GA Fairness: Community Help
Hey all, Just a thought for how the community could help offset matchmaking disparities. If you are a notably larger account and outgun your opponent- attack first. This would drastically ...
Forum Discussion
Unreal how many people think it doesn't matter if you stay
Correct. Which is why this is a humble suggestion to the community- not an overall hard rule.
If you attack first and early it's giving your opponent an advantage- there is no circumstance where this isn't true. The only one mentioned is an awful example- just because your opponent didn't attack doesn't mean they were intimidated out of attacking. However, this is a moot point since we are attempting to level the playing field for someone that we recognize is at a severe disadvantage.
"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2364714" wrote:
It has been established that going first and second both have their technical advantages, in different scenarios. And then there are many scenarios where either strategy doesn't matter.
So at a level above, there is also the "meta" strategy of deciding whether to go first or second in a particular scenario. Logically the debate is at this level.
There isn't a way to quantify the advantage with either strategy, because, like any complex scenarios, it's next to impossible to control all other factors and compare only going first and second.
For that reason, it is also impossible to calculate the net advantage of any "meta" strategy. The overall WR or other stat differences don't help here, because there are many other factors impacting the stats. That applies to the observation CG made as well. "There is no perceivable advantage in going second" only proves that there isn't a decisive advantage to go second, but it cannot prove that going second is never advantageous in any scenarios. "There is no perceivable advantage in going first" is also valid, but it cannot prove that going first is never advantageous in any scenarios either.
Correct. Which is why this is a humble suggestion to the community- not an overall hard rule.
If you attack first and early it's giving your opponent an advantage- there is no circumstance where this isn't true. The only one mentioned is an awful example- just because your opponent didn't attack doesn't mean they were intimidated out of attacking. However, this is a moot point since we are attempting to level the playing field for someone that we recognize is at a severe disadvantage.
