GaC time advantage....

Replies

  • Fanatic
    415 posts Member
    edited January 10
    There are actually two advantages to going second. The first has been discussed here ad-nasuem. Though I would add a killer winning analogy to the mix (advantage of doing my analogy second of course) to discuss the significance of the advantage.

    The significance is about the same as two basketball teams playing a game, where one team starts the game 1 point up. Probably not a deciding factor in 99% of games (compared to if a football team started 1 point up - which would be a major advantage).

    However, the more important advantage to going second is: When going second, if I mess something up, and determine I can no longer realistically win the match, I can put my phone down and save myself 30 minutes of doing battles that no longer matter.
  • Monel
    2719 posts Member
    m4ymdi6w8jq6.gif

    This guy likes to go 2nd as well.
  • TVF wrote: »
    4 pages yay, can we get to 5?

    Let's get it to 10!

    This aged like fine wine :)
  • TVF wrote: »
    4 pages yay, can we get to 5?

    Let's get it to 10!

    This aged like fine wine :)

    This thread, meanwhile, has aged like fine whine!
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Going first won me my last round. I only partially attacked. My opponent waited till final hour and did just enough to get the lead. I was waiting though, and finished my attacks to win. My opponent had 15 more relic toons than I so I had to play creative to even get a chance. Opponent stepped in it to my advantage.

    Point is in this scenario going second had a trap laid on them, and they fell for it.
  • Magnar wrote: »
    Going first won me my last round. I only partially attacked. My opponent waited till final hour and did just enough to get the lead. I was waiting though, and finished my attacks to win. My opponent had 15 more relic toons than I so I had to play creative to even get a chance. Opponent stepped in it to my advantage.

    Point is in this scenario going second had a trap laid on them, and they fell for it.

    You still went last, technically.
  • TargetEadu wrote: »
    Magnar wrote: »
    Going first won me my last round. I only partially attacked. My opponent waited till final hour and did just enough to get the lead. I was waiting though, and finished my attacks to win. My opponent had 15 more relic toons than I so I had to play creative to even get a chance. Opponent stepped in it to my advantage.

    Point is in this scenario going second had a trap laid on them, and they fell for it.

    You still went last, technically.

    True, I went last. So technically I went 1st and 3rd. Thereby removing the advantage of going second, which my opponent believed he had. And that's the point of this tread, even going second can be a disadvantage if your opponent doesn't straight clear you. You never know if they are tapped out or setting a trap. So the best play is to find your best points option and go for that. If my opponent had even cleared 1 more team I would have lost.
  • Magnar wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Magnar wrote: »
    Going first won me my last round. I only partially attacked. My opponent waited till final hour and did just enough to get the lead. I was waiting though, and finished my attacks to win. My opponent had 15 more relic toons than I so I had to play creative to even get a chance. Opponent stepped in it to my advantage.

    Point is in this scenario going second had a trap laid on them, and they fell for it.

    You still went last, technically.

    True, I went last. So technically I went 1st and 3rd. Thereby removing the advantage of going second, which my opponent believed he had. And that's the point of this tread, even going second can be a disadvantage if your opponent doesn't straight clear you. You never know if they are tapped out or setting a trap. So the best play is to find your best points option and go for that. If my opponent had even cleared 1 more team I would have lost.

    Yes. This is the cause of the advantage of going second. Is going last probably more accurate? Sure.
  • Magnar wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Magnar wrote: »
    Going first won me my last round. I only partially attacked. My opponent waited till final hour and did just enough to get the lead. I was waiting though, and finished my attacks to win. My opponent had 15 more relic toons than I so I had to play creative to even get a chance. Opponent stepped in it to my advantage.

    Point is in this scenario going second had a trap laid on them, and they fell for it.

    You still went last, technically.

    True, I went last. So technically I went 1st and 3rd. Thereby removing the advantage of going second, which my opponent believed he had. And that's the point of this tread, even going second can be a disadvantage if your opponent doesn't straight clear you. You never know if they are tapped out or setting a trap. So the best play is to find your best points option and go for that. If my opponent had even cleared 1 more team I would have lost.

    There is no removing advantages. The point is you gave him partial information (which he may or may not have used), he gave you his information in which you used to secure your victory (we will never truly know why he didn't attack, but am sure you can figure out if he had enough firepower to clear 1 more team).

    Therefore the point of this thread is that the battle information is not only valuable, but determined the outcome of the match.

    I really wish everyone would stop the "do your best" argument as a counter on whether or not the information on how your opponent scored is useful. Hint: Its useful and can and does effect the outcome of matches.

    If you are the type of player that goes first and plays your best at first, then the information going second is useless to you...but just know you have just given your opponent the target to hit.

    The fact that they know that information and could alter their attack strategy, is the point of this thread. Whether or not they can reach that target is NOT the point.

