_Tarr · June 21, 2021 6:01PM

Waqui wrote: »

Hiding your opponent's score would remove the thrill when you both attack at the same time and have an even battle. The most exciting rounds I had were when that happened.

Attacking simultaneously is by far the most fun I have in GAC. I was lucky enough to have one such match this last bracket and even luckier to have a friendly opponent who was up for chatting about it afterwards.

But I just attack whenever I am ready, which is usually before my opponent and most of the time I win (10-12 wins each GAC). If I lose it's because I made too many mistakes and/or my opponent was uncommonly good which is fair enough.

Nikoms565 · June 21, 2021 7:31PM

Kyno wrote: »

Gifafi wrote: »

Seems like it’s clearly a slight advantage, but so what? Not only does it not matter but there’s no fix for the situation.

But players do say they go first always and win (probably not always on the win) and players that go second dont always win. This would seem to mean that any advantage is a "personal preference" rather than any true advantage.

No offense, but that's not even a logical point. All you "proved" above was that going second doesn't always guarantee a win. That doesn't mean that it doesn't provide you any advantage.

I am legitimately surprised at the people in this thread who insist that acting with more information than your opponent is not an actual advantage.

New player? Check out the new player index

GAC advantage

Replies

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links