Should GAC award bonuses for attacking earlier?

"Profit;c-2444383" wrote:
Its not that hard to make a case that a successful first attack puts stress on the second attacker, stress that increase the chance for mistakes or riskier team choices.

The second attacker advantage assumes the first attacker messes up and you can ride that wave

It assumes that having more information gives you an advantage.

"Profit;c-2444383" wrote:
Its not that hard to make a case that a successful first attack puts stress on the second attacker, stress that increase the chance for mistakes or riskier team choices.

The second attacker advantage assumes the first attacker messes up and you can ride that wave

I agree that going first can work well. Especially if you play a high efficiency game. But, to counter your point, if I didn't see your score and made safe choices throughout, I'd still lose, even without a loss, because I wasn't efficient enough. If I see your score, I at least know what is needed and can make informed choices.

Recall I did say that I think the advantage is rarely large enough to decide the match. But I absolutely have won matches that I would have lost had I gone 1st because I knew exactly what I could afford and made choices based on that information.

To your point, though, I believe I've also lost a match because I went 2nd. My opponent got a good score, so I assumed their back wall was soft and I used too much firepower on their front wall. Had I not seen their score, I would have played differently and possibly won.

Regardless, I can't choose whether I go 1st or 2nd. I go when I have time to go. So even if I thought going first was advantageous, I'd still want the scores hidden because I can't always go in either position.

"Poshboy79;c-2444445" wrote:

"rickertron;c-2444267" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2444220" wrote:
hide the scores til the round is over (and block bots) and no one knows who went first...

Why?

Then nobody has an advantage/disadvantage based on when they make their attacks.

GAC ends at a fairly convenient time for me when I can typically get online if I want to and just before my daily reset, so It fits nicely. For someone in India it happens at 0200/0300 which puts them at a terrible disadvantage.

gaining advantage and disadvantage is part of the competition. Right now people are able to attack whenever they want and that is good, and can see the score as it unfolds which is good. Hiding the score does nothing but take some enjoyment out of the battle. The better way to resolve the issue you speak of is match people based on timezones.

"StarSon;c-2444438" wrote:

"rickertron;c-2444436" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2444301" wrote:
Attacking 2nd is definitely an advantage. Most of the time, imo, it isn't sizeable enough to impact the outcome. As such, even though it's advantageous to go 2nd, I dislike the idea of bonus points for going first (also because of time/availability restraints).

Hiding the scores makes the most sense to me. But CG does not care about this, and there's a lot of people on the forums that are vocal about their rejection of your premise; so you're wasting your breath, OP.

Why do score need to be hidden? This is a terrible idea as it makes no sense.

The thinking is that it removes any advantage one gains from attacking first or last. You just do what you can, and you don't know who won until the round is over.

I don't like this idea, but I wouldn't call it terrible or say it makes no sense. If there is data that shows there is actually an advantage one way or the other, this would be the easiest way to negate that.

it makes no sense in the terms that gaining advantage and disadvantage are what competition is about. Why stop here, lets remove the advantage of people with 6 GL's playing 2 GL's or having 50 Relics vs 20 Relics, or having 10 fleets vs 5 fleets and so on. Its a ridiculous premise.

"DarjeloSalas;c-2444443" wrote:
The reason I’d hate the blank scores is for the potential to save time I don’t need to waste on GAC.

Enemy full cleared with no drops and I drop a couple of sloppy battles? Great! Just stop trying.


Enemy has hit one battle and TM loaded my LV/Reva team? Great! Clear a couple of zones and stop.

Yeah that’s why I wouldn’t want scores completely masked. Just even out the advantage a little.

"rickertron;c-2444449" wrote:

"Poshboy79;c-2444445" wrote:

"rickertron;c-2444267" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2444220" wrote:
hide the scores til the round is over (and block bots) and no one knows who went first...

Why?

Then nobody has an advantage/disadvantage based on when they make their attacks.

GAC ends at a fairly convenient time for me when I can typically get online if I want to and just before my daily reset, so It fits nicely. For someone in India it happens at 0200/0300 which puts them at a terrible disadvantage.

gaining advantage and disadvantage is part of the competition. Right now people are able to attack whenever they want and that is good, and can see the score as it unfolds which is good. Hiding the score does nothing but take some enjoyment out of the battle. The better way to resolve the issue you speak of is match people based on timezones.

They could just rotate start times but that will never happen because right now it is synced to their biggest money making time zones. I don’t think hiding the zones entirely is ideal because it removes some strategy from the game. Trying to offset the best strategy making it a game mode that is time dependent though is what they should aim for here.

"Poshboy79;c-2444446" wrote:

"Profit;c-2444383" wrote:
Its not that hard to make a case that a successful first attack puts stress on the second attacker, stress that increase the chance for mistakes or riskier team choices.

The second attacker advantage assumes the first attacker messes up and you can ride that wave

It assumes that having more information gives you an advantage.

Well, my whole point was that this assumption will not be correct in a lot of cases

"Olddumper;c-2444215" wrote:

"Salatious_Scrum;c-2444213" wrote:
There is no advantage in going first or second.

You can just as easily mess up on attacking either way, doesn’t matter what the score would be. Just focus on being the most efficient one with the roster you have without focusing so much as to the time zone or play style of your opponent.

If your opponent undermans 5 squads and you just ignore that you aren’t going to win. You need to know if you need to underman, need to full clear, can ignore top or bottom entirely. All of this information is way more valuable than a few points.

Paraphrasing CG's last response to this classic thread:

"Data don't show that people playing second win more, therefore we don't see the need to change anything."

Yes, and they didn't specify any controls or any level of detail sufficient to justify their conclusion.

No one else here has claimed to have data to support their position, have they?