Now it's a competition. When it benefits you the stance is very different.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'm fairly certain that it is incorrect.
You only use the competition line in cases where it helps you. You don't really care about the competition, only that players at your level get disproportionate share of rewards and others are kept away from it. When the BG order bug was highlighted your stance was people affected should find a way to deal with it instead of the team taking an official stance and fix it. In that case its a bug which gives you an advantage so you are happy to keep it going.
You are not following, at all. Both statements are the same argument. It's a competition so players need to deal with the challenges of the competition.
You seem to want a charity where participation is what matters and not skill.
Asking for a fix (and acknowledgement) to a bug which gives permanent disadvantage to some players is charity?
No, but the feature being discussed is not a bug. It is an explicit feature of the game mode deliberately put there. And the fact that players eventually find themselves in lopsided matches is not even an unfortunate side effect either. It is *deliberately* the case that if a low progress player wants to advance in VT above a certain point, they MUST eventually face the average players in those tiers, even if the average player in that tier is twice as strong, ten times a strong, or a trillion times stronger than they are. You get to face hand picked competition in the lower tiers, but eventually you must face everyone BY DESIGN.
If you don't have a strong enough roster to beat Act 5, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. If you don't have a strong enough roster to beat the Abyss, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. If your roster is strong enough for you to beat the players in Gold 2 but not Diamond 1, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. This is by design.
I wasn't referring to matchmaking when I said bug. I was responding to a comment which implied being locked in to picking first is one of the the challenges competitors should learn to adapt to. And that asking for the bug to be fixed is demanding charity. By a person who is on the other side of the bug and reaping benefits of it.
lol, It's like you don't even read what you reply to.
That only applies to one of us.
You can couch it however you want. You are either affected by the bug or not. If you are not, your win rate is inflated (or at best flat) because you've been handed an advantage. Your response to that has not been that the bug should be fixed (as it should be if BG was a competition) but that you should continue to keep your advantage and the ones disadvantaged should adapt because you would like to continue to get the free wins and easier matches.
How is your position any different to what the OP wants? They also want easier matches, just through a different mechanism, matchmaking in this case. None of you wants a fair competition.
There's no statistical evidence out there that says your win rate is higher if you pick 2nd. I understand what you're trying to do but don't start throwing in unproven claims. It makes what you say invalid.
Advantages of picking second: 1. You know the composition of the opponents team before you pick your team. When you pick the last champ in your team, you have absolute knowledge of what you need to counter. The person picking first has no such advantage. 2. In round 1, when you place defense you have to consider only 6 champs vs. 7 for the player going first. 3. In round 3, in many cases you can win the the match-up even before the fight has started. By the time you place defense you have to counter only 2 champs, you can dictate which champs are used. 4. Statistically, when you are picking second you have a marginally higher chance of getting a preferred champ (~0.2%).
Disadvantages of picking second: None.
If you ignore all of that then there is no evidence that win rate is better if you pick 2nd. There is zero probability that a cohort matched study will show that picking second does not improve win rates. Unfortunately, only people who can do a cohort matched analysis are the owners of the game.
I don't see any evidence that says if you pick first or second, you win or lose more. You've only described why you think picking first is a disadvantage?
How many matches have you tracked where you pick first and tracked your wins/losses? How many other people have you collected data for to track that same set of data for comparison?
How many matches have you tracked where you picked second and recorded your wins/losses? And how many other people have you collected data for to use to compare and compile?
I'm going to go with zero. That's all I'm saying is that you can say you think picking first is a disadvantage but don't claim there's inflated wins for those who pick second. When you come back with a sample size large enough, then we'll talk.
Now it's a competition. When it benefits you the stance is very different.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'm fairly certain that it is incorrect.
You only use the competition line in cases where it helps you. You don't really care about the competition, only that players at your level get disproportionate share of rewards and others are kept away from it. When the BG order bug was highlighted your stance was people affected should find a way to deal with it instead of the team taking an official stance and fix it. In that case its a bug which gives you an advantage so you are happy to keep it going.
You are not following, at all. Both statements are the same argument. It's a competition so players need to deal with the challenges of the competition.
You seem to want a charity where participation is what matters and not skill.
Asking for a fix (and acknowledgement) to a bug which gives permanent disadvantage to some players is charity?
