GaC time advantage....

Replies

  • marxuke wrote: »
    10 banners mean a LOT. I dont understand why did they put this nonsense in the game. Some have to wake up in the middle of the night to get that advantage? Great thinking, CG!

    Umm...

    Anyone corrected this yet?

  • Yes, ok then
  • To OP, CG doesn't care. They have said, via Kyno, they won't change this because of spurious reasoning.

    This discussion has been had. Some folks insist there is no advantage to going 2nd. They should have no issue with this change but insist on telling us they have no idea how to use the information that can be obtained by going 2nd.
  • Salatious_Scrum
    1474 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    If I believe I can underman a team I will. If I lose, I learn for next time. It’s honestly really straightforward
  • To OP, CG doesn't care. They have said, via Kyno, they won't change this because of spurious reasoning.

    This discussion has been had. Some folks insist there is no advantage to going 2nd. They should have no issue with this change but insist on telling us they have no idea how to use the information that can be obtained by going 2nd.

    Yeah that is the sad part about CG, but didn't know this was discussed before (otherwise I would not have posted). I will be happy to walk away from this one, as it's just going to lead to the two sides doing what people on forums do. Try to get the other side to see it their way in an endless loop of examples.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    To OP, CG doesn't care. They have said, via Kyno, they won't change this because of spurious reasoning.

    This discussion has been had. Some folks insist there is no advantage to going 2nd. They should have no issue with this change but insist on telling us they have no idea how to use the information that can be obtained by going 2nd.

    Yeah that is the sad part about CG, but didn't know this was discussed before (otherwise I would not have posted). I will be happy to walk away from this one, as it's just going to lead to the two sides doing what people on forums do. Try to get the other side to see it their way in an endless loop of examples.

    It's buried in the Q&A comments thread. Wouldn't blame you for not seeing it
  • If I believe I can underman a team I will. If I lose, I learn for next time. It’s honestly really straightforward

    Play as you want. I play for the best odds of winning and will use any/all the information as I can.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    To OP, CG doesn't care. They have said, via Kyno, they won't change this because of spurious reasoning.

    This discussion has been had. Some folks insist there is no advantage to going 2nd. They should have no issue with this change but insist on telling us they have no idea how to use the information that can be obtained by going 2nd.

    Yeah that is the sad part about CG, but didn't know this was discussed before (otherwise I would not have posted). I will be happy to walk away from this one, as it's just going to lead to the two sides doing what people on forums do. Try to get the other side to see it their way in an endless loop of examples.

    It's buried in the Q&A comments thread. Wouldn't blame you for not seeing it

    I respect your diligence for sticking through all of that to know its there. I think I lost interest after page 6 or something.
  • If you won’t learn which teams you can under-man, that’s on you. So if we ever get matched up you’ll know I’ll be doing my best to underman your defensive teams. See you on the Holotables!
  • If you won’t learn which teams you can under-man, that’s on you. So if we ever get matched up you’ll know I’ll be doing my best to underman your defensive teams. See you on the Holotables!

    appreciate the info! ;) and good luck to you.
  • Phaedon
    35 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    I agree with this but also do enjoy seeing my opponents progress.

    GAC ends near the end of my work day so I can almost never attack last. This gives my opponent the advantage as they have more information about the matchup when attacking than I did.

    While I don’t think they should rotate times these happen (let’s face it CG would screw that up), and I don’t really want them to hide on-going scores; something should be done. Maybe 20 banners to the one who full clears first. One person gets extra banners for clearing first and the other gets an advantage of knowing what they need to do since their opponent is already done.
  • Awarding extra banners for the one to full clear first is by far one the worst ideas I’ve seen on the forums in awhile. Are you trying to punish people that have real life responsibilities (job, family, chores, etc.)?

    There are people who aim to full clear that’ll do it the moment GAC opens for attack.

    And yet the people that can’t attack last are already being “punished” by the other player being able to see their score. It goes both ways at least with this.

  • Seeing what your opponent has scored is not a punishment… nor is attacking first.
  • Salatious_Scrum
    1474 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    So I’ll use my GAC round as an example. I scored 1564 points on a full clear under-manning every team my opponent set. If I get the additional 20 points @Phaedon proposes for the first one to full clear, I would have a total of 1584.

    My opponent has to 1) full clear 2) do so on the first try 3) under-man every single team I set on Defense. My advantage is I get to sit back now to see what my opponent can do. Now I ask, what advantage does my opponent have since they can now see my score? Pressure of having to match efficiency? Being able to see a score is one thing, having the ability to do something about it is another.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Hey if you want to waste everyone's time (including the devs) by tagging them all the time, we can't stop you I guess.

    cute

    And accurate!

    and on the subject of wasting people's time

    Please stay on topic, thanks
  • What's your swgoh.gg @Salatious_Scrum ?
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • CG explained already that the data don’t show an advantage going second (even if it could be seen as one on paper i might add). The main issue is imo: change something trying to balance what does not appear to be a problem and you may give an advantage to players going first.
    As a french guy once wrote quoting an italian dude: ‘the best is the enemy of the good’.
  • I mean thats some nice aurodium stuff there with 6 opponents out of which only 1 even put up any fight at all and most of them not even attacking at all.

    Kyber league is very different and very competetive. It often times comes down to only a few banners.
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • I’m fine with losing by a few banners if it means it was down to efficiency. Which in no way should be attributed to the so-called advantage of being the last to attack. Just strive to get the max banners you possibly can, even if you take a risk. You don’t learn how to underman squads by not taking the risk of an occasional loss.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    edited December 2021
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    In regards to undermanning, if you take the risk you can get rewarded with extra banners. If you don’t you won’t get extra banners. Take Geonosians as an example. It’s an easy team to under-man by using Darth Vader and possible a second character like Thrawn. Can you run a full team to positively nuke them? Sure, same as you being able to just take those 2 and doing the same. Then there are teams where under-manning is a ridiculous proposition, like if someone places JMK w CAT on defense.

