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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
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?
Yes, I believe that everyone is partially right and also partially misunderstanding the other points.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
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.
But there are players who do not care or use this information and win, hence "personal preference", some like a "security blanket", but as always, knowing you only need a X point average, doesnt actually make it easier to score that in the battle, and in some cases knowing this information wont even give you any alternative moves.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
[...] Having a less stressful offense could be regarded as "useful", yes.
Knowing that you have room for slack and that you don't need to stress and put in a large amount of time to win can be regarded as useful, yes, but by the end of the day:
What banners you score by going second you can score as well by going first.
What banners you score by going second you can score as well by going first.
True, if you always do the same attacks no matter what. But if I can see that my opponent has outscored what I would usually do, then I can take risks for extra banners.
No point in doing all my usual fights that is guaranteed to lose the match. So I take one or two less ships in that takes away redundancy. I split a guaranteed win squad off into two risky but higher banner fights.
I use the information of exactly how well the opponent has done to know what risks I need to take.
It is an advantage to go second. Which makes it an advantage to live in certain time zones. All results should be concealed until it is over.
If you think there is no advantage to going second, concealed results would make no difference to you.
What banners you score by going second you can score as well by going first.
True, if you always do the same attacks no matter what. But if I can see that my opponent has outscored what I would usually do, then I can take risks for extra banners.
No point in doing all my usual fights that is guaranteed to lose the match. So I take one or two less ships in that takes away redundancy. I split a guaranteed win squad off into two risky but higher banner fights.
OK, so by default you're not aiming at your best possible score but only do so if your opponent scores a high score. Other players aim at their best possible score by default but then allow themselves to slack a bit if their opponent scores a low score. I believe that's the reason for our differences of opinion.
(I assume we're discussing even match-up).
If you think there is no advantage to going second, concealed results would make no difference to you.
Concealing results would make a difference for me but for a completely different reason that has nothing to do with advantages/disadvantages (see my previous comment regarding this).
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
You seem stuck on the idea that" scoring the most you can" = "winning the match". The two are not the same.
But if you insist on either not reading what anyone is actually typing or intentionally misrepresenting it, so you can strawman, we can be done.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion(check the quotes):
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
You and I are in the same division and have relatively similar GP (5.6 vs 5.85m) but rather different roster compositions and GAC performance profiles.
How much of that GAC performance difference would you ascribe to the advantage of going second vs say roster composition or strategy, given that as I stated (and illustrated) previously I have a tendency to move before my opponents and I win most of my matches?
If going second is really such a big deal then shouldn't I be losing more than 0-2 matches per GAC? (The most I have ever lost is 3 and that has only happened twice in the history of GAC, one of which was the full demo GAC)
Totally dependant on the opponent(s) you're facing and the type or roster that you have (built for MM exploiting vs well balanced roster for ALL game modes). If you have a roster that's leaning more towards MM exploiting and you get a low skilled opponent it's gonna be an easy win and you can pretty much do whatever you want and still win the match, going second is not gonna be a big deal. However if you go up against an opponent that has a similar type of roster and is equally or even more skilled it's most likely gonna be a close match and might come down to only a few banners in efficiency.
We need to see this in a vacuum where roster and skill level of the players are not taken into consideration. No chess player would argue that going first with white is not an advantage (on high level it's common to "play for the win with white" and "play for a draw with black") unless the ELO of both players clearly distinguish and the higher ELO player will play for a win with black because he knows that he's more skilled and can easily pull it off.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
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.
It might not increase the max. potential score, but it definitely makes it easier to reach that score, which means better efficiency. Let me show you a simplified example:
Let's say my opponent has a SEE. I have an SLKR and JML. I set my JML on defense. My opponent has a GG team in his front wall. Now let's just say I attack first. A GG team up front just invites me to use my SLKR to solo that GG team for high banners. But how am I supposed to know if I am allowed to use it here? What if I use it here, and then their SEE is in the back that I now can't beat because I used up my SLKR (assuming I don't have any other counters). Now if I let my opponent attack first, I can see if they oneshot my JML team. If they do, there is a very high chance that there is no SEE in the back wall as they likely used it to counter my JML. Having that information I can now safely use my SLKR against their GG for almost max banners, and don't have to worry about their back wall. Obviously this is (as I mentioned above) a simplified example. But it is a pretty common scenario nontheless. Based on your previous arguments, I'd have to play a guessing game if I decided to go first. That can easily backfire as I explained above, because you lack the information that you'd otherwise have if you went second. Do you not see how this is an actual advantage?