    Honestly, I am kind of done with this discussion since the counter arguments aren't even relevant to the point of the thread. The worst being the "hey look I went first and won" argument which isn't even remotely close to a counter and proves nothing.

  • 10 pages of this....holy..
  • TVF wrote: »
    Monel wrote: »
    8obdqd6gc2q1.gif

    let-it-go-indiana-jones.gif

    maybe I should tag doja and crumb again?
  • TVF
    31661 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Monel wrote: »
    8obdqd6gc2q1.gif

    let-it-go-indiana-jones.gif

    maybe I should tag doja and crumb again?

    Would be about as useful as 10 pages of this nonsense, so sure why not.
    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
  • Monel
    2719 posts Member
    LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Monel wrote: »
    8obdqd6gc2q1.gif

    let-it-go-indiana-jones.gif

    maybe I should tag doja and crumb again?

    kwg7hg3sr52m.gif
  • giphy.gif?****=ecf05e47ckl0cebzwuemt91alzogi29l37f6jigu8bnlxbvr&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
    Free at last
  • Fanatic wrote: »
    However, the more important advantage to going second is: When going second, if I mess something up, and determine I can no longer realistically win the match, I can put my phone down and save myself 30 minutes of doing battles that no longer matter.
    "Important"...important to me is anything that allows me to win...i actually always play a battle to the end, even if i cant win...
    In fact...i guess this is another "not important" advantage of going second...IF match is lost, then i can experiment with teams (in the old days i could also try for quests).
    (BTW...by lost i mean if enemy went first and cleared with 1 team on every match...ANY loss means match is lost)

  • Magnar
    31 posts Member
    edited January 12
    Ghost666 wrote: »
    (BTW...by lost i mean if enemy went first and cleared with 1 team on every match...ANY loss means match is lost)

    This isn't completely true, it's possible they got a 1st try clear with one unit still alive, without max protection or health. That 14 points lost, and a bonus of 10 for that try for them, add in a few more messy wins on thier tries and you can likely reach thier score even with a failed attack. It's not often or easy but it can happen.
  • I do find that I can do just as well or better by going first and putting up the biggest score I can, but this isn't football there are things like planned 2-shots of Executor that give massive advantage in consistency if you have a target score.
  • "Just do the best you can!" :headpat
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    Magnar wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Magnar wrote: »
    Going first won me my last round. I only partially attacked. My opponent waited till final hour and did just enough to get the lead. I was waiting though, and finished my attacks to win. My opponent had 15 more relic toons than I so I had to play creative to even get a chance. Opponent stepped in it to my advantage.

    Point is in this scenario going second had a trap laid on them, and they fell for it.

    You still went last, technically.

    True, I went last. So technically I went 1st and 3rd. Thereby removing the advantage of going second, which my opponent believed he had. And that's the point of this tread, even going second can be a disadvantage if your opponent doesn't straight clear you. You never know if they are tapped out or setting a trap. So the best play is to find your best points option and go for that. If my opponent had even cleared 1 more team I would have lost.

    There is no removing advantages. The point is you gave him partial information (which he may or may not have used), he gave you his information in which you used to secure your victory (we will never truly know why he didn't attack, but am sure you can figure out if he had enough firepower to clear 1 more team).

    Therefore the point of this thread is that the battle information is not only valuable, but determined the outcome of the match.

    I really wish everyone would stop the "do your best" argument as a counter on whether or not the information on how your opponent scored is useful. Hint: Its useful and can and does effect the outcome of matches.

    If you are the type of player that goes first and plays your best at first, then the information going second is useless to you...but just know you have just given your opponent the target to hit.

    The fact that they know that information and could alter their attack strategy, is the point of this thread. Whether or not they can reach that target is NOT the point.

    Honestly, I am kind of done with this discussion since the counter arguments aren't even relevant to the point of the thread. The worst being the "hey look I went first and won" argument which isn't even remotely close to a counter and proves nothing.

    This. 👆
  • IntrepidFox
    205 posts Member
    edited January 14
    Totally agree with op. Hiding the opponents progress evens out the playing field so that there is no possible advantage to waiting.

    This is great for players with an inconvenient gac end time. But it’s also great for everyone as it allows players to play whenever they have time without added stress. We all feel relieved now we’re no longer encouraged to wait until the zero hour to do our arena climb, and i think the op’s change would have a similar result.

    The arguments presented concerning the tactical element and that it feels more tense using the current system are valid.

    Possibly the tactical element will move more to the defence stage, and the gamble of choosing your path with less info.

    The feels part - well I suspect this just changes the source of that feeling slightly.

