@Stature how is Kabam, or the powers that be, selecting which accounts are "locked" into playing first? And if they are truly "locking" in accounts to pick first, why would they pit two against each other like in the single instance where you happened to pick second?
Can you provide screenshot evidence that you have picked 1st in BGs 99 out of 100 times? And if you have over 450k points picking first 99% of the time you can't be at that much of a disadvantage. I mean, I alternate between picking first and second with notable streaks in each and I'm only over half way to 450k and have maybe a 55-60% winning percentage.
Shouldn't you be asking that question to Kabam? I have only picked first all season, it is a sequence that is almost impossible to generate if the order of picks were determined randomly. That is all I know, how am I supposed to answer what is going on in Kabam's servers? All I can point out is my experience is impossible if the official stance is true.
How does it matter how much of a disadvantage I am at. This is a competitive mode, right? Why should I or anyone else have a disadvantage while you don't? A disadvantage is a disadvantage, saying it isn't much of a disadvantage doesn't remove the fact that there is one.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
Re: picking first. If you can get some usable data representing some sort of statistical significance, not just your own self-reported experience, then maybe people will take you seriously. You say thee are "multiple threads", but how many players does that actually represent? A dozen? Out of how many players? Well in GC alone there are 11K+ people, and if there was aq bug causing players to always pick first, the forum would be flooded with complaints. What we have instead is a trickle.
As to your complaint that people remind you that BG is a competition when you complain about matchmaking -- sorry if that message has been delivered in a non-supportive way, but the forum is constantly littered by people posting the same exact thing that someone else posted, and it is frustrating that so many people choose to create repetitive posts rather than comment on existing ones. I mean, here we are again, nothing new, just the same old complaints of which Kabam is clearly aware.
It stops being "Data" the moment a "conspiracy theory" pops up.
There is no conspiracy theory. If the ordering is not random, then there are advantages being handed to some player group. How does that make sense in a ranked competitive mode?
It is conspiracy theory if you believe your account is defaulted to pick 1st and everyone else in GC benefitted from this and are staying quiet, specially if the only Data that you can compare it to is yours. I dont believe in comparing similar rosters or skill is redundant at all, unless you can watch everyone play next to you. Similarity of roster? Based on what? Prestige? Rating? You only get to see 4 champs out of someone else's profile. 10 out of my 30 champs in deck are decay, I won matched just by banning the opponents. I will be as skeptical as I can be when you use skill and roster as a comparing factor, specially when you claim 60~ wins out of 100~ matches, most people that get to GC earlier don't even play 100+ matches to get there.
Where does belief come in to this? I have picked first all season. No random order of picking generates that outcome. These are not debatable statements, it is what has happened. In this case one sequence is enough. Anyway, there are more.
I'm inferring my account has defaulted to picking first because my account is always picking first. Not 70% of time, not 80% of time. Always, this entire season. I'm not the only one.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
What is your point? Are you suggesting people picking second are at a disadvantage?
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
What is your point? Are you suggesting people picking second are at a disadvantage?
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
My point? I seriously doubt Kabam put you on a blacklist of people who will choose 1st on every draft for X reason. I also don't believe on the 52.5% more chance of winning when picking second, you being the very example of what you are trying to prove. You picked first 90-95% of the time and managed a 60+% winning percentage. You are the evidence that disproves your theory.
@Stature how is Kabam, or the powers that be, selecting which accounts are "locked" into playing first? And if they are truly "locking" in accounts to pick first, why would they pit two against each other like in the single instance where you happened to pick second?
Can you provide screenshot evidence that you have picked 1st in BGs 99 out of 100 times? And if you have over 450k points picking first 99% of the time you can't be at that much of a disadvantage. I mean, I alternate between picking first and second with notable streaks in each and I'm only over half way to 450k and have maybe a 55-60% winning percentage.
Shouldn't you be asking that question to Kabam? I have only picked first all season, it is a sequence that is almost impossible to generate if the order of picks were determined randomly. That is all I know, how am I supposed to answer what is going on in Kabam's servers? All I can point out is my experience is impossible if the official stance is true.