No, but the feature being discussed is not a bug. It is an explicit feature of the game mode deliberately put there. And the fact that players eventually find themselves in lopsided matches is not even an unfortunate side effect either. It is *deliberately* the case that if a low progress player wants to advance in VT above a certain point, they MUST eventually face the average players in those tiers, even if the average player in that tier is twice as strong, ten times a strong, or a trillion times stronger than they are. You get to face hand picked competition in the lower tiers, but eventually you must face everyone BY DESIGN.
If you don't have a strong enough roster to beat Act 5, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. If you don't have a strong enough roster to beat the Abyss, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. If your roster is strong enough for you to beat the players in Gold 2 but not Diamond 1, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. This is by design.
I wasn't referring to matchmaking when I said bug. I was responding to a comment which implied being locked in to picking first is one of the the challenges competitors should learn to adapt to. And that asking for the bug to be fixed is demanding charity. By a person who is on the other side of the bug and reaping benefits of it.
That one is a bug. I apologize for the misunderstanding. That one should get looked at.
It is true that bugs happen, and it is true that when bugs happen players can't always expect fixes to happen quickly, so players of any online game should be prepared to adapt to those kinds of situations. But that's separate from asking for the bug to be looked at and remedied, which is also a thing that is reasonable to do.
On the general subject of whether picking first or second confers an advantage. I suspect drafting second does confer a statistical advantage, but I suspect it is smaller than most people think and is not a global advantage. Which is to say, it isn't always an advantage in every match up. If the player picking second doesn't attempt to maximize that advantage during the draft, that advantage can essentially drop to near zero.
(In other words, if I pick first and my opponent picks second, and I draft to maximize my chances to win in two and my opponent doesn't attempt to draft in a way to trap me in round three, the pick second advantage could vanish completely).
I'm pretty sure there's no advantage to picking first, which means picking second must be something between no advantage and some marginal positive advantage.
I don't see any evidence that says if you pick first or second, you win or lose more. You've only described why you think picking first is a disadvantage?
How many matches have you tracked where you pick first and tracked your wins/losses? How many other people have you collected data for to track that same set of data for comparison?
How many matches have you tracked where you picked second and recorded your wins/losses? And how many other people have you collected data for to use to compare and compile?
I'm going to go with zero. That's all I'm saying is that you can say you think picking first is a disadvantage but don't claim there's inflated wins for those who pick second. When you come back with a sample size large enough, then we'll talk.
This is like saying water is wet and you debating wet means something else in your imaginary language.
Extra information one has when picking second is not my assumption. It is a fact. What I outlined is not what I think, but what is. The advantage of picking second is obvious. It does not need any statistical evidence.
My win/loss record does not change the fact. My win/loss is influenced by other factors than just picking second. Only way you will be able to statistically asses the impact is by doing creating similar cohorts which balance out all other factors like roster strength and then seeing how picking second effects win rates. You or I cannot do that.
Now it's a competition. When it benefits you the stance is very different.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'm fairly certain that it is incorrect.
You only use the competition line in cases where it helps you. You don't really care about the competition, only that players at your level get disproportionate share of rewards and others are kept away from it. When the BG order bug was highlighted your stance was people affected should find a way to deal with it instead of the team taking an official stance and fix it. In that case its a bug which gives you an advantage so you are happy to keep it going.
You are not following, at all. Both statements are the same argument. It's a competition so players need to deal with the challenges of the competition.
You seem to want a charity where participation is what matters and not skill.
So, when you get to pick first more often than you should, giving you an in-game advantage, that is just a challenge I should deal with?
But someone else gets an advantage you don't get, that is charity?
This is what I mean when I say you don't want a competition, you just want an easy path to rewards - be it preferential first picks, a tailored store or weak teams to pile on.
On the general subject of whether picking first or second confers an advantage. I suspect drafting second does confer a statistical advantage, but I suspect it is smaller than most people think and is not a global advantage. Which is to say, it isn't always an advantage in every match up. If the player picking second doesn't attempt to maximize that advantage during the draft, that advantage can essentially drop to near zero.
(In other words, if I pick first and my opponent picks second, and I draft to maximize my chances to win in two and my opponent doesn't attempt to draft in a way to trap me in round three, the pick second advantage could vanish completely).
I'm pretty sure there's no advantage to picking first, which means picking second must be something between no advantage and some marginal positive advantage.
A player's ability to maximise the advantage does not imply the advantage is of lesser value. If you extend that line of thinking then no single factor confers a global advantage - stronger roster, better drafting luck etc. can all be squandered away by mismanagement at the player's end.
