Now that gac is more important than ever, I believe CG needs to address the competitive advantage to going 2nd.
There is an obvious strategy advantage to knowing how your opponent performed per battle or the overall score you need to beat. It will literally dictate when they should go conservative or have to push for extra banners. This kind of advantage shouldn't be overlooked any further and needs be addressed.
I will almost never get this advantage due to irl scheduling. Gac starts when I am at work and the only time I can truly sit down and out the time in to play is within the first 8 hours. This will almost always never give me the advantage.
The cleanest way to do this is top stop showing the live score and just show the results at the end or rotate the start times to accommodate a global player base.
Also is there a reason you tag a dev in almost every post you make?
I win like 90% of my matches just by full clearing.
I CAN win stuff like JKR mirrors, CLS vs GAS, etc. when down a slot, but it's not 100% consistent like using the full team is.
If I KNOW I need to do those low-mans to win, I will. Also stuff like using Palp/DV against GAS instead of CLS, so CLS can get a solo win against a weaker team or a 2-3-man win against a decent team.
If I KNOW I don't need to do those low-mans, I'll just go with the guaranteed full team wins that aren't at all risky.
That's purely an advantage for going second. Always has been. And it matters a LOT more now that banners don't actually mean anything aside from who wins the individual match, as there's absolutely no reason to do risky plays now that there's zero rewards for doing it unless it's necessary to win.
OP after their attacks
If I know I don't have to underman then why take the risk. Knowing whether or not I need/have to is the advantage.
Also, let's stay on subject and not worry about how I respond in the forums.
As for the argument of running a full team to get a guaranteed win or running -1 person, like the CLS v JKR fight mentioned earlier, I don’t get why you’d want to underman a team you only have a chance at beating down one character. If you lose congrats you just lost CLS’ team, which realistically should be used elsewhere.
“Let’s stay on subject to this post” can be applied to any post made on the forums. Tagging the devs in a lot of your posts doesn’t mean you can magically summon them. So yes this is on topic since it’s being posted here…
Banners still mean a lot. As stated you full clear teams, if your opponent full clears you banners absolutely come into play. So if you can underman you should regardless of going first or second.
What is your lifetime legacy banners?
The advantage is obnoxiously apparent.
Seeing live scoring is closest thing we have to live matchups. That adds real excitement and entertainment value to the game. I love when I log in at just the right moment to see someone attacking me.
If you want a competitive advantage then you can scout your opponent and see what counters and defensive teams they tend to use. You have 24 hours to plan out your defense.
I would prefer to keep the scoring system as is. It’s part of what makes GAC fun, exciting, and frustrating all at the same time.
I couldn't agree with you more about the excitement when it is live. But the reality is it isn't. So why treat it like it is and have the system give an advantage to a players because they happen to live in the right time zone.
Scouting is an option for both players and only an advantage if your opponent chooses not to do so. I will rarely get the option to attack 2nd to receive the advantage.
In my opinion going 2nd is more than a slight advantage. When I see that my opponent has failed 2 or 3 times (or posted a low score), I immediately know I just need to 1 shot all teams to win. Or maybe my opp took 4 attempts to clear exec. My strategy now can be to send in a burner team and easily come in with a counter that has a advantage.
However, if I didn't have that information, I might try to maximize my banners and take risks and lose which in turn could cascade into an overall loss.
The first player assumes all the risk by trying to maximize banners since they don't know their opponents outcome. The second player has that information and can use it in their gameplan, which is the advantage.
If I know I just need to win against geos ,I will 5 man that battle every time and take the win. Why take the unnecessary risk?
Me tagging the devs and why I choose or not choose to do it has nothing to do with the subject of the post. It is a part of my post, but not the subject and one I don't wish to discuss with you.
Because maximizing banners comes with a risk. If I know what my target banner count should be, then I don't need to take the risk. Not having to take the risk is the advantage.
I can solo CLS with SEE, but has also been known to lose occasionally. If I know I only need 62 banners, I will probably bring in wat to be on the safe side and reduce my risk. If I know I need 68 banners for the win, I don't get a choice, I have to bring in SEE and I have to make sure he has full h/p. Having that information is the advantage
I do that so I can set as difficult of a task as I can possible make for them to be able to match or surpass my score. I frequently underman teams I can beat with less 99% of the time, even if a full team gives 100% certainty. With the example of Geos, I don’t know anyone that would want to full team them considering undermanning them is rather straightforward. The risk of undermanning teams is rewarded with extra banners, so it’s nearly always worth it
and on the subject of wasting people's time
Next time if you don't tag them we can avoid all this.
So would you agree that by going first you have given your opponent and extra piece of information in the battle?
I almost always attack first and I have almost 1.1m lifetime banners and never failed to make Kyber.
I continue to attack first and am 5-1 so far, with my 1 loss being vs an opponent with comparable lifetime stats, +1 GL and faster mods. The fact that he attacked second was less significant than those advantages and the fact that he was able to 1-shot both my fleets. Just one fleet hold would have flipped the outcome but even if he had gone first, I would have had a very hard time picking up more banners from under-squadding due to his mod speed advantage.
If you really wanted to do good in GAC you'd be willing to move or get a different job. GAC takes effort!
Next time if you stop trolling, you could actually contribute something meaningful to the subject.
This is useless to the subject I would like to discuss. If you want to start a new post about whether or not we should tag devs or CG employees or not, then we can certainly have this conversation there.
If you're talking about the 10 banners for the first attack you're completely misunderstanding how that works. EVERYONE gets 10 banners from their first attack in a GAC round, not just the player who actually attacked first
My point is knowing that information is an advantage and could be a difference maker. Its not the only deciding factor. I am not going to beat a 6 GL opponent because they went first. But in a battle where it is close, and where the stakes are higher now (CC income), I would think they would want to eliminate any/all advantages.
I hate to admit it, but even I has a good laugh at this. I am sure CG shares your sentiment of how committed we should be as players.
The only piece of information I’d be giving them is that if they don’t attack they will lose. If they win by banners it’s down to efficiency with banners, and if I had better efficiency then I win. The reason it’s purely down to efficiency? I always take the risk to underman where I can
lol…thanks for clarifying that, i totally misunderstood that. Now i got it why they did it this way
Let’s say you can solo for 65 banners (50% win rate) or take a full team for 60 banners (100% win rate) - if you attack first, what do you do?
Let’s say your opponent attacked first and you know all you need is 59 to win.
High end grand arena often ends like this.