How does it matter how much of a disadvantage I am at. This is a competitive mode, right? Why should I or anyone else have a disadvantage while you don't? A disadvantage is a disadvantage, saying it isn't much of a disadvantage doesn't remove the fact that there is one.
Do you really want to get into the improbable vs impossible debate that you weighed in on for a different post?
Why are you putting it on others to inquire with Kabam since you are the one alleging things? You're looking for answers from us when you going to Kabam might give you more than just speculation and heresy.
I want really hard to believe that for all 450k+ points in BGs this season you have picked first 95% or more of the time, but without actual posted evidence, I don't buy it. Is it possible you have indeed picked first at that rate? Absolutely. Is it probable? Most likely not and may just be a run of the mill case of confirmation bias.
I don't know how to solve BGs. I just play and hope for the best. But it is a 1v1 mode and there is always going to be 1 winner and one loser regardless of it being a Paragon vs Proven account with a 4 to 1 numbers advantage or a TB vs TB account with numbers being essentially equal for all intents and purposes. I get it's a game but there are real life scenarios sprinkled all over of Davids facing Goaliaths and things not going David's way. People hate to lose. Winning feels a whole lot better. And losing streak pile up a lot faster than winning streaks too. When you lose a lot that's when it just isn't fair and something needs to change.
But congrats on hitting 450k milestone points. Hell of an accomplishment!
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
What is your point? Are you suggesting people picking second are at a disadvantage?
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
My point? I seriously doubt Kabam put you on a blacklist of people who will choose 1st on every draft for X reason. I also don't believe on the 52.5% more chance of winning when picking second, you being the very example of what you are trying to prove. You picked first 90-95% of the time and managed a 60+% winning percentage. You are the evidence that disproves your theory.
And I would have won even more if I had picked second 50% of the time. Which would have happened if the system was fair or random.
If you don't believe that I haven't picked first all the time this season, that's ok. There is no good way for me to prove it without hours of video. Even if I put screenshots you will say that I only picked the ones that had me first. Only the devs can provide conclusive data on it.
Blacklist or not, I have picked first in all but one match this season. This is a fact.
Whether you consider it an advantage or not, people picking second have more information on the match-up to make their decisions. This is also a fact.
That I have been at a disadvantage this whole season is not up for debate. This is what has happened. Extent of the disadvantage is immaterial compared to the fact that there is a disadvantage at all. Unlike every other disadvantage in the game mode (seeding, matchmaking etc.) this is a hidden penalty, nowhere disclosed.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
What is your point? Are you suggesting people picking second are at a disadvantage?
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
My point? I seriously doubt Kabam put you on a blacklist of people who will choose 1st on every draft for X reason. I also don't believe on the 52.5% more chance of winning when picking second, you being the very example of what you are trying to prove. You picked first 90-95% of the time and managed a 60+% winning percentage. You are the evidence that disproves your theory.
And yeah kind of this.
The first paragraph especially. "I've been selected by the shadowy kabaal" is bordering on tin foil hat conspiracy...
The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
It isn't, and I've said so in other threads. However, while there is evidence this seems to be happening, that evidence is sporatic and doesn't seem to suggest a root cause. I know this was reported to the developers, but beyond that there's not much players can do about it.
The simple facts are that much of the structural things players complain about regarding BG are intentional, and thus not bugs and not something that should be or will be fixed. This seems to be one that might actually be a bug, in which case it is something that should be fixed, but outside of reporting it there's nothing else complaining about it will accomplish, unless someone has additional data that might definitively point to a cause and can share it in a useful manner.
I'm actually probably going to be tracking this next season, alongside the other gazillion things I track by hand already, just to see if there's any pattern to it. That's really the extent of what can be done, or rather what I can do about it.
Do you really want to get into the improbable vs impossible debate that you weighed in on for a different post
The sequence is far closer to impossible than improbable. Saying "but it is probable" is not the out you think it is when the chances of it happening is less than one in a quadrillion.
