GaC time advantage....

Replies

  • NicWester wrote: »
    I'll never understand how people don't realize that going second is an advantage.

    No, we realize it, we just don't care because it's not enough of an advantage to get worked up over.

    Let me put it to you another way--if you want to get totally jacked and ripped just stop eating carbohydrates. There is an advantage to looking like that. But we all of us don't do it because we prefer pasta.

    Maybe that's your take, but there are plenty here who have said that going 1st is an advantage.

    I agree it's not worth getting too worked up over unless you are one of the top 100 or so players in the game gunning for those bragging rights.

    That said, CG's response suggests they don't actually play the game at a high level. And the ease of making this change suggests they just don't care. If this were the only way CG were dismissive of their player base, it'd be a blip. Instead, it's just another log on the pile.

    You know, some people like it this way.
    Its not like 100% of players want something and CG refuses to do it. Thats just not true.

    I personally like the excitement on seeing how my opponent progresses. And not to alter my strategy, but simply its just fun for me to see how my teams defend my zone.
    Hiding progress would remove this experience.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    I'll never understand how people don't realize that going second is an advantage.

    No, we realize it, we just don't care because it's not enough of an advantage to get worked up over.

    Let me put it to you another way--if you want to get totally jacked and ripped just stop eating carbohydrates. There is an advantage to looking like that. But we all of us don't do it because we prefer pasta.

    Maybe that's your take, but there are plenty here who have said that going 1st is an advantage.

    I agree it's not worth getting too worked up over unless you are one of the top 100 or so players in the game gunning for those bragging rights.

    That said, CG's response suggests they don't actually play the game at a high level. And the ease of making this change suggests they just don't care. If this were the only way CG were dismissive of their player base, it'd be a blip. Instead, it's just another log on the pile.

    You know, some people like it this way.
    Its not like 100% of players want something and CG refuses to do it. Thats just not true.

    I personally like the excitement on seeing how my opponent progresses. And not to alter my strategy, but simply its just fun for me to see how my teams defend my zone.
    Hiding progress would remove this experience.

    so if you see you opponents final score and you need to underman your final battle to win, you wouldn't underman the battle?
  • NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I'll never understand how people don't realize that going second is an advantage.

    No, we realize it, we just don't care because it's not enough of an advantage to get worked up over.

    Let me put it to you another way--if you want to get totally jacked and ripped just stop eating carbohydrates. There is an advantage to looking like that. But we all of us don't do it because we prefer pasta.

    Maybe that's your take, but there are plenty here who have said that going 1st is an advantage.

    If going first is an advantage and going second is an advantage then maybe there isn't anything that needs to be fixed.

    Going first doesn't offer an advantage. it only shows Player 2 the score of Player 1.

    In the 'put the pressure on them' scenario: Player 1 puts up an amazing score with many undermans.

    had player 2 gone first with no pressure of seeing the first person score, it's highly unlikely they underman anything uncomfortable. So the person sets up a modest score. Player 1 (now going second) still plays the exact same way and will still beat them. The outcome is the same. i.e. no advantage.
  • TVF
    31655 posts Member
    4 pages yay, can we get to 5?
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of the change to the shipment tab. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • NicWester wrote: »
    I'll never understand how people don't realize that going second is an advantage.

    No, we realize it, we just don't care because it's not enough of an advantage to get worked up over.

    Let me put it to you another way--if you want to get totally jacked and ripped just stop eating carbohydrates. There is an advantage to looking like that. But we all of us don't do it because we prefer pasta.

    Maybe that's your take, but there are plenty here who have said that going 1st is an advantage.

    I agree it's not worth getting too worked up over unless you are one of the top 100 or so players in the game gunning for those bragging rights.

    Yeah. Going second IS and advantage, but it's really not worth getting too worked up over as you said. I'd argue that most games (probably like 80% of them) are not decided by who went first/second. There are too many other, way more important factors that decide the outcome of a match. In some games it can and will make a difference, but it's not a good enough reason to change anything about the current format. They should just keep it as it is, it's as fair as it realistically gets.
  • TVF wrote: »
    4 pages yay, can we get to 5?

    Let's get it to 10!
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I'll never understand how people don't realize that going second is an advantage.

    No, we realize it, we just don't care because it's not enough of an advantage to get worked up over.

    Let me put it to you another way--if you want to get totally jacked and ripped just stop eating carbohydrates. There is an advantage to looking like that. But we all of us don't do it because we prefer pasta.

