GaC time advantage....

Replies

  • NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?

    I go first because the aliens told me to when I was abducted last summer....and just FYI, the CIA cannot detect me cause I always wear my tin-foil hat.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?

    From what I have seen in this thread, the majority of people here believe its an advantage. The actual disagreement is how impactful the advantage is and whether or not CG will ever do anything about it. (sadly, we all know the answer to this, mostly because there is no incentive ($$$$) to do the real analysis and make a truly fair game mode).
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?
    Going second makes my bum itch which is clearly a disadvantage because it's very distracting. :p

    my guess is your bum probably itches when you go first too. sorry to hear.
  • Won again, despite having an itchy bum from my eager beaver opponent playing before I had a chance to do so. 9-1.

    1f5e6ho4bfov.png

    Fair chance I'll lose the next one but it will have nothing to do with going first or second, I'm just punching significantly above my weight at this point. Another defeat is inevitable sooner or later.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Won again, despite having an itchy bum from my eager beaver opponent playing before I had a chance to do so. 9-1.

    1f5e6ho4bfov.png

    Fair chance I'll lose the next one but it will have nothing to do with going first or second, I'm just punching significantly above my weight at this point. Another defeat is inevitable sooner or later.

    Your superior skill makes the advantage of going 2nd irrelevant. That’s fine and totally acceptable. That’s going to be the case for many people.

    …but that doesn’t mean the advantage of going 2nd doesn’t exist. Some people simply don’t need it or want it.
  • TheDude420 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Won again, despite having an itchy bum from my eager beaver opponent playing before I had a chance to do so. 9-1.

    1f5e6ho4bfov.png

    Fair chance I'll lose the next one but it will have nothing to do with going first or second, I'm just punching significantly above my weight at this point. Another defeat is inevitable sooner or later.

    Your superior skill makes the advantage of going 2nd irrelevant. That’s fine and totally acceptable. That’s going to be the case for many people.

    …but that doesn’t mean the advantage of going 2nd doesn’t exist. Some people simply don’t need it or want it.

    The perceived advantage of going second is that you know how much you need to undersize, right?

    The problem is that undersizing is generally high risk & low reward.

    With an undersized squad you pick up 1-4 banners at best, assuming you can undersize and still win with full health & protection which is easier said than done in most cases.

    Fail to win cleanly and you are likely no better off (or even worse off) than you would have been with a full squad.

    Lose even once and you are down 20 banners which would take 5 perfect 1v5 undersize battles to recover from. Not likely to happen.
  • I got tired of the wrote arguments so I fed a prompt into a text generating AI.

    d6hyiz7imaw1.png
    fasz7di4ws22.png
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Sorry, not as funny as the fact that this thread made it to 9 pages and is still going. ;)
  • Starslayer
    1630 posts Member
    edited January 7
    NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Datas don’t lie: You have more chances of winning because your opponent didn’t attack if you go first than if you go second.
    Post edited by Starslayer on
  • Some people are on the side of going first puts pressure, some think going second is good as you have more info.

    Both of these are situations that players in certain time zones or with certain life obligations are unable to do anything about. If there is an advantage one way or the other, it should be addressed.

    Some people think there is no advantage either way. So should have no problem with the issue being addressed.

    The once in a blue moon occurrence of both players attacking at the same time seems to be one thing that some players bring up, but hardly seems worth arguing for, as it happens so rarely. Every time I've seen it, the other player stops as soon as I do one attack. So I see no reason to try and keep this in game. You could change it so it reveals one of their attacks for each enemy squad you take out to give the same effect.

    Watching your opponents progress is another thing mentioned as a reason to keep the status quo. I think a better thing to watch would be a slower display of what has happened than just all the toons falling over at the same time when you go in. Have them fall over in the order that they were beaten and flash the banners of the battle up. Have a replay button to show it again if you want to, or missed it. This can help people understand what happens to their defence a bit, and adjust things. But to address the advantage this would not be available until the end of the fight or both players had finished attacking.

    The easiest option to address it is to just hide the result right to the end of the phase, slightly tougher to implement would be hide results until both had attacked. But hard to say when someone is finished attacking if they don't get a full clear. Maybe only show early if they both full clear.

    Full disclosure, my point of view is that more information is an advantage in almost any situation. Result changing? Not always. But any advantage based on things beyond a player's control should not be left in game.
  • Monel
    2719 posts Member
    8obdqd6gc2q1.gif
  • nryzujfh99da.gif
  • NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?

    There has never and will never be a competitive situation where more information about your opponent or the competition is worse than less information. This "debate" is nonsense.

  • StewartH wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?

    There has never and will never be a competitive situation where more information about your opponent or the competition is worse than less information. This "debate" is nonsense.

    The question isn't wether its bad to have extra info, but if its actually changing things. E. g. Knowing what color t-shirt your opponent is wearing - is an information about your opponent, yet, it has 0 impact on the outcome of the match.