Such sequences are really only possible if the ordering system is broken. Fair or random chances of picking second will not generate this outcome within the set of matches we are discussing.
To anyone questioning whether there is an issue where a small number of people seem stuck picking first: yes, there is. I’ve picked second in only 4 of my last 120+ matches. I am not exaggerating. I’m not claiming a conspiracy. I’m not looking for sympathy. But I don’t love the suggestions that I’m just making this up or I don’t understand probability.
It also seems unhelpful to frame this as something that fundamentally undermines the fairness of BGs. There are occasions I find myself placing first in a 3rd round and feel at a disadvantage. In those situations I remind myself that this would sometimes happen regardless. I don’t think of it as a fairness issue; I think of it as something very confusing and mildly annoying.
I would just like for Kabam to look into the *possibility* that due to some unintended issue, a small number of players are being selected to pick first on a non-random basis. Until then, I’ll just keep trying to win in two rounds.
1. Those of us that today BGs is a competition comment on matchmaking threads. I've never once stepped into a "who picks first" thread. 2. The devs don't decide whether to "bury" an issue. They aren't forum moderators and don't do anything with threads. 3. How do you know if you lost because you picked first or second? What's your data showing that you would have definitively won if you picked first? 4. Why is it you think you can't win because you picked first? 12 seasons in and I've picked first and second and won both ways. I'm not a skilled player by any means either.
I just can't understand the big deal of picking first or second.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
What is your point? Are you suggesting people picking second are at a disadvantage?
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
My point? I seriously doubt Kabam put you on a blacklist of people who will choose 1st on every draft for X reason. I also don't believe on the 52.5% more chance of winning when picking second, you being the very example of what you are trying to prove. You picked first 90-95% of the time and managed a 60+% winning percentage. You are the evidence that disproves your theory.
And yeah kind of this.
The first paragraph especially. "I've been selected by the shadowy kabaal" is bordering on tin foil hat conspiracy...
So far you have said that starting first or second was "Selective" People in GC got to GC on the backs of people who picked first 90-95% with equal roster (impossible to verify with useless data like prestige or account rating) and equal skill (impossible to verify) If its a bug so be it, hope they fix it; claiming a 2nd picker has 52.5 or 55, or even 60% percent chance of winning, how did you manage your 60+% with a 90-95% 1st pick?... Maybe cause it really doesn't matter.
Is there anybody here who can honestly claim they have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time or even 100% as some claim? 🤔 It won't get you in trouble, matter of fact if its a real bug, admit it cause next season you could be on the other side. I don't even keep track so I wouldn't know, I just find it weird.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
What is your point? Are you suggesting people picking second are at a disadvantage?
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
My point? I seriously doubt Kabam put you on a blacklist of people who will choose 1st on every draft for X reason. I also don't believe on the 52.5% more chance of winning when picking second, you being the very example of what you are trying to prove. You picked first 90-95% of the time and managed a 60+% winning percentage. You are the evidence that disproves your theory.
And yeah kind of this.
The first paragraph especially. "I've been selected by the shadowy kabaal" is bordering on tin foil hat conspiracy...
So far you have said that starting first or second was "Selective" People in GC got to GC on the backs of people who picked first 90-95% with equal roster (impossible to verify with useless data like prestige or account rating) and equal skill (impossible to verify) If its a bug so be it, hope they fix it; claiming a 2nd picker has 52.5 or 55, or even 60% percent chance of winning, how did you manage your 60+% with a 90-95% 1st pick?... Maybe cause it really doesn't matter.
Every match has a winner and a loser. So the average win rate across the player base is 50%. This doesn't mean there are players with higher and lower win rates. Some players win 30-40% and progress slowly, some win at 75%+ and progress very fast. I win reasonably and progress reasonably. With a disadvantage that most people don't have. It isn't outlandish to assume I would progress faster without that disadvantage.