I agree that the benefit of drafting second is probably only relevant in close matches. But BG is also a ladder, higher you move, matches are more likely to get closer. It may not be a huge advantage in absolute terms, but would be enough to shift win rates by a few percentage points and add significant resource cost to players who are at the receiving end of the bug. The impact is egregious in seasons like last where solo milestones where important. Probably less this season since one can get to GC with just energy and ignore the solo milestones.
Now it's a competition. When it benefits you the stance is very different.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'm fairly certain that it is incorrect.
You only use the competition line in cases where it helps you. You don't really care about the competition, only that players at your level get disproportionate share of rewards and others are kept away from it. When the BG order bug was highlighted your stance was people affected should find a way to deal with it instead of the team taking an official stance and fix it. In that case its a bug which gives you an advantage so you are happy to keep it going.
You are not following, at all. Both statements are the same argument. It's a competition so players need to deal with the challenges of the competition.
You seem to want a charity where participation is what matters and not skill.
So, when you get to pick first more often than you should, giving you an in-game advantage, that is just a challenge I should deal with?
But someone else gets an advantage you don't get, that is charity?
This is what I mean when I say you don't want a competition, you just want an easy path to rewards - be it preferential first picks, a tailored store or weak teams to pile on.
Way to hijack a post...
Thank you. Winners adapt, if you didn't know.
You consider that adapting? Makes a lot of sense
That was a joke.
The one thread that was about ordering in BG got moved to the purgatory of Bugs where it will be left to die (as were all others before that). There has been zero acknowledgement of the bug, which is now in its second season at least (probably longer).
On the general subject of whether picking first or second confers an advantage. I suspect drafting second does confer a statistical advantage, but I suspect it is smaller than most people think and is not a global advantage. Which is to say, it isn't always an advantage in every match up. If the player picking second doesn't attempt to maximize that advantage during the draft, that advantage can essentially drop to near zero.
(In other words, if I pick first and my opponent picks second, and I draft to maximize my chances to win in two and my opponent doesn't attempt to draft in a way to trap me in round three, the pick second advantage could vanish completely).
I'm pretty sure there's no advantage to picking first, which means picking second must be something between no advantage and some marginal positive advantage.
A player's ability to maximise the advantage does not imply the advantage is of lesser value. If you extend that line of thinking then no single factor confers a global advantage - stronger roster, better drafting luck etc. can all be squandered away by mismanagement at the player's end.
This is a question of degree. When we say a stronger roster conveys a global advantage, or just an advantage in general, we presume that the player will actually use that roster. They may not be able to use that roster in the most optimal way, but that's not necessary, and in fact assuming such would be overstating the roster advantage. All we need to assume is the average player will play that roster with average skills, and we will still see a significant material roster strength advantage show up.
But that's not necessarily true with the draft order advantage. I personally think it is very likely that if you were to pick a thousand random players and datamine their winning statistics when drafting first vs second, you won't find much of a difference in the statistics. But if you were to datamine, say, a thousand of the top ten thousand players, you'd find a more significant advantage. The stronger players are more likely to draft in a way designed to leverage that advantage, consciously or not.
If you datamine any random subset of the playerbase from the lowest to the highest performing players, I'm pretty sure you will find a very strong roster strength advantage signal. But I don't think that signal would be just weaker for the draft order advantage. I think for many subsets of the playerbase it vanishes completely. It only exists in general because those who understand it can leverage it.
That's not the same thing as just saying no advantage is a statistically global advantage because all advantages can be foiled by sufficiently inferior play. If there was an advantage that favored left handed players, say, then that could be a statistically significant measurable advantage in the data, and yet completely non-existent for 90% of the players. I don't think the draft order advantage is that extreme, but I think it could be closer to that than a universal advantage.
I don't see any evidence that says if you pick first or second, you win or lose more. You've only described why you think picking first is a disadvantage?
How many matches have you tracked where you pick first and tracked your wins/losses? How many other people have you collected data for to track that same set of data for comparison?
How many matches have you tracked where you picked second and recorded your wins/losses? And how many other people have you collected data for to use to compare and compile?
I'm going to go with zero. That's all I'm saying is that you can say you think picking first is a disadvantage but don't claim there's inflated wins for those who pick second. When you come back with a sample size large enough, then we'll talk.
This is like saying water is wet and you debating wet means something else in your imaginary language.
Extra information one has when picking second is not my assumption. It is a fact. What I outlined is not what I think, but what is. The advantage of picking second is obvious. It does not need any statistical evidence.