    Maybe that's your take, but there are plenty here who have said that going 1st is an advantage.

    I agree it's not worth getting too worked up over unless you are one of the top 100 or so players in the game gunning for those bragging rights.

    That said, CG's response suggests they don't actually play the game at a high level. And the ease of making this change suggests they just don't care. If this were the only way CG were dismissive of their player base, it'd be a blip. Instead, it's just another log on the pile.

    You know, some people like it this way.
    Its not like 100% of players want something and CG refuses to do it. Thats just not true.

    I personally like the excitement on seeing how my opponent progresses. And not to alter my strategy, but simply its just fun for me to see how my teams defend my zone.
    Hiding progress would remove this experience.

    so if you see you opponents final score and you need to underman your final battle to win, you wouldn't underman the battle?

    Oh, certainly, but then again my last battles are nearly always fleet battles and I go in with undersized fleets anyway. So if your question is would I go in with an undersized squad then the answer is yes, but if your question is would I change the way I play then the answer is no.

    Largely the answer is no because if you're saving all your attacks for the last hour or so, then you have to run the numbers and do all the math with all 13 attacks you make. If you're not running those numbers to ensure that you'll need to undersize the last battle, then you're not actually getting a real advantage by going second, just the perception of one because at the end of the thing you know you need something.

    But who wants to use undersized teams? Just play to the best of your ability, go first, get the highest score you can, and then you're the one forcing them to use undersized teams. I'd say being the one that forces the other player into using suboptimal compositions is the one with the bigger advantage. It would be like if in hockey you say that the team who goes on the penalty kill has an advantage because they're down a player.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • TVF wrote: »
    4 pages yay, can we get to 5?

    Let's get it to 10!

    11 or we riot.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • TVF
    31655 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    But who wants to use undersized teams? Just play to the best of your ability, go first, get the highest score you can, and then you're the one forcing them to use undersized teams.

    I know what you are trying to say here, but using undersized teams *correctly* will literally get you the highest score you can.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of the change to the shipment tab. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    But who wants to use undersized teams? Just play to the best of your ability, go first, get the highest score you can, and then you're the one forcing them to use undersized teams.

    I know what you are trying to say here, but using undersized teams *correctly* will literally get you the highest score you can.

    Yeah. I didn't say it exactly, syntactically right. But you know what I mean.

    For the record, I often use undersized teams when attacking first because I know I only need four Resistance characters, for example, to beat Bossk on defense, and I only need four Sith Empire, and so on.

    Unless a GAC attack round is on a weekend, my method of play is to do a handful of attacks when I get off work, a couple more in the morning before work, then finish on lunch--3 hours before the end of the round. This means that I'm fitting the game into my life rather than planning my life around the game, you know what I mean? If my opponent gets a mathmatically higher score than I can reasonably get, I just stop and move on with my day.

    There's some interesting tactical stuff that happens because of this, but that's not relevant since we're talking about whether going last is better than first.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Time to repeat CG’s argument, which is pretty solid:
    data don’t show an advantage for playing last.
  • Some of the people going last do so because they put attacking off and don't care for the mode. Those people typically aren't scouting heavily and looking at GAC histories. Some of them just set the same teams on defense. Any advantage in cases like that is completely offset. The only time there might be an advantage is when there are two sweatlords going at it but like many have mentioned it can be a double edged sword going second particularly at high levels where an undersize/risk could bite you more easily.
  • Starslayer wrote: »
    Time to repeat CG’s argument, which is pretty solid:
    data don’t show an advantage for playing last.

    Data can be misleading. Take American Football. A lot of old school pundits insist teams need to "establish the run" because data shows teams that run more win more. This is a poor conclusion to draw because teams tend to pass more if they are losing and run more if they are ahead. They get the cause and effect mixed up.

    Their reasoning is horrendous. I highly doubt they controlled their data for mitigating factors. Especially considering that old GAC MM resulted in a system where most matches weren't competitive enough for such a slight edge to matter, I am skeptical of looking at data so broadly.

    When I did have a good opponent, I would sometimes try and wait to go 2nd. So at least for some usual 1st-time attackers that could walk all over 90% of their opponents, they had a worse attack-2nd win rate because they only did so only vs harder opponents.

    I've yet to hear of a concrete example of going 1st helping. Many of us know of specific examples where it didn't matter (most of the time) and where attacking 2nd was crucial.
  • While the football analogy is correct from a logic standpoint, it’s incorrect from a football standpoint.