If you were running with a weighted pack in a marathon and still over took some racers does that mean you couldn't run faster without the pack?
I will stop commenting after this, but someone who claims "keeping track" and comming up with "ish" or "~" is not a great source of data. You were keeping track, is it 90 or 95%? Is it 100 or 105 matches? Sorry i sense exaggeration.
I want to know why, that if a player does see a pattern, i.e. picking 1st a ton, the player does not take the time to record the evidence and post it to show actual proof behind the allegations.
Everyone gets mired in a losing streak and at some point they see they've picked first 3 times in a row and suddenly it's "I pick 1st 90+% of every BG match I play and that's why I'm losing." Yet there is not a trace of screenshots or videos. What better things to present to Kabam to say the game mode is broken than by having documentation? Yet it's, instead, I'll make a forum post complaining how matchmaking is unfair or the selection process is unfair or I hate how in these posts people have opposite viewpoints of myself and the folks that start these threads.
I can't help. And those smarter than me (who have weighed in on this thread already) can't help. We can give answers based on our viewpoints and experiences but chances are good we're going to get demonized because they aren't in agreement with you or what you want to read.
If it's happening how you're saying it's happening, get evidence, send it to Kabam, and have a dialog with them.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I've picked second once. I'm over 450K in solo points. You do the math. It's not 90-95%, it's being locked in to pick first. There is no probability attached here. Most likely the only time I got second was with someone else who is also locked in.
The people who are picking second are most likely already in decent tiers in GC and are hoping this doesn't get any attention. This is what I mean by "BG is a competition" only being relevant when it serves them.
It is an advantage? Yes it a slight one, now to claim that the people in GC are there because they were benefitted by this advantage?... See this is why some people then come with a bad attitude to tell people things like git gud, or its a competition. Picking first has a disadvantage but its not a match decider. The fact that you were able to get 450k points and close to GC is proof that picking first is not an instant loss either. Not saying you said that; but there are some people that will blame EVERYTHING, on everything else before their shortcomings. They will blame matchmaking, f2p vs P2P, input issues, AI, point scoring system, picking first 12 out of 10 matches before they accept where they are in the game.
Slight or not is subjective. The point is there is a systemic disadvantage applied to a group of players. The corollary is there is a systemic advantage applied to another group of players. With impact on final ranking of players and alliances. That is against the ethos of any competition anywhere.
I'm in Vibranium, picking first all the time this entire season. Would I have had 5 more wins if I had picked first all the time, of course. I would easily be in GC then. So yeah, if anyone who has a comparable roster and game skills as me, they would easily get into GC if they were picking first all the time. I'll get to GC even with this handicap, it'll cost me 1,000-2,000 elder marks more, in fact now that I'm beyond 450K, I'll probably just do it with energy.
That said, this has still set me back. Every extra loss I've had, I needed two more matches to make up that progress. I've played more matches than I should have, consumed my EM stash and ceded the opportunity cost of doing arenas or something else. It will cost me points in the rank rewards, since for the same amount of matches I would have more points even with one more win. It will cost my alliance points in the event. This also means some other player and alliance has benefited from free points on the other side of this issue. Eventually, this will also impact your solo rank rewards and alliance rank rewards.
The issue is not if I am skillful enough to get past this disadvantage. The question is why is it ok for the game to apply this disadvantage selectively, if BG is meant to be a competition.
Well, not sure what to tell you; but this is straight up the alley of claiming that people who spend in the game have better results in crystal openings. Its hard to sympathize with a post that claims that everyone else who picked second is already in GC and hoping that this doesn't get revealed.
I said people with similar rosters and similar skills would get into GC if they were picking second all the time. I won ~60 matches out of ~100 and am in Vibranium today. Picking first all the time. Do you seriously think I wouldn't have won 65 matches out of 100 if I was picking second all the time? That's all it take to be in GC from where I am.
I dont think the percentage of win matches would have changed that much if you had picked 2nd.
How much would it change? Is 61 ok? That's 4500 more points in the solo event, 2 less matches I would had to play and 180 EMs saved. That's about 80 units. Just from one extra loss.