My win/loss record does not change the fact. My win/loss is influenced by other factors than just picking second. Only way you will be able to statistically asses the impact is by doing creating similar cohorts which balance out all other factors like roster strength and then seeing how picking second effects win rates. You or I cannot do that.
You're the one claiming win rates are inflated, not me. The burden of proof is on you to prove it's inflated.
I don't see any evidence that says if you pick first or second, you win or lose more. You've only described why you think picking first is a disadvantage?
How many matches have you tracked where you pick first and tracked your wins/losses? How many other people have you collected data for to track that same set of data for comparison?
How many matches have you tracked where you picked second and recorded your wins/losses? And how many other people have you collected data for to use to compare and compile?
I'm going to go with zero. That's all I'm saying is that you can say you think picking first is a disadvantage but don't claim there's inflated wins for those who pick second. When you come back with a sample size large enough, then we'll talk.
This is like saying water is wet and you debating wet means something else in your imaginary language.
Extra information one has when picking second is not my assumption. It is a fact. What I outlined is not what I think, but what is. The advantage of picking second is obvious. It does not need any statistical evidence.
My win/loss record does not change the fact. My win/loss is influenced by other factors than just picking second. Only way you will be able to statistically asses the impact is by doing creating similar cohorts which balance out all other factors like roster strength and then seeing how picking second effects win rates. You or I cannot do that.
You're the one claiming win rates are inflated, not me. The burden of proof is on you to prove it's inflated.
I don't think you understand any of the terms you throw about.
My burden of proof ends at proving a bug exists. From that point it is upto the devs to fix it.
BGs is not advertised as a mode where select players will be given advantages and others will be handicapped. It is advertised as a competition, where any advantage is created by the players through playing the game or paying for resources.
Why would you not want the bug to be fixed? If you think it provides no advantage then it doesn't hurt your progression. Only reason to deny the obvious advantage in picking second is you are worried that you will not progress as much without the benefit of picking second more often than you should in a fair system.
I don't see any evidence that says if you pick first or second, you win or lose more. You've only described why you think picking first is a disadvantage?
How many matches have you tracked where you pick first and tracked your wins/losses? How many other people have you collected data for to track that same set of data for comparison?
How many matches have you tracked where you picked second and recorded your wins/losses? And how many other people have you collected data for to use to compare and compile?
I'm going to go with zero. That's all I'm saying is that you can say you think picking first is a disadvantage but don't claim there's inflated wins for those who pick second. When you come back with a sample size large enough, then we'll talk.
This is like saying water is wet and you debating wet means something else in your imaginary language.
Extra information one has when picking second is not my assumption. It is a fact. What I outlined is not what I think, but what is. The advantage of picking second is obvious. It does not need any statistical evidence.
My win/loss record does not change the fact. My win/loss is influenced by other factors than just picking second. Only way you will be able to statistically asses the impact is by doing creating similar cohorts which balance out all other factors like roster strength and then seeing how picking second effects win rates. You or I cannot do that.
You're the one claiming win rates are inflated, not me. The burden of proof is on you to prove it's inflated.
I don't think you understand any of the terms you throw about.
My burden of proof ends at proving a bug exists. From that point it is upto the devs to fix it.
BGs is not advertised as a mode where select players will be given advantages and others will be handicapped. It is advertised as a competition, where any advantage is created by the players through playing the game or paying for resources.
Why would you not want the bug to be fixed? If you think it provides no advantage then it doesn't hurt your progression. Only reason to deny the obvious advantage in picking second is you are worried that you will not progress as much without the benefit of picking second more often than you should in a fair system.
There's never been a single match I've ever played in BGs where I've been concerned about picking first or second. I could care less. If I could pick first every match, cool by me. My matches are determined in whether I win or lose a match, not which one of us picks first.
Maybe you should worry about how you're losing and how your deck is constructed vs blaming your losing on picking first.
lol, It's like you don't even read what you reply to.
That only applies to one of us.
You can couch it however you want. You are either affected by the bug or not. If you are not, your win rate is inflated (or at best flat) because you've been handed an advantage. Your response to that has not been that the bug should be fixed (as it should be if BG was a competition) but that you should continue to keep your advantage and the ones disadvantaged should adapt because you would like to continue to get the free wins and easier matches.
How is your position any different to what the OP wants? They also want easier matches, just through a different mechanism, matchmaking in this case. None of you wants a fair competition.