    Also, I'm sure all us peeps who wait for the opponent to go first have experienced the situation where we leave it too late and lose the match by not attacking at all. That only used to mean a lost match and lower rank, but now means a loss of 'on the day' crystals. Granted all that has meant is I now do one match straight away and then wait until the opponent has gone, so it's not a major point, however it will mean a loss of crystals for some who take a different approach.
  • Oh my God, this is going to hit 11 pages, isn't it?

    Look. We get it. You read the Cliff's Notes of The Art of War and now you can identify that there is an advantage in going second. Congratulations, you get to be reactive. Now read an actual book and learn about initiative.

    No one is disagreeing with you that there's an advantage to going last. What we're disagreeing with you on is that there are other advantages to not going last.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • TVF
    31661 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    Oh my God, this is going to hit 11 pages, isn't it?

    giphy.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
  • Fanatic
    415 posts Member
    edited January 14
    NicWester wrote: »
    Oh my God, this is going to hit 11 pages, isn't it?

    Look. We get it. You read the Cliff's Notes of The Art of War and now you can identify that there is an advantage in going second. Congratulations, you get to be reactive. Now read an actual book and learn about initiative.

    No one is disagreeing with you that there's an advantage to going last. What we're disagreeing with you on is that there are other advantages to not going last.

    Can you tell us what the relative value of each advatange is? If you can't, then both need to be removed. One of the advantages is likely more valuable than the other one.

    For those that like the "exciting" dynamics of seeing who is ahead when both players are playing at the same time, one thing they could do is simply display a marker indicating who is winning the match (without showing the scores). So if my opppoent is shown as "winning", and I haven't done any attacks yet, then I know my oppoent has attacked, but nothing more. If I then make one attack, and now show me as winning, I know he only cleared one battle so far (or maybe cleared two after multiple failed attempts on each). But I don't know if I need to underman every fight. I don't know if I need to full clear. All I will know is if the indicater changes to me winning, then I know I've surpassed them in points.

  • Fanatic wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Oh my God, this is going to hit 11 pages, isn't it?

    Look. We get it. You read the Cliff's Notes of The Art of War and now you can identify that there is an advantage in going second. Congratulations, you get to be reactive. Now read an actual book and learn about initiative.

    No one is disagreeing with you that there's an advantage to going last. What we're disagreeing with you on is that there are other advantages to not going last.

    Can you tell us what the relative value of each advatange is? If you can't, then both need to be removed. One of the advantages is likely more valuable than the other one.

    Or neither needs to be removed and people can decide for themselves if they want to be active, reactive, passive, or whatever. That’s the metagame. That’s part of the skill of it.

    Stop taking away layers because you need an excuse to explain why you lost.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    Fanatic wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Oh my God, this is going to hit 11 pages, isn't it?

    Look. We get it. You read the Cliff's Notes of The Art of War and now you can identify that there is an advantage in going second. Congratulations, you get to be reactive. Now read an actual book and learn about initiative.

    No one is disagreeing with you that there's an advantage to going last. What we're disagreeing with you on is that there are other advantages to not going last.

    Can you tell us what the relative value of each advatange is? If you can't, then both need to be removed. One of the advantages is likely more valuable than the other one.

    Or neither needs to be removed and people can decide for themselves if they want to be active, reactive, passive, or whatever. That’s the metagame. That’s part of the skill of it.

    Stop taking away layers because you need an excuse to explain why you lost.

    Some people have no way of making the decision they want. Life. Time zone. Whatever reason. It's not any part of my skill or abilities that the final 4 hours of GAC is in work time. And so are the first 4 hours. So I cannot choose to attack first to put pressure, or last for information. I just have to attack in the middle.

    Make it fair for all.
  • It already IS fair.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    Fanatic wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Oh my God, this is going to hit 11 pages, isn't it?

    Look. We get it. You read the Cliff's Notes of The Art of War and now you can identify that there is an advantage in going second. Congratulations, you get to be reactive. Now read an actual book and learn about initiative.

    No one is disagreeing with you that there's an advantage to going last. What we're disagreeing with you on is that there are other advantages to not going last.

    Can you tell us what the relative value of each advatange is? If you can't, then both need to be removed. One of the advantages is likely more valuable than the other one.

    Or neither needs to be removed and people can decide for themselves if they want to be active, reactive, passive, or whatever. That’s the metagame. That’s part of the skill of it.

    Stop taking away layers because you need an excuse to explain why you lost.

    Some people have no way of making the decision they want. Life. Time zone. Whatever reason. It's not any part of my skill or abilities that the final 4 hours of GAC is in work time. And so are the first 4 hours. So I cannot choose to attack first to put pressure, or last for information. I just have to attack in the middle.

    Make it fair for all.
    NicWester wrote: »
    It already IS fair.

    How is that fair?
  • I always attack first to put the pressure on my opponent and I win 80% of my matches. I went 10-2 this last season and only because two of my opponents had 1 more GL than me.
Sign In or Register to comment.