Now I'm just curious. How would YOU act in that scenario, if you were in that situation and attacked first. Would you use the SLKR vs that GG? Would you use something subpar and keep him for a potential SEE in the back? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
You and I are in the same division and have relatively similar GP (5.6 vs 5.85m) but rather different roster compositions and GAC performance profiles.
How much of that GAC performance difference would you ascribe to the advantage of going second vs say roster composition or strategy, given that as I stated (and illustrated) previously I have a tendency to move before my opponents and I win most of my matches?
If going second is really such a big deal then shouldn't I be losing more than 0-2 matches per GAC? (The most I have ever lost is 3 and that has only happened twice in the history of GAC, one of which was the full demo GAC)
Just to be clear, I never said it was "such a big deal". I often attack first and win. But it is an advanatage to have more information.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion(check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
So you agree that going second gives an advantage? Great!
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
But there are players who do not care or use this information and win, hence "personal preference", some like a "security blanket",...
Sure, but then having more GLs than your opponent is also a "personal preference", as some players decide not to use this advantage ?!?
Because of timezone, I can never enforce going second, as this means playing at 5am. And it has proven to be a material disadvantage for me, in rare (but very frustrating) occasions. Like for instance having to make a blind choice between completing a silly feat or winning the round.
One fix would be 36h rounds, where I would be given the opportunity to go second (if I wish) every second battle.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion(check the quotes):
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.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree with you. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
You and I are in the same division and have relatively similar GP (5.6 vs 5.85m) but rather different roster compositions and GAC performance profiles.
How much of that GAC performance difference would you ascribe to the advantage of going second vs say roster composition or strategy, given that as I stated (and illustrated) previously I have a tendency to move before my opponents and I win most of my matches?
If going second is really such a big deal then shouldn't I be losing more than 0-2 matches per GAC? (The most I have ever lost is 3 and that has only happened twice in the history of GAC, one of which was the full demo GAC)
I’m not going to argue that going second is such a huge advantage that it increases someone’s chance of winning by a ton. I certainly don’t aim to go second, I just attack whenever I have time. I also don’t care about winning GAC as some people. But anyone using the arguments of “going second doesn’t increase your potential banner score” or “going second doesn’t guarantee a win” to say that going second never gives an advantage, is just being illogical. Because A: increasing potential banner score is not the same as winning, and B: not winning every time is not an indication that an advantage does not exist
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
It actually can, there are corner situations where you can do the math and figure what you need. Like you may need a 68 on fleet for your last fight to win, in which case you plan accordingly and don't bring reinforcements.
If you went first you'd likely bring at least a couple reinforcements, hence your max banners would be lower.
But I don't know why I am posting, you are clearly set on arguing with facts.
I am probably making a serious mistake stepping into this discussion, but here goes. First of all, I think it's obvious that going second provides more information and, therefore, an advantage. Whether or not that advantage is actually enough to affect the outcome of a match is impossible to say, however, until the match actually occurs. There are too many variables to predict beforehand whether waiting will help win or not. So, it's an advantage, just not necessarily a decisive one.
Having said that, I submit that there is can also be an advantage to going first. Personally, I generally attack immediately upon a round going "live". It just works for my schedule, and, to be honest, I'm just not very patient. I like to get it done. One thing I've noticed while doing this is that, if I go first and manage a quality full clear, it seems to frequently demoralize my opponent. I say this because what often occurs, is that I'll full clear and my opponent never attacks at all; even in situations where my opponent's defense obviously indicates that he/she saved a significant amount of offensive potential. Of course, if this was a rare event, it could simply be that my opponent had to deal with real life issues and simply didn't have the time; and I'm sure that explains a certain percentage of such occurences. The thing is, it happens much more frequently than seems likely for that reason to explain all of the times this has happened. Perhaps I'm wrong about this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. I am curious if anyone else has ever noticed this.
To be clear, this was not a weak opponent. He has 834k lifetime score to my 859k, his roster is comparable to mine including my least desirable combination of opponent GLs and his sub-GL modded speeds are superior to mine. He was in fact my worst nightmare coming into the final GA 9-0 with a shot at top 50.
He did not lose on roster management but on strategy and execution. Did going second give him an advantage? Possibly but not enough to overcome his strategic mistakes and it may well have contributed to him dropping a battle on a fairly run of the mill filler squad which cost him the win before he even got to my fleets.