1 - Stop trying to change the topic of the thread. If you want to cry about picking first, post it in that thread.
2 - I showed you how picking 1st has no effect on my ability to win.
3 - Winners adapt, losers make excuses.
You've never been locked into picking first. So you have proven nothing.
I'm sure if I were to play you 10 times and pick first every match it woldn't matter. I'm very confident that I'd end with a winning record and if not, it would be my fault not the pick order.
Now it's a competition. When it benefits you the stance is very different.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'm fairly certain that it is incorrect.
You only use the competition line in cases where it helps you. You don't really care about the competition, only that players at your level get disproportionate share of rewards and others are kept away from it. When the BG order bug was highlighted your stance was people affected should find a way to deal with it instead of the team taking an official stance and fix it. In that case its a bug which gives you an advantage so you are happy to keep it going.
You are not following, at all. Both statements are the same argument. It's a competition so players need to deal with the challenges of the competition.
You seem to want a charity where participation is what matters and not skill.
Asking for a fix (and acknowledgement) to a bug which gives permanent disadvantage to some players is charity?
No, but the feature being discussed is not a bug. It is an explicit feature of the game mode deliberately put there. And the fact that players eventually find themselves in lopsided matches is not even an unfortunate side effect either. It is *deliberately* the case that if a low progress player wants to advance in VT above a certain point, they MUST eventually face the average players in those tiers, even if the average player in that tier is twice as strong, ten times a strong, or a trillion times stronger than they are. You get to face hand picked competition in the lower tiers, but eventually you must face everyone BY DESIGN.
If you don't have a strong enough roster to beat Act 5, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. If you don't have a strong enough roster to beat the Abyss, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. If your roster is strong enough for you to beat the players in Gold 2 but not Diamond 1, you're supposed to go get a stronger one. This is by design.
Before more rounds were added to VT, I remember picking 2nd in some matches. Now it only happens to me in GC. Are you telling me my roster has gotten worse? My gaming account is 2 years old and now I have 17k prestige, 3,2M rating. It doesn't make sense that I always start 1st. I just want fair play. Send me a request and we can have a practice match to see if I'm such a loser as you write.🖖
Gonna wade into this one, with this person again with a genuine question...
@Stature you have mentioned getting "locked in" to picking first in Battle Grounds. From this, I infer that you are somehow forced to pick first in 95%+ of matches you play. I'm fairly certain you've claimed as much in other threads.
My question is how do you know you are "locked in" as you say? Has someone at Kabam sent you a correspondence saying as much? Is there a list on a website (or any website for that matter) that you can lead us to that shows "locked in" accounts? How do you believe that your account was chosen to be "locked in"? And finally, what is the motivation for Kabam to "lock in" specific accounts? What do they gain?
I truly believe that you perceive that you are "locked in" and maybe have had a higher percentage of picking first (or at least you happen to notice it more often because you're looking for it), but it's very tough to continue believing that it is forced upon you, your account was chosen, or that you are "locked in".
Gonna wade into this one, with this person again with a genuine question...
@Stature you have mentioned getting "locked in" to picking first in Battle Grounds. From this, I infer that you are somehow forced to pick first in 95%+ of matches you play. I'm fairly certain you've claimed as much in other threads.
My question is how do you know you are "locked in" as you say? Has someone at Kabam sent you a correspondence saying as much? Is there a list on a website (or any website for that matter) that you can lead us to that shows "locked in" accounts? How do you believe that your account was chosen to be "locked in"? And finally, what is the motivation for Kabam to "lock in" specific accounts? What do they gain?
I truly believe that you perceive that you are "locked in" and maybe have had a higher percentage of picking first (or at least you happen to notice it more often because you're looking for it), but it's very tough to continue believing that it is forced upon you, your account was chosen, or that you are "locked in".
I pick first all the time. I picked second twice in over 100 matches last season. I've picked first every match this season. There are others in the same position.
It's a bug. @DNA3000 has confirmed it exists, based on their discussions. Despite this, there is no official acknowledgement of the bug or a timeline for fixing the same. That picking second is an beneficial is not of debate. There is information advantage in picking second and no corresponding balancing factor to picking first. At best the gains from picking second is infinitesimal, at worst it significant. We don't know because the devs refuse to even acknowledge it.
A BG match is a zero sum game, you need energy or marks to play (both cost units at the margin). You need to win to progress and are set back if you lose. Any advantage is material and will impact win rates. Every lever to lower win rates is an additional cost on people who are being impacted.
