Please hide GAC scores!

2Next

Replies

  • TVF
    30948 posts Member
    I would love to see a basketball game where the scores were hidden.

    Watch one on tv from 60 years ago.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    31071 posts Moderator
    TVF wrote: »
    I would love to see a basketball game where the scores were hidden.

    Watch one on tv from 60 years ago.

    pretty sure the players can still see the score, just not broadcast on TV.

    thats right folks, someone had the job of changing the numbers on the score board..... why would you ever retire.
  • TVF
    30948 posts Member
    edited August 2020
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I would love to see a basketball game where the scores were hidden.

    Watch one on tv from 60 years ago.

    pretty sure the players can still see the score, just not broadcast on TV.

    thats right folks, someone had the job of changing the numbers on the score board..... why would you ever retire.

    yes that's why i said "on tv" (i was joking)
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    31071 posts Moderator
    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.
  • Kyno 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.

    Of course the data doesn't show any significant difference in win-ratio - the matchmaking algorithm is so appalling that most of the time the result is obvious before the start of the round - who attacks first makes little difference - but on the rare occasions you actually get a fair fight this is clearly a huge advantage.
  • TVF
    30948 posts Member
    mwigor wrote: »
    Kyno 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.

    Of course the data doesn't show any significant difference in win-ratio - the matchmaking algorithm is so appalling that most of the time the result is obvious before the start of the round - who attacks first makes little difference - but on the rare occasions you actually get a fair fight this is clearly a huge advantage.

    This is quite anecdotal.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Gifafi
    5617 posts Member
    lazy is as lazy doesn't
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • mwigor
    36 posts Member
    edited August 2020
    OK lets go with the counter argument - what is the advantage (in terms of making it a fair competitive experience for everyone) in having the score visible before the end of the round?

    The same problem has always existed in TW as well - Australian and Asian guilds are always at a disadvantage as the attack phase ends when these regions are asleep.
  • TVF
    30948 posts Member
    Honestly they should rotate both GA and TW start times.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Rath_Tarr
    4336 posts Member
    I moved first, he moved second - hours later even. I win. A pretty common occurrence for me. I must be a freak of nature or something. :D

    yzfe8p3tb2ff.png
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    I moved first, he moved second - hours later even. I win. A pretty common occurrence for me. I must be a freak of nature or something. :D

    yzfe8p3tb2ff.png

    I'm gonna go with the or something option.
    DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Waqui 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 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.
  • Legend91 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Legend91 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Oh noes I went first so I will surely lose!!! :oh79wems0rai3.png

    Did someone say you can't win if you go first?

    That's not the point, and I know you know it's not the point.

    Congrats on the win though.

    It's not like 2476 is an unbeatable score with what I see there on defense. Malak/Nest solo vs Shaak, JKR+GMY duo vs KRU, SLKR solo vs GG, Nest solo vs Palp (depending on potency vs tenacity)..but 2476 is a good score non the less.
    __________

    On topic:
    Going second is a significant advantage and I'm tired of this discussion. All relevant information (banners scored, number of battles and zones cleared) should be hidden but since CG is too lazy for everything or just doesn't care this won't happen.

    Or the significance of this advantage is exaggerated and calling them lazy is just a lazy argument.
    On the first part: That's probably why the majority of those high lifetime banner people (where it's safe to assume they get to Kyber every season and many of them having Kyber Contender titles) are desperately trying to attack second with some of those "standoffs" going so far that the first attacks are happening at the last 30 min of the match.
    I'd like to see some proof of this.
  • Kyno 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.
  • Rath_Tarr
    4336 posts Member
    Kyno 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.
  • Kyno
    31071 posts Moderator
    Kyno 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 wrote: »
    Kyno 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.
  • Nikoms565
    14238 posts Member
    I would love to see a basketball game where the scores were hidden.

    Example #4,828,562 that the forums struggle with analogy.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Nikoms565
    14238 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno 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.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Rath_Tarr
    4336 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.