    Unless its pink. That tells a lot about the player.
  • StewartH wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?

    There has never and will never be a competitive situation where more information about your opponent or the competition is worse than less information. This "debate" is nonsense.

    What RoopeRenegade said. But also that the debate is whether knowing what they did is more of an advantage than going first and forcing them to do what you want. And also-also the debate is about whether whatever advantage there is or isn't matters enough to care, and if it matters enough to need a "fix."
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • StewartH wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?

    There has never and will never be a competitive situation where more information about your opponent or the competition is worse than less information. This "debate" is nonsense.

    Never ? Challenge accepted !
    Considering Wall Street as a competitive situation: Active management funds have access to far more informations about the market than Joe Money who just bought some market tracker. Studies show than most active management funds underperform the market. Congrats Joe Money, being lazy and not doing research got you richer.
  • TVF
    31660 posts Member
    Monel wrote: »
    8obdqd6gc2q1.gif

    let-it-go-indiana-jones.gif
    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
  • LukeDukem8
    601 posts Member
    edited January 7
    lol
  • 1p283e4ep01u.png
    I attacked as soon as the phase started. Sorry I keep proving the theory incorrect.
    Free at last
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    1p283e4ep01u.png
    I attacked as soon as the phase started. Sorry I keep proving the theory incorrect.

    This proves nothing and is useless. It's not a theory it's a fact, that there is an advantage. In this instance it clearly was not a determining factor. How many gls, omis, +25/+20 mods do you have over your opp? What is their lifetime score vs yours?

    You do understand that the advantage plays a bigger part when there are evenly matched opponents?
  • LukeDukem8
    601 posts Member
    edited January 9
    Deleted
  • LordDirt
    3208 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LordDirt wrote: »
    1p283e4ep01u.png
    I attacked as soon as the phase started. Sorry I keep proving the theory incorrect.

    This proves nothing and is useless. It's not a theory it's a fact, that there is an advantage. In this instance it clearly was not a determining factor. How many gls, omis, +25/+20 mods do you have over your opp? What is their lifetime score vs yours?

    You do understand that the advantage plays a bigger part when there are evenly matched opponents?

    No such thing as a even matchup, someone will always have an advantage. There is no such thing as a fair fight. If there is such an advantage then everyone should just wait until the final hour and go crazy, problem solved for you guys.
    Free at last
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    I went first ;)mrdmxcxrbv0o.png

    What does your favourite brand of tea have to do with your GA defense?
  • Incidentally, I attack when I feel like it and have the time. Sometimes my opponent goes before me. The only thing I do consistently is check how often they undermanned battles in their stats page. I beat one guy that had full cleared me despite the server maintenance causing me to drop a fight thanks to my ability to earn extra banners.
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    LordDirt wrote: »
    1p283e4ep01u.png
    I attacked as soon as the phase started. Sorry I keep proving the theory incorrect.

    This proves nothing and is useless. It's not a theory it's a fact, that there is an advantage. In this instance it clearly was not a determining factor. How many gls, omis, +25/+20 mods do you have over your opp? What is their lifetime score vs yours?

    You do understand that the advantage plays a bigger part when there are evenly matched opponents?

    No such thing as a even matchup, someone will always have an advantage. There is no such thing as a fair fight. If there is such an advantage then everyone should just wait until the final hour and go crazy, problem solved for you guys.

    The whole point is that this system gives advantage to people who live in certain time zones or don't have other responsibilities that stop them just playing in the last hour. Or the first hour if you think putting pressure is the advantage.

    If I could reliably have time to attack in the last hour I would. But I can't.
  • Looks like we have resolution on this thread it has been a solid run.
  • Starslayer wrote: »
    StewartH wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I wish someone would come up with an original defense of why going second is or isn't an advantage. We have so many pages of the same explanations.

    Where's the conspiracy folks saying going second gives you a hidden 2% stat increase? Or the delusional folks saying going first can't be detected by the CIA?

    There has never and will never be a competitive situation where more information about your opponent or the competition is worse than less information. This "debate" is nonsense.

    Never ? Challenge accepted !
    Considering Wall Street as a competitive situation: Active management funds have access to far more informations about the market than Joe Money who just bought some market tracker. Studies show than most active management funds underperform the market. Congrats Joe Money, being lazy and not doing research got you richer.

    What youre pointing out is when people DID wrong things with extra information. The assumption in your example is that the people who did well would have failed if they had the extra information as well? If thats the case its pretty reasonable to assume the information was wrong in the first place if 100% of people fail after receiving it.

    In GAC and everywhere else more information is always better. What you do with that information is totally up to you but the information in and of itself is neither good or bad - its information and thats always valuable.
  • TVF
    31660 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Looks like we have resolution on this thread it has been a solid run.

    200.gif

    This guy was right.

    Also, very handsome.
    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
  • Went first and won again q9ybjl5qwzxu.jpeg
    Free at last
Sign In or Register to comment.