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
"sloweagle;c-2365451" wrote:"dogwelder79;c-2365064" wrote:"sloweagle;c-2365005" wrote:"Antario;c-2364893" wrote:"sloweagle;c-2364879" wrote:
If CG simply change the tiebreak to that if tied in banner, the side who attacked first win. It might balanced out the potential disadvantage that going first might have.
In that case, everyone would do one attack and wait until the last hour to do the rest :)
I actually meant the player who finished first:)
You want to punish people for having a life? Let everybody attack when they can. Winning or losing doesn't depend so much on going first or second.
So you see there is a problem. The only tiny proposed advantage of finishing first is resolving tiebreak, which is so rare anyway and doesn’t apply in most case. you call this punishing and yet you dismiss the information advantage of going second as “doesn’t depend so much”. While I do agree the information advantage isn’t a lot, and in most case will not change outcome, so is this proposed tiebreak method.
The other true fair way is simply hiding the battle results from the other side and only revealing it in the end.
Hiding results is definitely the most fair way to do things.
I'm a strong advocate for going 2nd. But even then, most of my matches, it doesn't matter. But the ones where it does matter... it can be HUGE--like the difference between a full clear and not. Given that the range of outcomes is nothing to match deciding, I really dislike the idea of any attempt by CG to account for going 2nd via score adjustments.