That said, I think 5% is a conservative estimate of how much win rates differ for people picking first over second. All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall.
I find it a bit contradictory to say "All that means is people picking second win 52.5% of the matches overall." When you manage to win 60~% picking first 90-95% of the time.
What is your point? Are you suggesting people picking second are at a disadvantage?
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
My point? I seriously doubt Kabam put you on a blacklist of people who will choose 1st on every draft for X reason. I also don't believe on the 52.5% more chance of winning when picking second, you being the very example of what you are trying to prove. You picked first 90-95% of the time and managed a 60+% winning percentage. You are the evidence that disproves your theory.
And yeah kind of this.
The first paragraph especially. "I've been selected by the shadowy kabaal" is bordering on tin foil hat conspiracy...
So far you have said that starting first or second was "Selective" People in GC got to GC on the backs of people who picked first 90-95% with equal roster (impossible to verify with useless data like prestige or account rating) and equal skill (impossible to verify) If its a bug so be it, hope they fix it; claiming a 2nd picker has 52.5 or 55, or even 60% percent chance of winning, how did you manage your 60+% with a 90-95% 1st pick?... Maybe cause it really doesn't matter.
Every match has a winner and a loser. So the average win rate across the player base is 50%. This doesn't mean there are players with higher and lower win rates. Some players win 30-40% and progress slowly, some win at 75%+ and progress very fast. I win reasonably and progress reasonably. With a disadvantage that most people don't have. It isn't outlandish to assume I would progress faster without that disadvantage.
If you were running with a weighted pack in a marathon and still over took some racers does that mean you couldn't run faster without the pack?
I will stop commenting after this, but someone who claims "keeping track" and comming up with "ish" or "~" is not a great source of data. You were keeping track, is it 90 or 95%? Is it 100 or 105 matches? Sorry i sense exaggeration.
In my case I said I’ve picked second in 4 of 120+ matches. I phrased it that way because by the time I started keeping track, I was already on a run of picking first. Since I started keeping track I’ve picked first exactly 116 times out of 120.
And @Stature you have still failed to answer the question of how Kabam determines who is placed into 1st pick purgatory. I know you want me to ask Kabam, but this was the crux of your original post. You brought this sentiment up.
It's ok to say you don't have an answer or don't know.
I've been suffering from this issue myself, but you guys gotta stop whining about it. Its rng and its literally just a game, if you are really that annoyed about your bad luck don't play🤷♂️. Or just get good enough for the rng to not affect if you win or not.
I want to know why, that if a player does see a pattern, i.e. picking 1st a ton, the player does not take the time to record the evidence and post it to show actual proof behind the allegations.
Recording say 100 matches is very very time consuming.
On one hand I wonder why anyone would assume exaggeration. On the other hand I think of Golivarez and I’m like, that’s why.
Exaggerating is something the community does well.
But I think many are skeptical because this is also used when people are talking about input issues or some mechanic that isn't working. They always say it happens all the time but usually can't provide any evidence.
On one hand I wonder why anyone would assume exaggeration. On the other hand I think of Golivarez and I’m like, that’s why.
Exaggerating is something the community does well.
But I think many are skeptical because this is also used when people are talking about input issues or some mechanic that isn't working. They always say it happens all the time but usually can't provide any evidence.
If I wasn't already aware of the issue, the thread title alone would put me in a very skeptical frame of mind.
If someone is going to start a thread, it is completely up to them how much and what kind of baggage they want to bring into it. But deciding to link the draft order issue to all other BG complaints is not a choice I would personally make, and implying that the response to all other BG complaints is completely dubious would have completely demotivated me from even looking at it had I not already made the decision to look at it on my own. It wraps itself in too many layers of aluminum foil to be otherwise taken seriously.