Matchmaking is a focus, because that is the most visible source of advantage. So people are vocal about being matched with tougher opponents and in turn those higher rate accounts are vocal about the easy matches being taken away from them. Why should it be any different for the order of picks.
If you think BG is a fair competition, then rules should apply to everyone. I don't get why some players should be penalised randomly.
@Stature You and I have had this discussion before. I'm not disputing your statements of BGs being fair or not, nor do I think the possibility of you picking first often doesn't exist.
I am questioning the meaning of the words you write. A bug and being "locked in" (as you have stated several times in your posts on this thread) are not the same thing. Your statements of being "locked in" to picking first denotes that it is being done to you purposely or possibly maliciously. That someone behind the scenes is pulling strings to make sure you pick first. A bug (to me at least) is a glitch in the game that is causing random problems for random players, not something that is targeted towards a specific few.
I truly wish you would send something to Kabam along with verifiable evidence, explaining what's happening and how it's negatively affecting you. I think you've succeeded in getting some folks on the forum that what you're experiencing is a bug, but there's nothing anyone on here can do. And before you tell me that I should talk to Kabam about it (as you've done in prior threads), remember I'm not being affected by this bug and it isn't negatively affecting my game play or enjoyment of the mode. Therefore I have no reason to contact Kabam.
@Stature I'm not debating the validity, advantage, or disadvantage of picking first or second. You believe it's detrimental to you. I respect your viewpoint on it. It's a valid viewpoint. But if I or anyone else disagrees with that viewpoint doesn't make us wrong. But again, your viewpoint is that we are wrong in disagreeing with your viewpoints on picking 1st vs 2nd. Again, I respect thay viewpoint and it is a valid one.
@Stature I AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU ARE AND HAVE BEEN EXPIERENCING A BUG IN BATTLE GROUNDS. I SEE THAT IT IS FRUSTRATING FOR YOU. I don't agree that you are "locked in" to picking first. I don't believe that Kabam or whomever has targeted your account purposely to negatively affect your Battle Grounds game play and experience.
I am not going to physically count those. But it looks to be at least a 50/50 win/loss if not more wins than losses. You even state that 3 of those losses are rage quits. You then go on to demand that you be compensated. You want Kabam to compensate you for what exactly? Rage quitting? Why would Kabam look at what you've experienced and say you need compensation when you've been able to win?
How many losses are directly related to you picking first? How many of those can you prove you lost because you picked first?
@Demonzfyre Sorry bro. My issue isn't skill issue. I can accept defeat. And they are all mainly my fault. I'm defending fair play here. I pay for a service and I want it to be of high quality, i.e. also in the spirit of fair play. And in my case, this is not followed by Kabam.
I am not going to physically count those. But it looks to be at least a 50/50 win/loss if not more wins than losses. You even state that 3 of those losses are rage quits. You then go on to demand that you be compensated. You want Kabam to compensate you for what exactly? Rage quitting? Why would Kabam look at what you've experienced and say you need compensation when you've been able to win?
How many losses are directly related to you picking first? How many of those can you prove you lost because you picked first?
Why should any loss be directly attributed to picking first. He has been handed a disadvantage which you don't have to deal with. How is this any different from any other aspect of BG?
Would you be ok only you were banned from using 7-stars in BG? Or you were allowed to draft only 6 champs while your opponent drafted 7? You only use 6, you cannot prove that you would have got a better champ in the 7th pick anyway.
You claim BG is a competition and players should be treated equally when it comes to matchmaking. Then you flip around and say people should not complain about being given a permanent disadvantage due to a bug. Which one is it - you want players to be treated preferentially or not?
@Stature I'm not debating the validity, advantage, or disadvantage of picking first or second. You believe it's detrimental to you. I respect your viewpoint on it. It's a valid viewpoint. But if I or anyone else disagrees with that viewpoint doesn't make us wrong. But again, your viewpoint is that we are wrong in disagreeing with your viewpoints on picking 1st vs 2nd. Again, I respect thay viewpoint and it is a valid one.
@Stature I AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU ARE AND HAVE BEEN EXPIERENCING A BUG IN BATTLE GROUNDS. I SEE THAT IT IS FRUSTRATING FOR YOU. I don't agree that you are "locked in" to picking first. I don't believe that Kabam or whomever has targeted your account purposely to negatively affect your Battle Grounds game play and experience.