    The key to successful football begins and ends with the run game. If a team can’t run the ball, it forces them into 3rd and long situations. This puts them in an obvious passing down, so it’s easier to defend and has a much lower success rate than 3rd and short.

    Successfully running the ball means controlling the time of possession. If an opponent cannot stop your rushing attack, there is never any need to pass the ball. You run it down their throat, using prolonged scoring drives when need be, and keep scoring at will by rushing. Similar to the Pats-Bills game a few weeks ago, when the Pats won and only attempted 3 passes.

    If a pass-oriented team can’t run the ball, the defense will play more coverage and cheat backwards away from the line of scrimmage, making it harder for the offense to pass. They have to run successfully to keep the defense honest and open up passing lanes.

    Naturally there’s the occasional situation where traditional football strategy goes out the window, but from a coaching/game plan standpoint, it all revolves around the run game and stopping the run.

    Just my little contribution to growing the thread. 😉
  • TheDude420 wrote: »
    While the football analogy is correct from a logic standpoint, it’s incorrect from a football standpoint.

    The key to successful football begins and ends with the run game. If a team can’t run the ball, it forces them into 3rd and long situations. This puts them in an obvious passing down, so it’s easier to defend and has a much lower success rate than 3rd and short.

    Successfully running the ball means controlling the time of possession. If an opponent cannot stop your rushing attack, there is never any need to pass the ball. You run it down their throat, using prolonged scoring drives when need be, and keep scoring at will by rushing. Similar to the Pats-Bills game a few weeks ago, when the Pats won and only attempted 3 passes.

    If a pass-oriented team can’t run the ball, the defense will play more coverage and cheat backwards away from the line of scrimmage, making it harder for the offense to pass. They have to run successfully to keep the defense honest and open up passing lanes.

    Naturally there’s the occasional situation where traditional football strategy goes out the window, but from a coaching/game plan standpoint, it all revolves around the run game and stopping the run.

    Just my little contribution to growing the thread. 😉

    Some teams use the pass to open the run while others use the run to open the pass.
    Free at last
  • Wait, what about special teams?
  • Monel
    2718 posts Member
    What if whoever goes first in GAC goes first in tic tac toe! That way they have a guaranteed win!
  • Kard_1986 wrote: »
    Wait, what about special teams?

    We run to set up the punt.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    Kard_1986 wrote: »
    Wait, what about special teams?

    We run to set up the punt.

    Ah, a fellow broncos fan
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I'll never understand how people don't realize that going second is an advantage.

    No, we realize it, we just don't care because it's not enough of an advantage to get worked up over.

    Let me put it to you another way--if you want to get totally jacked and ripped just stop eating carbohydrates. There is an advantage to looking like that. But we all of us don't do it because we prefer pasta.

    Maybe that's your take, but there are plenty here who have said that going 1st is an advantage.

    I agree it's not worth getting too worked up over unless you are one of the top 100 or so players in the game gunning for those bragging rights.

    That said, CG's response suggests they don't actually play the game at a high level. And the ease of making this change suggests they just don't care. If this were the only way CG were dismissive of their player base, it'd be a blip. Instead, it's just another log on the pile.

    You know, some people like it this way.
    Its not like 100% of players want something and CG refuses to do it. Thats just not true.

    I personally like the excitement on seeing how my opponent progresses. And not to alter my strategy, but simply its just fun for me to see how my teams defend my zone.
    Hiding progress would remove this experience.

    so if you see you opponents final score and you need to underman your final battle to win, you wouldn't underman the battle?

    I haven't been in any similar situations the past... 100 gac perhaps?
    Its really not something that decides my matches.

    Ruining the fun of 100 matches just to alter the outcome of 1 match, its not worth it and so I'd rather keep it this way.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I'll never understand how people don't realize that going second is an advantage.

    No, we realize it, we just don't care because it's not enough of an advantage to get worked up over.

    Let me put it to you another way--if you want to get totally jacked and ripped just stop eating carbohydrates. There is an advantage to looking like that. But we all of us don't do it because we prefer pasta.

    Maybe that's your take, but there are plenty here who have said that going 1st is an advantage.

    I agree it's not worth getting too worked up over unless you are one of the top 100 or so players in the game gunning for those bragging rights.

    That said, CG's response suggests they don't actually play the game at a high level. And the ease of making this change suggests they just don't care. If this were the only way CG were dismissive of their player base, it'd be a blip. Instead, it's just another log on the pile.

