GaC time advantage....
Now that gac is more important than ever, I believe CG needs to address the competitive advantage to going 2nd. There is an obvious strategy advantage to knowing how your opponent performed per b...
Forum Discussion
"Rath_Tarr;c-2325061" wrote:"LukeDukem8;c-2325048" wrote:"Salatious_Scrum;c-2325039" 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.