None of this is meant to disparage my opponent who still cleared my defense and posted a respectable score but to make the point that I won by out thinking and out-playing my opponent rather than by going second.
If moving after your opponent is your only hope of victory then you should be looking elsewhere to see how you ended up in such a disadvantageous position.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
It actually can, there are corner situations where you can do the math and figure what you need. Like you may need a 68 on fleet for your last fight to win, in which case you plan accordingly and don't bring reinforcements.
You could do the same when going first. If you succeed when going second you can succeed when going first as well.
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
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.
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion, yet you felt the need to discuss instead of simply agreeing with it (check the quotes):
[...]
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
Replies
You can't use that information to increase your own best potential banner score. All it tells you is how much you can slack while still winning.
Yes, I believe that everyone is partially right and also partially misunderstanding the other points.
Which is an advantage....which is the entire point.
To win a round, I don't have to score my "best potential banner score" - I just have to outscore my opponent. Attempting to do the former might involve more risk than the latter. But I can only know the difference, if I act with that information.
Just curious - do those denying that having information is an advantage ever look at swgoh.gg to see what your opponent does on defense or struggles with on offense?
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
But there are players who do not care or use this information and win, hence "personal preference", some like a "security blanket", but as always, knowing you only need a X point average, doesnt actually make it easier to score that in the battle, and in some cases knowing this information wont even give you any alternative moves.
So, you agree that going second doesn't increase you score and hence doesn't help you win the round. Very well, then.
As written previously in this discussion:
Knowing that you have room for slack and that you don't need to stress and put in a large amount of time to win can be regarded as useful, yes, but by the end of the day:
What banners you score by going second you can score as well by going first.
True, if you always do the same attacks no matter what. But if I can see that my opponent has outscored what I would usually do, then I can take risks for extra banners.
No point in doing all my usual fights that is guaranteed to lose the match. So I take one or two less ships in that takes away redundancy. I split a guaranteed win squad off into two risky but higher banner fights.
I use the information of exactly how well the opponent has done to know what risks I need to take.
It is an advantage to go second. Which makes it an advantage to live in certain time zones. All results should be concealed until it is over.
If you think there is no advantage to going second, concealed results would make no difference to you.
OK, so by default you're not aiming at your best possible score but only do so if your opponent scores a high score. Other players aim at their best possible score by default but then allow themselves to slack a bit if their opponent scores a low score. I believe that's the reason for our differences of opinion.
(I assume we're discussing even match-up).
Concealing results would make a difference for me but for a completely different reason that has nothing to do with advantages/disadvantages (see my previous comment regarding this).
Reading is a skill. You should try it. No one ever said going second "increases your score". Going second can provide the knowledge that you can do just the opposite - that is, score less than your "best potential banner count - and still win the match. That knowledge is an advantage.
You seem stuck on the idea that" scoring the most you can" = "winning the match". The two are not the same.
But if you insist on either not reading what anyone is actually typing or intentionally misrepresenting it, so you can strawman, we can be done.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
So, you actually agree with my original claim in our discussion(check the quotes):
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
That still doesn't address the fact that increasing your best potential banner count isn't the same thing as winning. We don't need to score the most we can possibly score to win. We just need to score more than our opponent does. Whether or not going second increases your potential banner count (I don't think anyone would argue that it does) is frankly a very poor indication of whether or not someone has an advantage.
How much of that GAC performance difference would you ascribe to the advantage of going second vs say roster composition or strategy, given that as I stated (and illustrated) previously I have a tendency to move before my opponents and I win most of my matches?
If going second is really such a big deal then shouldn't I be losing more than 0-2 matches per GAC? (The most I have ever lost is 3 and that has only happened twice in the history of GAC, one of which was the full demo GAC)
We need to see this in a vacuum where roster and skill level of the players are not taken into consideration. No chess player would argue that going first with white is not an advantage (on high level it's common to "play for the win with white" and "play for a draw with black") unless the ELO of both players clearly distinguish and the higher ELO player will play for a win with black because he knows that he's more skilled and can easily pull it off.
