A Fair, Symmetric Drafting System for BG

Clyneva

There's been a lot of talk about the unfairness of having to draft first in BG, and a lot of skepticism regarding how the order is decided. But I actually have a more central question: why is the drafting system in BG asymmetric at all?

Asymmetric drafting only makes sense in games where both players are drawing (and eliminating) from the same pool. If both players are drawing from individual pools, a symmetric system is both more fair and faster. An argument I've seen is that it somehow would be less strategic, but let's dig into that and consider the steps in the two systems.

The current system looks like this:
1) Both players - Blind bans

2a) Player 1 - Blind pick 1 champion
3a) Player 1 - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 2 picks
4a) Player 1 - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 4 picks
5a) Player 1 - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 6 picks

2b) Player 2 - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 1 picks
3b) Player 2 - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 3 picks
4b) Player 2 - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 5 picks
5b) Player 2 - Pick 1 champion, have information on opponent's previous 7 picks

A symmetric system would look something like this
1.) Both players - Blind bans
2.) Both players - Blind pick 1 champion
3.) Both players - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 1 picks
4.) Both players - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 3 picks
5.) Both players - Pick 2 champions, have information on opponent's previous 5 picks

Can you see the similarities? The symmetric system has the exact same number of strategic steps (5 steps for each player). In fact, the only difference between a symmetric system and what Player 2 is doing in the current system is that their final pick gets moved to the front, into a blind pick. Otherwise, they're making the exact same strategic choices as the current system.

I would argue that removing that final pick actually adds to the overall strategy of the draft, because player 2 doesn't just get an uncounterable pick using full information, which is a tremendous advantage. To top it off, since both players are picking at the same time, the drafting process now takes half the time.

The advantages of symmetric drafting seems pretty clear: it's faster, more fair, and retains the same strategic elements. It is unclear to me what advantage asymmetric drafting adds to the process.

laserjohn26

How do you deal with who has to place defense 1st in the first and 3rd round. That's truly where the disadvantage comes in. A tactical player can all but guarantee a 3rd round victory a majority of the time.

Theruneking

Great idea, this is much needed!

captain_rogers

So what you are saying is letting players to choose defenders at the same time, without knowing what the opponent is drafting.
It makes thw strategy more complicated and we will have hundreds of whining threads on forums.
But what you suggested is a good idea but should've been implemented from the start

SkyLord7000

For defense/offense it is very similar both pick a defender at the same time, then both pick an attacker at the same time.

ThePredator1001

I like this! I hate how with the current system one players gets the advantage of last draft and going second when it comes to picking defenders. Feels like one player has a large advantage.

Clyneva

laserjohn26 said:

How do you deal with who has to place defense 1st in the first and 3rd round. That's truly where the disadvantage comes in. A tactical player can all but guarantee a 3rd round victory a majority of the time.

You can make the placing system symmetric as well, without much loss in strategy. Consider the same analysis.

Current system:
Round 1:
1a) Player 1 - Placing defender, has 7 choices, opponent has 7 choices
2a) Player 1 - Placing attacker, has 6 choices, opponent has 6 choices

1b) Player 2 - Placing defender, has 7 choices, opponent has 6 choices
2b) Player 2 - Placing attacker, has 6 choices, opponent has 5 choices

Round 2:
1a) Player 2 - Placing defender, has 5 choices, opponent has 5 choices
2a) Player 2 - Placing attacker, has 4 choices, opponent has 4 choices

1b) Player 1 - Placing defender, has 5 choices, opponent has 4 choices
2b) Player 1 - Placing attacker, has 4 choices, opponent has 3 choices

Round 3:
1a) Player 1 - Placing defender, have 3 choices, opponent has 3 choices
2a) Player 1 - Placing attacker, have 2 choices, opponent has 2 choices

1b) Player 2 - Placing defender, have 3 choices, opponent has 2 choices
2b) Player 2 - Placing attacker, have 2 choices

Symmetric system:
Round 1:
1) Both players - Placing defender, has 7 choices, opponent has 7 choices
2) Both players - Placing attacker, has 6 choices, opponent has 6 choices

Round 2:
1) Both players - Placing defender, has 5 choices, opponent has 5 choices
2) Both players - Placing attacker, has 4 choices, opponent has 4 choices

Round 3:
1) Both players - Placing defender, has 3 choices, opponent has 3 choices
2) Both players - Placing attacker, has 2 choices, opponent has 2 choices

Again, if you compare the two system, you can see that under a symmetric system, both players have the same strategic choices as what at least one of the players have to face in the current existing system.

ahmynuts

Your idea removes strategy which is not good for a mode like this

BringPopcorn

Its amazing how much time people spend trying to find ways to change BGs to their idea of fairness instead of just playing it.

MasterSmoke

A draft type system with all champs at max star level , max rank , max sig would be fire first come first serve each pick 7 champs