And if you won the first game and lost the second game, then the score is 1-1 in the match and the ‘comeback’ keyword should not be active. You’re not in a comeback situation when you are exactly even with your opponent.
But you just lost the previous game!
![Smile :) :)]()
Like I already said though, the biggest argument against only having plucky be active when you're actually behind, is that it only ever activates in the second game of a match if you lost the first game. From a design perspective, that would make plucky
way too situational for me.
Ok, I'm gonna try to get math-y here. By definition, each game that has a winner also has a loser, which means that in a tournament, the average game win rate by definition is exactly 50% (ignoring games that end in a draw for convenience, these are very rare anyway). So, there's a 50% chance that a random player will lose their first game and have plucky be active for them in the second game. If we assume the second game also has a 50% win rate (don't worry about the assumption, this more or less evens out on the other end, because the percentage of matches that go to a third game when you win your first game is the opposite), then naturally 50% of these second games will result in a third game where plucky once again
isn't active (using the "if you've lost more games than your opponent this round" wording). If you write everything out, you'll see that on average, plucky will be turned on for a player in a mere 20% of their games if you use this wording.
If you use the "if you lost the previous game this round" wording, on average plucky will be turned on for a player in 30% of their games.
If you use the "if you lost a game this round" wording, on average plucky will be turned on for a player in 40% of their games.
I personally think 40% on average is a fine percentage of games to have plucky active. At 20% on average it feels like it's not worth adding the ability to the game.