"Rius;c-2456528" wrote:
"Disruptor92;c-2456288" wrote:
"Bradford;c-2456120" wrote:
"Disruptor92;c-2456086" wrote:
"Bradford;c-2456083" wrote:
I think that is a lot of pressure for him and I see not a single advantage for him in this case a the second attacker.
I agree with most of the other things you said, but saying there is "not a single advantage" there for the other player is just wrong. Attacking second doesn't mean you will win of course, and it doesn't increase your chances by THAT much. But it is 100% an advantage. This is honestly not even debatable, even if some people on the forums think otherwise. Pressure is also subjective. People might think they're putting pressure on the other player by attacking first, but it has no effect if the other player doesn't feel the pressure. If they are confident in their skills and planning then it doesn't really matter what you did and the pressure is only imagined.
Attacking second on the other hand gives you data and information which are NOT subjective. Not only do you know how much you need to score, you can also deduct what teams have been used or hide in the back wall. People forget that GAC is not about scoring as much as possible. I just need to score more than you.
Then you get me wrong. I didn't mean there is generally no advantage as the second attacker. I just spoke about that specific case if you attack first und clear your opponent with good points. Then I don't see a single advantage for the second attacker because he knows if he makes only one mistake he has lost. That's a lot of pressure. Only in this case i mean there is no advantage for the second attacker.
And if the other one feels no pressure, well, then you have to agree then has nobody of the two an advantage. Then it doesn't matter who attack first.
It doesn't matter whether the first person to attack cleared the board and scored good points. The person to attack second will ALWAYS have the advantage of available information. That is a fact and not debatable. Now whether & how that person manages to use this information in order to attempt to win is a completely different story. There are too many other factors to just say attacking second wins you the match, and it's not what I'm trying to say. You can attack second and still lose miserably. But I am simply stating that attacking second gives you an ADVANTAGE, that COULD potentially help you win the match. I attack second 95% of the time and there have been many matches that I won because I attacked second, and that I very likely would have lost if I attacked first.
I also fail to see how you would KNOW you would have lost by attacking first? Assuming this is correct, you likely just don’t have a good strategy for attacking first.
I said "that I very likely would have lost", not that I would "KNOW" it every single time. And it's pretty simple really. Knowing how many banners I need to score in order to win helps me to figure out how to approach the match.
For example, sometimes people cleared me with very high banners. Knowing that, I knew I had to go for some high-risk/high-reward battles in order to beat their score. Something that I likely wouldn't have gone for if I attacked first. Why would I go for a high risk counter if I didn't know it was necessary? But since I knew I had to go for banners, I HAD to go for specific battles, which got me the banners and the win.
The same is if people clear me with a low banner count for example. Knowing that, I know that I don't have to go for anything risky, and don't have to min/max banners, and could potentially use multishots to take out certain teams. If I didn't know the enemy banners, I wouldn't be able to know if I was allowed to multishot.
These are just examples, and it doesn't mean I would have lost for sure if I attacked first. But in many of those kinda matches it was very likely.
I also don't want to possibly reveal my back wall by attacking first. By showing my opponent how I cleared what, it may give them hints about what could be in my back wall. And vice versa: sometimes seeing HOW opponents cleared your teams (oneshot vs multishot, and the amount of banners they got) can give you a good indication of what they used and what might be left & might be in their back. If someone, for example, set like 7-8 GLs on defense, and the opponent managed to beat all of them, then there is a very high chance that said opponent doesn't have any GLs in their back wall, because they would have needed them to beat those 7-8 GLs. Knowing that there are no GLs in the back wall can therefore help you beat the front wall more efficiently, because you'd know that you likely won't have to save your very good stuff for the back.
Quick summary: by attacking first you give your opponent a lot of information. This gives your opponent an ADVANTAGE. Depending on the matchup, this advantage MAY be the key to victory for the opponent. Again, by no means does this guarantee a win for the opponent, but the advantage of information will always be there for them.