    You know, some people like it this way.
    Its not like 100% of players want something and CG refuses to do it. Thats just not true.

    I personally like the excitement on seeing how my opponent progresses. And not to alter my strategy, but simply its just fun for me to see how my teams defend my zone.
    Hiding progress would remove this experience.

    so if you see you opponents final score and you need to underman your final battle to win, you wouldn't underman the battle?

    Oh, certainly, but then again my last battles are nearly always fleet battles and I go in with undersized fleets anyway. So if your question is would I go in with an undersized squad then the answer is yes, but if your question is would I change the way I play then the answer is no.

    Largely the answer is no because if you're saving all your attacks for the last hour or so, then you have to run the numbers and do all the math with all 13 attacks you make. If you're not running those numbers to ensure that you'll need to undersize the last battle, then you're not actually getting a real advantage by going second, just the perception of one because at the end of the thing you know you need something.

    But who wants to use undersized teams? Just play to the best of your ability, go first, get the highest score you can, and then you're the one forcing them to use undersized teams. I'd say being the one that forces the other player into using suboptimal compositions is the one with the bigger advantage. It would be like if in hockey you say that the team who goes on the penalty kill has an advantage because they're down a player.

    You literally said you would not alter your strategy and now you are saying you would alter it. Once you alter your strategy based on information that your opponent didn't have, then it becomes an advantage you get by going second.

    In your example to play to the best of your ability.... if the second player in your example went first and didn't see the score they needed to beat. They will play to their strengths and post a decent score, or maybe go a little more aggressive and post a good score. They will still lose bc the first player (now going second) will still post a great score. The outcome is the same.

    However if the second player knows he needs to post a great score, there is a chance he can win by playing ultra aggressive, which could change the outcome. That is the advantage.
  • TheDude420 wrote: »
    While the football analogy is correct from a logic standpoint, it’s incorrect from a football standpoint.

    The key to successful football begins and ends with the run game. If a team can’t run the ball, it forces them into 3rd and long situations. This puts them in an obvious passing down, so it’s easier to defend and has a much lower success rate than 3rd and short.

    Successfully running the ball means controlling the time of possession. If an opponent cannot stop your rushing attack, there is never any need to pass the ball. You run it down their throat, using prolonged scoring drives when need be, and keep scoring at will by rushing. Similar to the Pats-Bills game a few weeks ago, when the Pats won and only attempted 3 passes.

    If a pass-oriented team can’t run the ball, the defense will play more coverage and cheat backwards away from the line of scrimmage, making it harder for the offense to pass. They have to run successfully to keep the defense honest and open up passing lanes.

    Naturally there’s the occasional situation where traditional football strategy goes out the window, but from a coaching/game plan standpoint, it all revolves around the run game and stopping the run.

    Just my little contribution to growing the thread. 😉

    Let's derail this thread!!!

    Haha... I agree that a team that can successfully run should do so. But in the NFL, it seems there are few teams that can pull that off. As a Cowboys fan, it sure feels like our median running play is 2 yards or less :'(
  • I don’t believe your opponent should see your score till the rounds over.

    Knowledge is power. Knowing what they’ve done does help you. Watch any streamer and they always hope they’ve been attacked, scan what’s been done and change plans to gain victory.

    Scores should be invisible to all but yourself. They people would truly just do their best. Both players.
  • Gifafi
    5876 posts Member
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    Its 3pm when gac starts, I have a window after putting kids down and dinner and before I sleep. 11ish, so 8 hours.
  • Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    No, the real question is why hasn't he already quit his job so he can GAC better? There is NO room for interests outside SWGOH, especially "jobs".
  • el_mago wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    No, the real question is why hasn't he already quit his job so he can GAC better? There is NO room for interests outside SWGOH, especially "jobs".

    This...especially not cowboys football. ;)
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    Its 3pm when gac starts, I have a window after putting kids down and dinner and before I sleep. 11ish, so 8 hours.

    It starts, world-wide, at 2:00pm California time. That's 10:00pm GMT.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Op, the real question is if gac starts when you are work why would you have to attack in the first 8 hours?

    Its 3pm when gac starts, I have a window after putting kids down and dinner and before I sleep. 11ish, so 8 hours.

    It starts, world-wide, at 2:00pm California time. That's 10:00pm GMT.

    Not sure what you’re pointing out here. He obviously lives in the mountain time zone where GAC starts at 3pm, what does GMT have to do with it?
    https://swgoh.gg/p/319514721/
    DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
Sign In or Register to comment.