I just find it funny that everyone who wrote in the forums about the pick first issue claim a 90-95% rate in which they had to pick first.. Yes i believe the system could be broken, that maybe it is slanted go figure for what reason, but EVERYONE who agreed or wrote on those post have a really high percentage, it takes 2 people for a match, where are the people who have picked 2nd 90-95% of the time? It could be an issue but I believe the numbers are over inflated to make it more dramatic and some are even claiming high numbers due to mass hysteria.
I’ve actually been keeping track, I believe I have picked first once in my last 33 matches. Still not winning very much though so it can’t replace my lack of skills.
I want to know why, that if a player does see a pattern, i.e. picking 1st a ton, the player does not take the time to record the evidence and post it to show actual proof behind the allegations.
Recording say 100 matches is very very time consuming.
I want to know why, that if a player does see a pattern, i.e. picking 1st a ton, the player does not take the time to record the evidence and post it to show actual proof behind the allegations.
Recording say 100 matches is very very time consuming.
@Stature how can you prove that you would have won 8-10 more matches by picking second as you say here- How do you know? Which 8-10 matches did you lose that you know for a fact you would have won? What's the differentiator in those matches that you lost picking first and the matches you won picking first?
You have screenshots of matches where you know you would have won and can show it? What would have been your champ to select from to guarantee that you would win?
Comments
How does it matter how much of a disadvantage I am at. This is a competitive mode, right? Why should I or anyone else have a disadvantage while you don't? A disadvantage is a disadvantage, saying it isn't much of a disadvantage doesn't remove the fact that there is one.
I'm inferring my account has defaulted to picking first because my account is always picking first. Not 70% of time, not 80% of time. Always, this entire season. I'm not the only one.
When you are picking second, you have additional information that you cannot have while picking first. You know what the player has picked in their deck or for their defense. Placing first you can guess what they will pick or place. Even if you get 100% of your guesses right, you are at best negating the advantage the person placing second has.
You can have 5% better win rates by picking first. It is hardly an outlandish assumption.
I also don't believe on the 52.5% more chance of winning when picking second, you being the very example of what you are trying to prove. You picked first 90-95% of the time and managed a 60+% winning percentage.
You are the evidence that disproves your theory.
Why are you putting it on others to inquire with Kabam since you are the one alleging things? You're looking for answers from us when you going to Kabam might give you more than just speculation and heresy.
I want really hard to believe that for all 450k+ points in BGs this season you have picked first 95% or more of the time, but without actual posted evidence, I don't buy it. Is it possible you have indeed picked first at that rate? Absolutely. Is it probable? Most likely not and may just be a run of the mill case of confirmation bias.
I don't know how to solve BGs. I just play and hope for the best. But it is a 1v1 mode and there is always going to be 1 winner and one loser regardless of it being a Paragon vs Proven account with a 4 to 1 numbers advantage or a TB vs TB account with numbers being essentially equal for all intents and purposes. I get it's a game but there are real life scenarios sprinkled all over of Davids facing Goaliaths and things not going David's way. People hate to lose. Winning feels a whole lot better. And losing streak pile up a lot faster than winning streaks too. When you lose a lot that's when it just isn't fair and something needs to change.
But congrats on hitting 450k milestone points. Hell of an accomplishment!
If you don't believe that I haven't picked first all the time this season, that's ok. There is no good way for me to prove it without hours of video. Even if I put screenshots you will say that I only picked the ones that had me first. Only the devs can provide conclusive data on it.
Blacklist or not, I have picked first in all but one match this season. This is a fact.
Whether you consider it an advantage or not, people picking second have more information on the match-up to make their decisions. This is also a fact.
That I have been at a disadvantage this whole season is not up for debate. This is what has happened. Extent of the disadvantage is immaterial compared to the fact that there is a disadvantage at all. Unlike every other disadvantage in the game mode (seeding, matchmaking etc.) this is a hidden penalty, nowhere disclosed.
The first paragraph especially. "I've been selected by the shadowy kabaal" is bordering on tin foil hat conspiracy...