Locked-in by a bug. Nobody is saying it is a malicious act. What difference does it make, it affects outcomes the same. The resource cost is the same.
@Demonzfyre Sorry bro. My issue isn't skill issue. I can accept defeat. And they are all mainly my fault. I'm defending fair play here. I pay for a service and I want it to be of high quality, i.e. also in the spirit of fair play. And in my case, this is not followed by Kabam.
You don't pay for a service. The service is free. You pay to get an advantage in playing that service. I'd say if you're admitting the losses are your fault, you're not experiencing unfair play.
@Stature I'm not debating the validity, advantage, or disadvantage of picking first or second. You believe it's detrimental to you. I respect your viewpoint on it. It's a valid viewpoint. But if I or anyone else disagrees with that viewpoint doesn't make us wrong. But again, your viewpoint is that we are wrong in disagreeing with your viewpoints on picking 1st vs 2nd. Again, I respect thay viewpoint and it is a valid one.
@Stature I AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU ARE AND HAVE BEEN EXPIERENCING A BUG IN BATTLE GROUNDS. I SEE THAT IT IS FRUSTRATING FOR YOU. I don't agree that you are "locked in" to picking first. I don't believe that Kabam or whomever has targeted your account purposely to negatively affect your Battle Grounds game play and experience.
Locked-in by a bug. Nobody is saying it is a malicious act. What difference does it make, it affects outcomes the same. The resource cost is the same.
Gosh you actively make it hard to agree with and support you...
Have you thought about a career in politics? You'd make a great politician with how you make the same point saying the same thing 15 different ways, yet seemingly saying nothing at all.
If all of this makes no difference, then why bring it up time and time again? Grin and bear it my friend as, apparently, it is what it is.
Comments
How many matches have you tracked where you pick first and tracked your wins/losses? How many other people have you collected data for to track that same set of data for comparison?
How many matches have you tracked where you picked second and recorded your wins/losses? And how many other people have you collected data for to use to compare and compile?
I'm going to go with zero. That's all I'm saying is that you can say you think picking first is a disadvantage but don't claim there's inflated wins for those who pick second. When you come back with a sample size large enough, then we'll talk.
It is true that bugs happen, and it is true that when bugs happen players can't always expect fixes to happen quickly, so players of any online game should be prepared to adapt to those kinds of situations. But that's separate from asking for the bug to be looked at and remedied, which is also a thing that is reasonable to do.
(In other words, if I pick first and my opponent picks second, and I draft to maximize my chances to win in two and my opponent doesn't attempt to draft in a way to trap me in round three, the pick second advantage could vanish completely).
I'm pretty sure there's no advantage to picking first, which means picking second must be something between no advantage and some marginal positive advantage.
Extra information one has when picking second is not my assumption. It is a fact. What I outlined is not what I think, but what is. The advantage of picking second is obvious. It does not need any statistical evidence.
My win/loss record does not change the fact. My win/loss is influenced by other factors than just picking second. Only way you will be able to statistically asses the impact is by doing creating similar cohorts which balance out all other factors like roster strength and then seeing how picking second effects win rates. You or I cannot do that.
I agree that the benefit of drafting second is probably only relevant in close matches. But BG is also a ladder, higher you move, matches are more likely to get closer. It may not be a huge advantage in absolute terms, but would be enough to shift win rates by a few percentage points and add significant resource cost to players who are at the receiving end of the bug. The impact is egregious in seasons like last where solo milestones where important. Probably less this season since one can get to GC with just energy and ignore the solo milestones.
The one thread that was about ordering in BG got moved to the purgatory of Bugs where it will be left to die (as were all others before that). There has been zero acknowledgement of the bug, which is now in its second season at least (probably longer).
But that's not necessarily true with the draft order advantage. I personally think it is very likely that if you were to pick a thousand random players and datamine their winning statistics when drafting first vs second, you won't find much of a difference in the statistics. But if you were to datamine, say, a thousand of the top ten thousand players, you'd find a more significant advantage. The stronger players are more likely to draft in a way designed to leverage that advantage, consciously or not.
If you datamine any random subset of the playerbase from the lowest to the highest performing players, I'm pretty sure you will find a very strong roster strength advantage signal. But I don't think that signal would be just weaker for the draft order advantage. I think for many subsets of the playerbase it vanishes completely. It only exists in general because those who understand it can leverage it.
