Should GAC award bonuses for attacking earlier?

"DarjeloSalas;c-2444526" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2444520" wrote:
No one else here has claimed to have data to support their position, have they?

There is at least one person stating definitively that there is an advantage to going second with no evidence to support their position, so unjustified conclusions are common place on this issue.

I would say logic will lead people to that conclusion. That the claim isn’t based on data does mean that it is unjustified.

No. :s

"Stokat;c-2444704" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2444526" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2444520" wrote:
No one else here has claimed to have data to support their position, have they?

There is at least one person stating definitively that there is an advantage to going second with no evidence to support their position, so unjustified conclusions are common place on this issue.

I would say logic will lead people to that conclusion. That the claim isn’t based on data does mean that it is unjustified.

Logic does not lead to that conclusion, your opinion does.

This opinion is shared by more people and has merit. I don't think anyone, including the poster you quote, is claiming ditterently. However, it is not definite and there are counter points with merit as well.

"Profit;c-2444706" wrote:

"Stokat;c-2444704" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2444526" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2444520" wrote:
No one else here has claimed to have data to support their position, have they?

There is at least one person stating definitively that there is an advantage to going second with no evidence to support their position, so unjustified conclusions are common place on this issue.

I would say logic will lead people to that conclusion. That the claim isn’t based on data does mean that it is unjustified.

Logic does not lead to that conclusion, your opinion does.

This opinion is shared by more people and has merit. I don't think anyone, including the poster you quote, is claiming ditterently. However, it is not definite and there are counter points with merit as well.

Eh what are you even on about? An opinion that something is the way it is lead to a conclusion that it is the way it is? That is just a nonsense circle argument.

It is a conclusion based on logic because it is founded on the assumption that having more knowledge provides a better position to make well founded decisions. Therefore having more knowledge about something (in this case knowing how many banners you need for a win) decreases risks and increases the chances of succeeding.

"Stokat;c-2444713" wrote:

"Profit;c-2444706" wrote:

"Stokat;c-2444704" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2444526" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2444520" wrote:
No one else here has claimed to have data to support their position, have they?

There is at least one person stating definitively that there is an advantage to going second with no evidence to support their position, so unjustified conclusions are common place on this issue.

I would say logic will lead people to that conclusion. That the claim isn’t based on data does mean that it is unjustified.

Logic does not lead to that conclusion, your opinion does.

This opinion is shared by more people and has merit. I don't think anyone, including the poster you quote, is claiming ditterently. However, it is not definite and there are counter points with merit as well.

Eh what are you even on about? An opinion that something is the way it is lead to a conclusion that it is the way it is? That is just a nonsense circle argument.

It is a conclusion based on logic because it is founded on the assumption that having more knowledge provides a better position to make well founded decisions. Therefore having more knowledge about something (in this case knowing how many banners you need for a win) decreases risks and increases the chances of succeeding.

Unless that information leads to you making choices which are riskier than if you didn't have such information. The argument about going first or second goes both ways. Some players prefer to know what target they're aiming for, some prefer to set a score and pressure their opponents. Personally, I prefer to go first and try and full clear with one-shot on every team. That pressures the opposition to do the same and may result in them making unforced errors. That's just how I like to deal with GAC and it's my preference, others like to aim for a score. I'm not saying for sure one is better than the other, I don't know. No one in fact, except CG, has the data on whether one approach or the other is better and it's amazing this thread has reached quite so far given that one fact. Analogies with other games/sports may be valid, or they may not, for a myriad of reasons, and people using those observations to support their 'logic' one way or the other may be flawed.

Ultimately, it would be discriminatory to players whose time zones don't match up with the start of GAC to either give points for being the first attacker or for attacking during the first X hours, and they have enough trouble with matchmaking without throwing time zones into the mix.

"Cynyc;c-2444692" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2444656" wrote:

"Cynyc;c-2444614" wrote:

"Rokaryn_Mazel;c-2444532" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2444526" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2444520" wrote:
No one else here has claimed to have data to support their position, have they?

There is at least one person stating definitively that there is an advantage to going second with no evidence to support their position, so unjustified conclusions are common place on this issue.

What evidence do you need? You have information the other person did not.

Is it an advantage to bat last in baseball? To go second in CFB overtime? 100%

It is a self-evident advantage, but it is hardly insurmountable and likely a few % points only.

It’s beneficial to go first in a race. It’s not beneficial to go first in 21. Neither of these two things have anything to do with SWGOH.

If you find it beneficial to go second, go second. I don’t care when I attack. As Drogon said, if you approach every GAC with the same mentality of securing maximum banners with the most efficient attack plans, when you attack is irrelevant.

If you want to attack second or first, so do. Just don’t expect CG to pat you on the back for it ?

You speak like there's only one way to beat each team. There are counters with higher risk and higher rewards. Do I try a risky solo Wampa for a 68 or a safe team that won't get more than 62? Do I stall for banner recovery and risk timing out or take the win?

Folks acting like there's nothing to be gained from information are perplexing to me.

Now, those who accept that there is value in that information but the psychological advantage of going first outweighs it... well, there's not much to argue because neither of us can quantify anything and we just have different opinions. I haven't seen many taking such a nuanced stance, though

I don’t believe I speak that way. I haven’t said that and I don’t read that I’ve implied it. If that is your inference, it is an incorrect one.

I also never said there’s nothing to be gained from information. I would never make such a statement, because such a statement would be absurd.

There is whatever value in attacking at whatever time that you assign to it. Most people develop their own methodology and stick to it for their own reasons.

The **only** thing you should’ve inferred from my writing is exactly what I said - “do what you want. Just don’t expect CG to pat you on the back for it.” Anything else is just you being creative

My 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were not directed specifically at you.l, though I see why you assumed they were.

This is why I wrote the first paragraph:

"As Drogon said, if you approach every GAC with the same mentality of securing maximum banners with the most efficient attack plans, when you attack is irrelevant."

"Cynyc;c-2444730" wrote:

Ultimately, though, I just don’t think it’s feasible in an international mobile game environment for CG to implement a reward structure for “attack occurred within x time window”.

I 100% agree with that.

"Cynyc;c-2444730" wrote:
Fair enough, I’ll take back the part that “when you attack is irrelevant” because this is untrue.

Ultimately, though, I just don’t think it’s feasible in an international mobile game environment for CG to implement a reward structure for “attack occurred within x time window”.

Yeah I absolutely agree with that.

I feel this discussion has slightly veered to what type of strategy used and what players feel is better or not (attack or wait) and trying to justify which is better.

To the initial point, no there should be no bonus points because someone gets to attack first. The game is global, obviously covers many timezones and oh....people have lives, jobs, family which is way more important than a few extra banners.

Probably best to close this thread as although its a reasonable question, the clear answer is no. Theres no further value to further questioning.

Yes, going second is advantageous.

No, CG won't do anything about it because it's too much work for something that only affects a fraction of the playerbase.