Please hide GAC scores!

"Waqui;c-2152134" wrote:

"TVF;c-2152044" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2152043" wrote:

"TVF;c-2152025" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2152017" wrote:
How exactly is it an advantage?

It's an advantage to know what score you need to win, obviously.

You can debate how much of an advantage, and in some cases it's none (when an opponent scores very high), but it's obviously an advantage with everything else being equal.

And it helps you score more than you could without knowing the score beforehand? How exactly?

Because you don't have to take risks if the score is lower?

OK, so if your opponent scored low banners you can play your offense with less stress and have an easy win. We agree on this. However, you didn't answer my question:

"Waqui;c-2152043" wrote:

And it helps you score more than you could without knowing the score beforehand? How exactly?

That is a silly question. Obviously going second can not make you achieve something you are not capable of. Going second can turn into an advantage, but not necessarily. Knowing that that first-mover made mistake is an advantage. Knowing exactly the minimum score you have to achieve is an advantage. On the other hand knowing that in order to win you need to score higher than you ever did can be a disadvantage.

"Kyno;c-2152955" wrote:
posted this to the devs and got a response that when they originally looked into this the data didn't show any significant difference in the win ratio due to attacking first or second.

Yeah, I’m going to need more info there before believing their data. Did they eliminate battles where there was a large score difference? Did they even eliminate battles where no one attacked at all?

This advantage only occurs in closely contested matchups. If you aren’t zeroing in on those then you are getting a lot of extra noise that can skew the data.

"Bulldog1205;c-2153228" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2152955" wrote:
posted this to the devs and got a response that when they originally looked into this the data didn't show any significant difference in the win ratio due to attacking first or second.

Yeah, I’m going to need more info there before believing their data. Did they eliminate battles where there was a large score difference? Did they even eliminate battles where no one attacked at all?

This advantage only occurs in closely contested matchups. If you aren’t zeroing in on those then you are getting a lot of extra noise that can skew the data.

And if you are going to narrow your focus like that you also need to consider what percentage of matches are closely contested in order to put that information in perspective.

"Bulldog1205;c-2153228" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2152955" wrote:
posted this to the devs and got a response that when they originally looked into this the data didn't show any significant difference in the win ratio due to attacking first or second.

Yeah, I’m going to need more info there before believing their data. Did they eliminate battles where there was a large score difference? Did they even eliminate battles where no one attacked at all?

This advantage only occurs in closely contested matchups. If you aren’t zeroing in on those then you are getting a lot of extra noise that can skew the data.

but building off what you are saying, its not a huge advantage. its a very situational thing that is likely linked to many factors in the battle (i.e.- player strategy, ext...).

There are teams and players who in their own sport are know for "playing well as the underdog", or being "comeback kings", "come from behind", or other ways to express this. That is a mentality and personal thing that causes them to "play better". if someone gains this " advantage" due to seeing the score and their personality gives them a boost from being "under pressure", is that really an advantage that should be addressed by " the game"?

"Rath_Tarr;c-2153314" wrote:

"Bulldog1205;c-2153228" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2152955" wrote:
posted this to the devs and got a response that when they originally looked into this the data didn't show any significant difference in the win ratio due to attacking first or second.

Yeah, I’m going to need more info there before believing their data. Did they eliminate battles where there was a large score difference? Did they even eliminate battles where no one attacked at all?

This advantage only occurs in closely contested matchups. If you aren’t zeroing in on those then you are getting a lot of extra noise that can skew the data.

And if you are going to narrow your focus like that you also need to consider what percentage of matches are closely contested in order to put that information in perspective.

Most matches not being closely contested is an entirely separate issue. If the argument is that “CG shouldn’t worry that the time when GAC starts creates a competitive imbalance in close GAC matchups because close GAC matchups aren’t common” then I have to strongly disagree with the reasoning.

"EventineElessedil;c-2152903" wrote:
I would love to see a basketball game where the scores were hidden.

Example #4,828,562 that the forums struggle with analogy.

"Nikoms565;c-2153600" wrote:

"Rath_Tarr;c-2153314" wrote:

"Bulldog1205;c-2153228" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2152955" wrote:
posted this to the devs and got a response that when they originally looked into this the data didn't show any significant difference in the win ratio due to attacking first or second.

Yeah, I’m going to need more info there before believing their data. Did they eliminate battles where there was a large score difference? Did they even eliminate battles where no one attacked at all?

This advantage only occurs in closely contested matchups. If you aren’t zeroing in on those then you are getting a lot of extra noise that can skew the data.

And if you are going to narrow your focus like that you also need to consider what percentage of matches are closely contested in order to put that information in perspective.

But I thought the wonderful matchmaking algorithm all but guaranteed closely contested matches. Pick a lane.

Find the post where I said that. Go ahead, I'll wait.