The simple facts are that much of the structural things players complain about regarding BG are intentional, and thus not bugs and not something that should be or will be fixed. This seems to be one that might actually be a bug, in which case it is something that should be fixed, but outside of reporting it there's nothing else complaining about it will accomplish, unless someone has additional data that might definitively point to a cause and can share it in a useful manner.
I'm actually probably going to be tracking this next season, alongside the other gazillion things I track by hand already, just to see if there's any pattern to it. That's really the extent of what can be done, or rather what I can do about it.
Such sequences are really only possible if the ordering system is broken. Fair or random chances of picking second will not generate this outcome within the set of matches we are discussing.
To anyone questioning whether there is an issue where a small number of people seem stuck picking first: yes, there is. I’ve picked second in only 4 of my last 120+ matches. I am not exaggerating. I’m not claiming a conspiracy. I’m not looking for sympathy. But I don’t love the suggestions that I’m just making this up or I don’t understand probability.
It also seems unhelpful to frame this as something that fundamentally undermines the fairness of BGs. There are occasions I find myself placing first in a 3rd round and feel at a disadvantage. In those situations I remind myself that this would sometimes happen regardless. I don’t think of it as a fairness issue; I think of it as something very confusing and mildly annoying.
I would just like for Kabam to look into the *possibility* that due to some unintended issue, a small number of players are being selected to pick first on a non-random basis. Until then, I’ll just keep trying to win in two rounds.
2. The devs don't decide whether to "bury" an issue. They aren't forum moderators and don't do anything with threads.
3. How do you know if you lost because you picked first or second? What's your data showing that you would have definitively won if you picked first?
4. Why is it you think you can't win because you picked first? 12 seasons in and I've picked first and second and won both ways. I'm not a skilled player by any means either.
I just can't understand the big deal of picking first or second.
People in GC got to GC on the backs of people who picked first 90-95% with equal roster (impossible to verify with useless data like prestige or account rating) and equal skill (impossible to verify)
If its a bug so be it, hope they fix it; claiming a 2nd picker has 52.5 or 55, or even 60% percent chance of winning, how did you manage your 60+% with a 90-95% 1st pick?... Maybe cause it really doesn't matter.
I picked first 100% of the time in at least the week and a half leading up to today.
There's something not working as intended.
It won't get you in trouble, matter of fact if its a real bug, admit it cause next season you could be on the other side.
I don't even keep track so I wouldn't know, I just find it weird.
Sorry i sense exaggeration.
Everyone gets mired in a losing streak and at some point they see they've picked first 3 times in a row and suddenly it's "I pick 1st 90+% of every BG match I play and that's why I'm losing." Yet there is not a trace of screenshots or videos. What better things to present to Kabam to say the game mode is broken than by having documentation? Yet it's, instead, I'll make a forum post complaining how matchmaking is unfair or the selection process is unfair or I hate how in these posts people have opposite viewpoints of myself and the folks that start these threads.
I can't help. And those smarter than me (who have weighed in on this thread already) can't help. We can give answers based on our viewpoints and experiences but chances are good we're going to get demonized because they aren't in agreement with you or what you want to read.
If it's happening how you're saying it's happening, get evidence, send it to Kabam, and have a dialog with them.
It's ok to say you don't have an answer or don't know.
But I think many are skeptical because this is also used when people are talking about input issues or some mechanic that isn't working. They always say it happens all the time but usually can't provide any evidence.
If someone is going to start a thread, it is completely up to them how much and what kind of baggage they want to bring into it. But deciding to link the draft order issue to all other BG complaints is not a choice I would personally make, and implying that the response to all other BG complaints is completely dubious would have completely demotivated me from even looking at it had I not already made the decision to look at it on my own. It wraps itself in too many layers of aluminum foil to be otherwise taken seriously.
How do you know? Which 8-10 matches did you lose that you know for a fact you would have won? What's the differentiator in those matches that you lost picking first and the matches you won picking first?
You have screenshots of matches where you know you would have won and can show it?
What would have been your champ to select from to guarantee that you would win?
I'm really curious to see this data.