    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…

    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?
    If you are forced to take unnecessary risks in order to win then you are losing at the roster &/or match strategy level.

    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.

    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.

    If you go first and score high you can put pressure on your opponent. That has been proven by one of the youtubers in a stream of his round. He tried to prove that going second was an advantage for him but all he proved was that he was clearly under pressure as he talked a lot of nonsense while trying to figure out how many banners he needed in his final fleet battle. He ended up miscalculating, went in more undersized than needed and almost lost. If he hadn't been under pressure he probably wouldn't have miscalculated (it's a quite simple calculation) and would probably not have tried to undersize by that much and he would have had a more comfortable win.

    Going first can be an advantage too.

    My best advice is to just attack whenever you have the time for it, do your best, and if you lose improve your roster.
  • I’m fine with losing by a few banners if it means it was down to efficiency. Which in no way should be attributed to the so-called advantage of being the last to attack. Just strive to get the max banners you possibly can, even if you take a risk. You don’t learn how to underman squads by not taking the risk of an occasional loss.

    This is the kind of stuff that scares me. I hate going second against this strategy. Very well done, I think.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Phaedon wrote: »
    [...] Maybe 20 banners to the one who full clears first. One person gets extra banners for clearing first and the other gets an advantage of knowing what they need to do since their opponent is already done.

    That's a "NO!" from me. I've had some close matches with less than 20 banners difference but when going second I've never put up a score that I wouldn't have been able to score as well by going first.

    I've had less stressful attacks when going second, yes, but that's a different thing. It was never the deciding factor for the win.

  • Waqui wrote: »
    Phaedon wrote: »
    [...] Maybe 20 banners to the one who full clears first. One person gets extra banners for clearing first and the other gets an advantage of knowing what they need to do since their opponent is already done.

    That's a "NO!" from me. I've had some close matches with less than 20 banners difference but when going second I've never put up a score that I wouldn't have been able to score as well by going first.

    I've had less stressful attacks when going second, yes, but that's a different thing. It was never the deciding factor for the win.

    Never? That's amazing. Even with the complete broken mess of the old GAC, I had matches I won because I went 2nd, and I attacked first 90% of the time.

    Look, it's fine that there are folks out there that don't mind going first. That doesn't change the fact that the person going 2nd has information that the person going 1st did not. This is not disputable; it's a matter of fact. It won't always matter, usually won't be enough to decide things. But with new MM trending us towards closer matches, that slight edge could be meaningful to your final SR (though not likely your overall win rate and income).
  • … or you could just learn which teams your teams are capable of undermanning while also still leaving defensive teams designed to steal banners or force the opponents to use full teams against them.

    Why are people so afraid of undermanning? Underman where you can, and if you can’t, then bring in a full team. Try to focus more on maximizing your own banners and learn from any stumbles you may make instead of focusing so much on the opponent.
  • … or you could just learn which teams your teams are capable of undermanning while also still leaving defensive teams designed to steal banners or force the opponents to use full teams against them.

    Why are people so afraid of undermanning? Underman where you can, and if you can’t, then bring in a full team. Try to focus more on maximizing your own banners and learn from any stumbles you may make instead of focusing so much on the opponent.

    It's not that people are afraid of undermanning.

    It's that if you go first and underman and you screw up, I now know that I don't even need to bother undermanning myself. I don't need to risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I can play it safe. If it's safe to underman, I'll do it anyway for practice, but if it's an 90% shot which I can make 100% with an extra character that would otherwise sit on the bench, then why risk it?

    If I've seen that they've taken a few attempts at my Executor and failed, and subsequently did poorly against my second fleet because they tried to deal with Executor first, then I know that I don't even need to attempt their Executor if they have one of defense. I can deal with their other weaker fleet first, secure the win, and then maybe poke their Executor for some 5 minutes of pride.

    I don't need maximum banners to win. I only need more than you.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    In regards to undermanning, if you take the risk you can get rewarded with extra banners. If you don’t you won’t get extra banners. Take Geonosians as an example. It’s an easy team to under-man by using Darth Vader and possible a second character like Thrawn. Can you run a full team to positively nuke them? Sure, same as you being able to just take those 2 and doing the same. Then there are teams where under-manning is a ridiculous proposition, like if someone places JMK w CAT on defense.

    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…

    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?
    If you are forced to take unnecessary risks in order to win then you are losing at the roster &/or match strategy level.

    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.

    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.

    If you go first and score high you can put pressure on your opponent. That has been proven by one of the youtubers in a stream of his round. He tried to prove that going second was an advantage for him but all he proved was that he was clearly under pressure as he talked a lot of nonsense while trying to figure out how many banners he needed in his final fleet battle. He ended up miscalculating, went in more undersized than needed and almost lost. If he hadn't been under pressure he probably wouldn't have miscalculated (it's a quite simple calculation) and would probably not have tried to undersize by that much and he would have had a more comfortable win.

    Going first can be an advantage too.

    My best advice is to just attack whenever you have the time for it, do your best, and if you lose improve your roster.

    Going first has zero advantage.

    Almost every youtuber gac round I have watched (even in your example), the first thing they do is assess how their opponent played and what type of risk they can afford to take. Not to mention the ability to assess how many gls you placed based on how well you did.

    All your example proves is the youtuber you watched cant handle pressure and is not a very good player. By your own admission he was talking nonsense and miscalculating and yet still won.

    If a player is so bad they can't take advantage of the information, that doesn't categorically mean there is no advantage.
Sign In or Register to comment.