So, you also agree:
Great! :-)
It might not increase the max. potential score, but it definitely makes it easier to reach that score, which means better efficiency. Let me show you a simplified example:
Let's say my opponent has a SEE. I have an SLKR and JML. I set my JML on defense. My opponent has a GG team in his front wall. Now let's just say I attack first. A GG team up front just invites me to use my SLKR to solo that GG team for high banners. But how am I supposed to know if I am allowed to use it here? What if I use it here, and then their SEE is in the back that I now can't beat because I used up my SLKR (assuming I don't have any other counters). Now if I let my opponent attack first, I can see if they oneshot my JML team. If they do, there is a very high chance that there is no SEE in the back wall as they likely used it to counter my JML. Having that information I can now safely use my SLKR against their GG for almost max banners, and don't have to worry about their back wall. Obviously this is (as I mentioned above) a simplified example. But it is a pretty common scenario nontheless. Based on your previous arguments, I'd have to play a guessing game if I decided to go first. That can easily backfire as I explained above, because you lack the information that you'd otherwise have if you went second. Do you not see how this is an actual advantage?
Now I'm just curious. How would YOU act in that scenario, if you were in that situation and attacked first. Would you use the SLKR vs that GG? Would you use something subpar and keep him for a potential SEE in the back? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Just to be clear, I never said it was "such a big deal". I often attack first and win. But it is an advanatage to have more information.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
So you agree that going second gives an advantage? Great!
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Sure, but then having more GLs than your opponent is also a "personal preference", as some players decide not to use this advantage ?!?
Because of timezone, I can never enforce going second, as this means playing at 5am. And it has proven to be a material disadvantage for me, in rare (but very frustrating) occasions. Like for instance having to make a blind choice between completing a silly feat or winning the round.
One fix would be 36h rounds, where I would be given the opportunity to go second (if I wish) every second battle.
Did you read this? Did you understand it?:
Yes, reading is a skill. I agree with you. So is understanding what you read. You should try it sometimes.
I’m not going to argue that going second is such a huge advantage that it increases someone’s chance of winning by a ton. I certainly don’t aim to go second, I just attack whenever I have time. I also don’t care about winning GAC as some people. But anyone using the arguments of “going second doesn’t increase your potential banner score” or “going second doesn’t guarantee a win” to say that going second never gives an advantage, is just being illogical. Because A: increasing potential banner score is not the same as winning, and B: not winning every time is not an indication that an advantage does not exist
So, you agree that going second doesn't help you win the round. Great! :-)
Yes, you may play your offense with less stress and pressure if you know beforehand that you can slack and still win. You may even choose to drop banners to complete some feats. But still: It doesn't help you win the round.
I literally already said that increasing your potential banner score doesn't equal winning. But you do you. Keep going off beating that strawman to death
It actually can, there are corner situations where you can do the math and figure what you need. Like you may need a 68 on fleet for your last fight to win, in which case you plan accordingly and don't bring reinforcements.
If you went first you'd likely bring at least a couple reinforcements, hence your max banners would be lower.
But I don't know why I am posting, you are clearly set on arguing with facts.
Oh you have cable too then
Having said that, I submit that there is can also be an advantage to going first. Personally, I generally attack immediately upon a round going "live". It just works for my schedule, and, to be honest, I'm just not very patient. I like to get it done. One thing I've noticed while doing this is that, if I go first and manage a quality full clear, it seems to frequently demoralize my opponent. I say this because what often occurs, is that I'll full clear and my opponent never attacks at all; even in situations where my opponent's defense obviously indicates that he/she saved a significant amount of offensive potential. Of course, if this was a rare event, it could simply be that my opponent had to deal with real life issues and simply didn't have the time; and I'm sure that explains a certain percentage of such occurences. The thing is, it happens much more frequently than seems likely for that reason to explain all of the times this has happened. Perhaps I'm wrong about this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. I am curious if anyone else has ever noticed this.
To be clear, this was not a weak opponent. He has 834k lifetime score to my 859k, his roster is comparable to mine including my least desirable combination of opponent GLs and his sub-GL modded speeds are superior to mine. He was in fact my worst nightmare coming into the final GA 9-0 with a shot at top 50.
He did not lose on roster management but on strategy and execution. Did going second give him an advantage? Possibly but not enough to overcome his strategic mistakes and it may well have contributed to him dropping a battle on a fairly run of the mill filler squad which cost him the win before he even got to my fleets.
None of this is meant to disparage my opponent who still cleared my defense and posted a respectable score but to make the point that I won by out thinking and out-playing my opponent rather than by going second.
If moving after your opponent is your only hope of victory then you should be looking elsewhere to see how you ended up in such a disadvantageous position.
You could do the same when going first. If you succeed when going second you can succeed when going first as well.
True, you did. What's your point? Did anyone argue with that part?
Your argument was that going second isn't an advantage because it doesn't help you win by increasing your max potential banner count. Or did you forget that?
So yea someone did disagree with that part. That someone was you.