GA Fairness: Community Help

Need to define what is a fair fight
Similar GP?
Similar Roster?
Similar GL?
Similar GAC skill ranking?

And even if all these conditions are met.... It is still not "fair fight". Because mods messed up everything.

So how to define fair fight again?

"Looooki;c-2365078" wrote:
Need to define what is a fair fight
Similar GP?
Similar Roster?
Similar GL?
Similar GAC skill ranking?

And even if all these conditions are met.... It is still not "fair fight". Because mods messed up everything.

So how to define fair fight again?

Like I said originally-. Significantly higher gp and drastically outgun. And in the spirit of the post, there is no need for a concrete operational definition.

Unreal how many people think it doesn't matter if you stay

"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.

"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.

"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.

Eh... it all comes down to Ships anyway.