That's not the same thing as just saying no advantage is a statistically global advantage because all advantages can be foiled by sufficiently inferior play. If there was an advantage that favored left handed players, say, then that could be a statistically significant measurable advantage in the data, and yet completely non-existent for 90% of the players. I don't think the draft order advantage is that extreme, but I think it could be closer to that than a universal advantage.
My burden of proof ends at proving a bug exists. From that point it is upto the devs to fix it.
BGs is not advertised as a mode where select players will be given advantages and others will be handicapped. It is advertised as a competition, where any advantage is created by the players through playing the game or paying for resources.
Why would you not want the bug to be fixed? If you think it provides no advantage then it doesn't hurt your progression. Only reason to deny the obvious advantage in picking second is you are worried that you will not progress as much without the benefit of picking second more often than you should in a fair system.
Maybe you should worry about how you're losing and how your deck is constructed vs blaming your losing on picking first.
@Stature you have mentioned getting "locked in" to picking first in Battle Grounds. From this, I infer that you are somehow forced to pick first in 95%+ of matches you play. I'm fairly certain you've claimed as much in other threads.
My question is how do you know you are "locked in" as you say? Has someone at Kabam sent you a correspondence saying as much? Is there a list on a website (or any website for that matter) that you can lead us to that shows "locked in" accounts? How do you believe that your account was chosen to be "locked in"? And finally, what is the motivation for Kabam to "lock in" specific accounts? What do they gain?
I truly believe that you perceive that you are "locked in" and maybe have had a higher percentage of picking first (or at least you happen to notice it more often because you're looking for it), but it's very tough to continue believing that it is forced upon you, your account was chosen, or that you are "locked in".
It's a bug. @DNA3000 has confirmed it exists, based on their discussions. Despite this, there is no official acknowledgement of the bug or a timeline for fixing the same. That picking second is an beneficial is not of debate. There is information advantage in picking second and no corresponding balancing factor to picking first. At best the gains from picking second is infinitesimal, at worst it significant. We don't know because the devs refuse to even acknowledge it.
A BG match is a zero sum game, you need energy or marks to play (both cost units at the margin). You need to win to progress and are set back if you lose. Any advantage is material and will impact win rates. Every lever to lower win rates is an additional cost on people who are being impacted.
Matchmaking is a focus, because that is the most visible source of advantage. So people are vocal about being matched with tougher opponents and in turn those higher rate accounts are vocal about the easy matches being taken away from them. Why should it be any different for the order of picks.
If you think BG is a fair competition, then rules should apply to everyone. I don't get why some players should be penalised randomly.
I am questioning the meaning of the words you write. A bug and being "locked in" (as you have stated several times in your posts on this thread) are not the same thing. Your statements of being "locked in" to picking first denotes that it is being done to you purposely or possibly maliciously. That someone behind the scenes is pulling strings to make sure you pick first. A bug (to me at least) is a glitch in the game that is causing random problems for random players, not something that is targeted towards a specific few.
I truly wish you would send something to Kabam along with verifiable evidence, explaining what's happening and how it's negatively affecting you. I think you've succeeded in getting some folks on the forum that what you're experiencing is a bug, but there's nothing anyone on here can do. And before you tell me that I should talk to Kabam about it (as you've done in prior threads), remember I'm not being affected by this bug and it isn't negatively affecting my game play or enjoyment of the mode. Therefore I have no reason to contact Kabam.
@Stature I AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU ARE AND HAVE BEEN EXPIERENCING A BUG IN BATTLE GROUNDS. I SEE THAT IT IS FRUSTRATING FOR YOU. I don't agree that you are "locked in" to picking first. I don't believe that Kabam or whomever has targeted your account purposely to negatively affect your Battle Grounds game play and experience.
How many losses are directly related to you picking first? How many of those can you prove you lost because you picked first?
Would you be ok only you were banned from using 7-stars in BG? Or you were allowed to draft only 6 champs while your opponent drafted 7? You only use 6, you cannot prove that you would have got a better champ in the 7th pick anyway.
You claim BG is a competition and players should be treated equally when it comes to matchmaking. Then you flip around and say people should not complain about being given a permanent disadvantage due to a bug. Which one is it - you want players to be treated preferentially or not?
Have you thought about a career in politics? You'd make a great politician with how you make the same point saying the same thing 15 different ways, yet seemingly saying nothing at all.
If all of this makes no difference, then why bring it up time and time again? Grin and bear it my friend as, apparently, it is what it is.